In defence of Douglas Crockford • Hacker News Board

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#171

Post by stockkid » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:19 AM UTC

shruubi wrote: post #147

I'm of two minds here. 1) I personally don't like Douglas Crockford at all, I find him all together arrogant and overly concerned with presenting himself as an infallible single source of truth. I respect the work the man has done, but I personally think the conference is better off without him. 2) It seems that the conference organisers are all too concerned with coming out and proudly parading there actions without…

> the drama to boost their attendance numbers

I don't think the drama is very effective in boosting their attendance numbers. In my case, the whole situation makes me want to avoid attending Nodevember.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#172

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:22 AM UTC

fdsaaf wrote: post #22

Matachines wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happened in Ruby and Python as well—so if you hate it stay away from dynamic web languages with low entry levels.

Exactly. Hardcore languages like C++, Lisp, Haskell, etc. should be safe for a little while longer. SJW presence seems to be inversely proportional to the degree of rigor required to use a language.

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#173

Post by ramblenode » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:23 AM UTC

Wow, an important talk was pulled because of this? There is a continuum of disagreeable statements and a corresponding continuum of appropriate responses. The response from the conference organizers was grossly disproportionate to Crockford's behavior which was clearly not malicious and probably not even deliberate. A reasonable alternative would have been to privately contact him and express concern about his past choice of words. Removing him outright is unfair to both Crockford and attendees who were looking forward to his talk.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#174

Post by nradov » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:23 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #129

tootie wrote: 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 tha…

Since the number of people actually abducted by UFOs is 0, it's trivially true that the number of claimed abductions is higher than actual abductions.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#175

Post by mpweiher » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:24 AM UTC

habitue wrote: post #119

maglavaitss wrote: post #101

Leave Douglas alone!! (on a more serious note, I guess we're done with Appelbaum's lynching, so the next target is Douglas Crockford?)

Big difference there! Applebaum blatantly crossed the line sexual harassment. Crockford... is kinda cranky?

Did he? (Asking seriously) All I have seen were allegations. And of those allegations, the ones that were looked into more closely turned out to be completely false.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#176

Post by fn1 » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:26 AM UTC

There is one thing I don't understand about the whole safe-space debate:

People demand the environments they reside in to be friendly and comfortable according to their definition. In a way they are demanding that all "hostiles" stop being "hostile" towards them.

The more sustainable way to not get hurt is to learn how to emotionally defend yourself and stand your ground. You just have to learn it once and are not dependent on others telling every attacker to stop attacking you for the rest of your life.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#177

Post by Inconel » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:26 AM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #169

Inconel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does "private arbitration" require money? I don't know anything about Mr. Crockford's financial situation but, and this is purely from a self interest perspective, I um, don't have much money to adjudicate such a matter using arbitrators. This is what makes these kind of public accusations so troubling for me. If I happened to find myself on the receiving end of these kind of accusations I would have essentially no r…

Sorry - I put "private arbitration" in scare quotes because I didn't mean the formal sense where you have an impartial third-party arbitrator to help resolve the dispute - I just meant they can resolve whatever disputes there might be privately. It was probably a poor choice of words.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Although hopefully the rest of my post still has some value, particularly as I feel it would be rather hard to settle things privately after one party has already made public accusations.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#178

Post by vixen99 » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:37 AM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #152

Natsu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, from your very link I find this: " douglascrockford commented on Feb 21, 2011 I am sorry I hurt your feelings." I'll take someone who realizes they made a mistake and apologizes for it any day over someone who seeks to get rid of all the people they don't like.

Perhaps. In a vacuum I could see reading "I am sorry I hurt your feelings" as pretty condescending. That's not apologizing for what you said; it's more like pitying the person for their irrational reaction to it. (Or that's how it could feel to that person.) (I'm not saying that's how it was intended or anything. I have no idea. Just saying this could just as easily be evidence for abrasiveness as against it. I'll al…

Condescension is not always regarded as bad. Readers of Pride and Prejudice will recall that Mr Collins, for one, was highly appreciative of Lady Catherine de Bourgh's 'affability and condescension'!

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#179

Post by cel1ne » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:41 AM UTC

We live in the post-descartes era. The principle now seems to be "I feel, therefore I am."

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#180

Post by mpweiher » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 8:42 AM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #166

mpweiher wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that seems to still assume this "abrasiveness" is a bad thing. I find it much nicer and respectful than the passive-aggressive weasel-wordishness so common now.

> But that seems to still assume this "abrasiveness" is a bad thing. The commenter literally says "it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing..."

Exactly, but the part after that pretty much presumes that it is, which is why I was puzzled.

EDIT: And I should have made that more clear, thanks for pointing it out.