Live data from Hacker News

In defence of Douglas Crockford

atom-morgan.github.io

121–130 of 450 posts

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#121
post #108
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's easy to look past someone's personal preferences and outrageous comments when you're already part of the club. But respect that that isn't everyone's experience. What specifically did Crockford say that was outrageous?

I have no idea. The conference organizers said people privately voiced concerns and other speakers threatened to pull out over his presence. I was addressing the parent comment's point about inclusiveness in general.

As it looks now, the people who voiced concerns and threatened to pull out were the same person.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#122
post #104
post #34

> We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all. If they are going to insinuate things about what he said, they should mention exactly what he said or did. The fact that they don't somehow tells me there is not much there to go on. To put it another way, if they have the guts to remove Crockford that should have enough guts to c…

I don't think they insinuated anything beyond that he apparently made others uncomfortable.

This comment makes me uncomfortable.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#123
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice a fairly common tactic for trying to change norms is to pretend that the norms aren't norms and then aggressively shame people for doing a normal thing. This leads to a toxic atmosphere where people can't be secure in their words, social reality keeps being pulled out from under their feet.

When the normal thing marginalizes people, marginalized people are hurt. In recent years, they have started to defend themsves in force, the ks to unifying power of the internet. The insecurity you observe is feeling of the erosion of privilege.

Brigading forum threads and dog piling social media of people you have a perceived grievance with does not help 'marginalized' people. In fact your trying to marginalize and bully people.

Cry bully trolling and aimless power tripping under the banner of 'social justice' does not provide you any magic cover. I think most people can see thorough it this point and realize your only contribution is harassment and its destructive to communities like this one.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#124
post #104
post #34

> We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all. If they are going to insinuate things about what he said, they should mention exactly what he said or did. The fact that they don't somehow tells me there is not much there to go on. To put it another way, if they have the guts to remove Crockford that should have enough guts to c…

I don't think they insinuated anything beyond that he apparently made others uncomfortable.

They said "We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all."

Imagine saying that about anyone, to any group (here it was to the whole world).

Let's say the invite you to a gathering publicly then wrote a tweet about "We will also be removing eli from list of invited guests, to help make the venue a comfortable environment for all".

That is just insulting, because it insinuates something terrible has happened, or you did some shameful unspeakable thing and they are just being considerate and not disclosing it publicly.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#125
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is a lot of money and power, which attracts politics, of which "crybullying" is a tactical maneuver. Also, it's a terrible word in an aesthetic sense. People don't try to bring much elegance to neologisms these days. Such a pity.

How about instead of crybullies we call them Corinthians. > And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I stro…

I think that was an affirmation of God's saving grace. It describes the ease of putting one's faith in God when suffering under great stress or pain or loss.

The 'grace' comes from the fact that God won't judge us for our sins because Jesus took our place in the courtroom. So rather than our being damned, Jesus saved us through His perfect sacrifice.

Crybullies are the persecutors, no? They're the ones to pray to God for deliverance FROM!

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#126
I would prefer to work with someone with a solid stance and clear idea like Crockford, even if that is completely opposite to my own because this is something I will always respect.

I think he is not conventional with his netbook if he still uses that and that pisses people off.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#127
post #104
post #34

> We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all. If they are going to insinuate things about what he said, they should mention exactly what he said or did. The fact that they don't somehow tells me there is not much there to go on. To put it another way, if they have the guts to remove Crockford that should have enough guts to c…

I don't think they insinuated anything beyond that he apparently made others uncomfortable.

The fact that they've disinvited him so publicly and so strangely is itself an insinuation. Quite a strong one, in fact.

Imagine your child was expelled from your local school and the reason given was "she made others feel uncomfortable". And that was the end of the discussion.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#128
post #104
post #34

> We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all. If they are going to insinuate things about what he said, they should mention exactly what he said or did. The fact that they don't somehow tells me there is not much there to go on. To put it another way, if they have the guts to remove Crockford that should have enough guts to c…

I don't think they insinuated anything beyond that he apparently made others uncomfortable.

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#129
post #2

I'm pretty sympathetic to the cause of feminism especially in technology and I cringe hard at a lot of the casual sexism that gets thrown around, but this is truly baffling. Assuming this is all they actually have on him this is nothing more than very clever word play with zero gender inferences to be made.

> I'm pretty sympathetic to the cause of feminism especially in technology and I cringe hard at a lot of the casual sexism that gets thrown around, but this is truly baffling.

It's not that baffling. Being a victim of harassment raises your status in certain circles. People in those circles tend to accept your word without requiring any other evidence, and so naturally some people will find harassment in anything that happens to or near them that can be stretched or interpreted, no matter how far fetched, in some way to be harassment.

This is bad because it makes it harder for actual victims. Too many people making exaggerated or false claims will make people less likely to believe the real victims.

This is probably more general. In general, if some event raises status in a group a person is in, and claims of that event are hard to verify, some people will claim the event even if it did not happen to them. They may not even be knowingly lying. They may be convinced it did happen.

A couple examples are having Native American ancestry and being abducted by a UFO. Many people claim one or both of these, and there are groups in which those claims will raise your status. Result: a lot more people claim Native American ancestry than actually have Native American ancestors, and the number of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs is way higher than the number who have actually been abducted. My guess would be most of these false claims are from people who believe they are telling the truth.

The desire for status in the groups you are in is very strong. For instance, I recall reading a book about the major criminal gangs on Los Angeles, and they talked about status within the gangs. One of the things that earned you higher status was being arrested, refusing to talk or cooperate, refusing to take a plea bargain, and getting sent to jail. Gaining status was so important to new, young teen gang members that they would purposefully commit crimes that would get them a few months incarceration so that they could gain the status. Note that unlike UFO abduction or Native Ancestry, serving jail time is verifiable, so they young gang members cannot simply claim they served time to gain the status. They actually have to do it, and they do because gaining status is that important.

Any evolutionary biologists here? I'm curious if our need for status is just a cultural thing, or if it predates culture? I believe that most of our current close primate relatives live in groups where status relationships are very important, so it seems at least plausible that this is something that developed very long ago, in the common ancestors we share with those other primates.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#130

"as long as he gives a good talk/presentation" Given the content of your first remark, I'm strongly inclined to suspect this use of the explicitly masculine pronoun is first-degree trolling. This serves as a counterexample to your point, because as statements go, it would be simply be factually (rather than politically) correct to have said "they" rather than "he", unless you really do hold an expectation that all co…

I have no way of knowing whether the poster you're replying to intended to use the masculine pronoun as a purposeful declaration that all conference speakers are male, but I'm having trouble understanding why you would immediately jump to the conclusion that they are engaging in "first-degree trolling". To be frank, the tone you seem to be taking in assuming that what could very well be an unintentional mistake should be used as an indictment of the poster as a troll or worse is one of the reasons I find myself somewhat fearful of posting on HN.

English is not my native language, and the language that I first learned to speak has very different rules for gender specific pronouns which results in me being very careful in how I write in English. Despite this, I sometimes(often) make mistakes. One common mistake I've noticed myself making is when I write about a specific person, male or female, I sometimes tend to then use that person's gender as the default pronoun for the rest of my sentence. I have no problem being called out on my mistakes but it makes me nervous that any error I make can be grounds for me being called a troll or a sexist.

Post reply on HN