In defence of Douglas Crockford • Hacker News Board

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#281

Post by braythwayt » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

whorleater wrote: post #12

Ignoring the fact this discussion about this, and this culture as a whole, is a minefield to navigate, 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, when compared to the contributions he's made and whether it leads to constructive discussions. The javascript developer who took offense (Kas?) definitely seems to have ta…

> Discourse and disagreement with speakers is natural and should be encouraged, as it oftentimes leads to enlightening discussions for bystanders and conference attendees, which was the entire point of the conference in the first place.

I agree with this, but we should tease “disagreement about the ideas that are the purpose of the conference” apart from “disagreement about things not relevant to the conference.”

If I go to a JavaScript conference, I am more than happy to see two speakers in a monkey-knife fight over whether the class keyword is taking two steps backwards. Those are the core ideas relevant to the conference.

Making jokes or metaphors that touch on contentious social topics like gender roles and so forth can touch of disagreement that may be valuable in a larger social context--like on HN and a whole or the internet as a whole, but it is off-topic for most technology conferences.

It’s a lot like discussing a programming problem on HN, and then someone mentions IQ, and someone else mentions how terrible it is that we can’t give interviewees IQ tests, and then we’re discussing racism, the right and wrong way to interview programmers, and on and on and on with something that si no longer the original programming problem.

None of what I am saying implies that I agree that Mr. Crockford should have been uninvited, and nor is it an endorsement of his choices as a speaker. But in a general sense, I totally get why its ideal that when I give a talk, I avoid jokes and metaphors that invite off-topic debate.

And likewise, I get why conferences ought to attempt to moderate the talks such that they have the highest probability of leading to on-topic debate. It’s much the same as moderating Hacker News threads to stay roughly on-topic and with high quality.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#282

Post by lake99 » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:00 PM UTC

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #257

lake99 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You apologized for lacking nuance on Twitter with your "announcement" and yet continue to do so. I saw parallels of this earlier this year against Richard Dawkins, when the NECSS uninvited him over twitter, followed it with a longer post on their blog[0]. After their actions caused a blowback, they apologized for their lack of professionalism. NECSS backtracked on their position[1] because the blowback was from pro…

The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted the offending tweets.

As for whether that constitutes a major difference or not, it's a judgement call. And I don't agree with your judgement. Here are the full facts, in their own words:

    NECSS: in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly 
    offensive video.

That's it. Because it was offensive. And Dawkins' reponse after continued attacks against him on Twitter:

   Dawkins: Don't you think she should apologise for shrieking "Shut the
   fuck up" and "Fuckface" at anyone who tried to get a word in?

   I didn't do wrong to her. I posted, without comment, a video of her 
   screaming vile abuse.

   I didn't apologise. I merely deleted, explaining that I did it out of
   concern for a person's life.

Apparently, she reported getting threats of violence.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#283

Post by mpweiher » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:09 PM UTC

jdbernard wrote: post #226

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugly words from a throwaway account. Do you really believe that women should be seen and not heard?

That is not what they said. You are creating a strawman.

In fact, it is pretty much the opposite of what they said.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#284

Post by throwanem » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

whorleater wrote: post #39

ageofwant wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My goodness, a respected dev dares to defend his philosophy and implementation and is vilified for being "abrasive" ? JSLint has never not been pedantic, that is why you use it. "You can write all the crappy code you want. I don't care, because you don't work for me. The purpose of JSLint is not to make you feel good about your bad choices. It is to help you conform to a more reliable subset of the language."

As someone that has very little involvement in the JS community, Crockford definitely comes off as abrasive in that issue. He could've just as easily said "scope confusion is an issue in JS, I don't see a reason to implement this" instead of calling someone's decision stupid. Is it bad he's abrasive? Not particularly, any undergrad worth their salt would've come across a professor who's abrasive in college. Abrasiven…

The consequences of one's own interpretation, if deleterious, are one's own loss. When they include the disinvitation of a brilliant and deeply knowledgeable speaker from a conference in his field, they become everyone's loss.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#285

Post by angry_octet » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #258

angry_octet wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a speaker at the same event is hardly being forced to associate with someone, nor indeed a reason to attempt to publicly repudiate them. Additionally, in my experience Linus Tovalds is not a jerk. Is this something you sense you get by reading email threads? Perhaps you associate a lack of politeness and deference with being a jerk, but it really isn't the same.

> Perhaps you associate a lack of politeness and deference with being a jerk, but it really isn't the same. I would certainly associate those two attributes with being a jerk.

It's hard without specific examples, but brusque or somewhat impolite generally seem common. For example, someone asserts something technical in a strong way, lacking technical insight, or re-animating a zombie topic. The response is often short and somewhat acerbic. To be honest, replying in a sensitive way, with references to past converations, takes a long time.

I would contrast this with jerk as being someone who deliberately disregards the comfort and feelings of others to satisfy themselves: the queue jumper, Steve Jobs, someone who humiliates people on minimum wage, who doesn't re-rack the weights at the gym, who parks in the disabled car park.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#286

Post by mpweiher » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:14 PM UTC

hermanhermitage wrote: post #249

mpweiher wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that "you" can be grammatically singular or plural, whereas "they" is definitely grammatically plural. "they gives me the shivers"

In, "they give me the shivers", they is singular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

You did see that I made a distinction between grammatically and semantically, right?

Grammatically, the "they" is clearly plural, as it is used with the plural verb form "give" and not the singular "gives".

Look up "subject verb agreement".

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#287

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:19 PM UTC

angry_octet wrote: post #250

tempestn wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You may be thinking of when politicians say "I'm sorry if you found what I said offensive", or "sorry for an offence your feel", which is a classic anti-apology. Normally without the nuance of speech it might be impossible to tell if it was meant in a genuine way. In this case however the context makes it clear he is being arrogant and egotistical in a manner quite consistent with techie internet forum behavior. The…

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#288

Post by justaaron » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:22 PM UTC

prance wrote: post #261

justaaron wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) "owe" - as in some kind of contractual obligation? were I a ticket-holder or Mr. Crockford, I would speak of being owed something, but I think you are using a strange word for a privately-presented public-conference that has insinuated quite a LOT, actually, by such a provocative statement. This private organization presenting this public conference can, of course, refuse to divulge anything it wishes to. The sten…

I meant "owe" more like as in "you owe me one". If contractual obligations for ticket holders exist, I guess they'd have to offer a refund. Regarding the other meaning, I could only repeat myself: they state that some other speakers have big problems with Crockford, and that they chose them over him. I think it's totally ok for them to do that, even without providing more information. In fact, it's totally conceivabl…

it's conceivable, and that's the issue...

innuendo ALSO says something...

it says: these charges are big enough and serious enough to grant anonomity to said "other speakers" and grant secrecy to the stated charges.

Bottom line: they are a private entity and can do whatever they wish to, more or less, however, I don't consider their petty behavior reasonable in any way, especially given the context and further info released, inadvertently or otherwise...(pastebin of Slack conversation)

"The correct thing for the organization to do" is also not really a matter of our public concern. They have already made their move, and it's shameful and wrong, IMO.

Our public concern (that which WILL advance humanity) lies in crucifying such behavior as this conference organizer has displayed, to discourage further disgusting displays of intellectual cowardice and perversion of REAL social justice issues.

Once you let privileged bullies grasp a bit of power, they don't tend to let go. It's really quite oppressive, and makes me uncomfortable. (and yes, the ability to get a keynote speaker thrown-off in a public and last minute fashion is a kind of power and privilege wielded like a true oppressor.)

It's certainly not an environment conducive to the safe spaces they seem to be verbally wishing to achieve...

(censorship via an insulting combo of an invitation and then rescinding it in order to no-platform said speaker based upon flimsy evidence of flimsy charges that don't hold-up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Were "everyones" comfort actually considered in the slightest, the organizers would already have developed a tactic for dealing with troublemakers as such.)

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#289

Post by kweinber » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #277

yardie wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an introverted white guy who lives in a foreign country, I feel that I am being discriminated against all the time. This is, literally, what it feels like to be a minority in the US and most European countries. Everything about you is questionable, you get slighted all the time, and you're the representative of an entire ethnicity. So whatever you do or opinions you hold are representative of the entire group.

Except if you make it to "fame/success status". Then you can use the minority card all the time in your favour.

Kind of like MLK, or Malcolm X, or Marcus Garvey, etc. etc.? What about those minorities wrongfully imprisoned for long periods of time for nothing short of suspicion before being released with no charges (or worse)?

I'm pretty sure their public removal was a little harsher and unfair without a so-called minority card to play.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#290

Post by jgalt212 » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

Their code of conduct is sort of stupid in its consistency. i.e. vendor booths have largely the same restrictions as attendees and speakers. For the most part, you really can't avoid a both, while it's pretty easy to avoid a person or talk.