In defence of Douglas Crockford • Hacker News Board

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#381

Post by nkurz » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #342

mzw_mzw wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this all started with the decision that it was okay to ostracize some people for their unrelated political views. It's a little late to say "wait, wait, I just meant those guys!" now that you've given this unstoppable superweapon to every grasping, sociopathic political activist in the industry.

No, it's not. This Manichaean view of intolerance to overt racism, sexism, classism, whatever --- it's bogus, and deserves to be challenged. When spelled out: "opposition at private events to (say) racism requires that event to make common cause with the evil, gathering forces of political repression", it doesn't even sound credible. But that view in fact appeals superficially to message board nerds because it trigge…

If Curtis Yarvin gets accepted to a postdoc program at Berkeley and leftist programmers picket, I'll be right there with you. But events like Nodevember, Strange Loop, and Lambdaconf are not academic conferences, they're not a serious part of the citation record for their field, they're put on by private citizens with their own objectives, they're fundamentally about entertainment, and they can make whatever calls they want.

I realize it wasn't directed toward me, but I genuinely appreciate hearing that distinction. Unless things have changed, though, it seems unlikely that Curtis would go back to Berkeley. He describes his disappointment with his academic time there in an eloquent if verbose essay: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-navr.... In particular, you might enjoy the contrast between his preferred "adversarial approach to CS papers" and what his description of the politicized situation at Berkeley.

---

Did you happen to see this comment on your "winding down Starfighter" thread?

I'd never seen that twitter account before. Not my cup of tea.

Things that seemed cool until I looked (even a little) closer at the people behind them: urbit, stockfighter, and ESR's homepage.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12416612

I'm not sure how to interpret it, but I found it ironic that you (or at least Starfigher) is being lumped in with Curtis. If the trend continues, perhaps in a few years you'll both be on the same side of that picket line!

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#382

Post by mrbester » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #314

guitarbill wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar story. I worked really hard on my English accent, something I regret now. If you have a German accent you can speak more directly. Because many know about this cultural difference, people are expecting you to be more direct, and can cope with it. If you have a British accent and you're direct, this doesn't work. Brits think you're rude, but here's the kicker, won't tell you this - they'll just ignore you. For…

Interesting story, if you had fostered an American accent you'd have avoided the issue as well. They expect Americans to be abrasive. Behind you 100% on the Brits ignoring you thing. They're very responsible for the perception of what "polite" means and I blame them for so much passive aggression in what is considered "politically correct" speech. If you've ever watched their politics it's a damn joke. They fall all…

I take issue with that. What you see with UK politicians is a bizarre mix of the reserve coupled with imported behaviour, sometimes based on the first four chapters of Machiavelli's The Prince but also the confrontational "I'm right you're wrong" superority when talking down to the plebs of the electorate. Most those in Britain who aren't politicians are appalled by this behaviour and see it as rude, which is why we despise them. As it is also rude to go up to someone and say "I despise you" we don't and there is a reliance that they should bloody well know it by our not engaging them, plus we know they wouldn't listen or care anyway, so why bother?

The expectation that Americans are abrasive is neatly illustrated by your blaming of a 66 million people in a foreign country for the behaviour of over 300 million people in your own. We also think you're needlessly awkward for writing dates in the wrong order like the rest of the planet, but the tendency is to sigh and cope with your eccentric idiosyncrasies instead of calling you out on it.

Perhaps you were hoping a Brit wouldn't respond as you believe we don't do "direct response". We most certainly do, but prefer not to as we find it tedious.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#383

Post by ineptech » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #331

stuaxo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be insane to go into such a humourless environment where every conversation feels like treading on eggshells.

It might also be a good idea to not hire someone with this sort of political leanings into your organization, if you know what I mean. It seems to me like numerous advocacy organizations nowadays have run out of genuine grievances and are now attacking largely innocent things, possibly in turn harming their cause.

If you love reading "I found a meteorite!" blogs, pretty soon you're going to find an odd rock in your back yard and think it's a meteorite.

If you love reading "I found a UFO!" blogs, pretty soon you're going to see something weird in the sky and think it's a UFO.

If you love reading "I found a misogynist!" blogs...

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#384

Post by sjwright » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

empressplay wrote: post #8

nopit wrote: post #3

Why is crybullying so rampant in the tech community?

It was (and in many ways still is) an extremely sexist community, but over the last few years it has gotten better. My worry is that continuing to agitate when there's been obvious improvement is only setting things up for a backlash, which would be counterproductive -- however, I'm not sure many of the "activists" care (they're activists first, after all, so it's in their nature to keep pushing the envelope even whe…

There's a world of difference between sexist and statistically gender-biased. Conflating the two is dangerous and ugly.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#385

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

cgcardona wrote: post #75

oldmanjay wrote: post #50

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.

I'm generally interested in why you think it's a terrible word in the aesthetic sense? thx.

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#386

Post by gedy » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:49 PM UTC

imron wrote: post #24

BadassFractal wrote: post #9

As the other poster mentioned, I'm very sympathetic to the cause of egalitarianism and pre-third-wave feminism. However, hopefully we will see more and more pushback against this kind of senseless crying wolf. If you're in favor of social justice, THIS is the thing you're fighting against? If this even shows up on your radar and is a priority, then I'd say the mission you're fighting for has been accomplished a long…

> I'm not quite ready to believe that. I used to be where you are. I am now however firmly of the belief that there are these sociopaths wanting to exert control over others. What's worse is that their righteousness only fuels their fervor.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#387

Post by totalcrepe » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

ajamesm wrote: post #300

rdtsc wrote: 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…

> 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. FWIW organizations will often refuse to disclose the precise nature of these kinds of accusations, because it would (a) impinge on the privacy of a victim, (b) start a circus trial in the Court of Public Opinion (which this thread is…

No, they "often" ask people to cancel and state personal grounds or scheduling conflict, etc. Much like suspicious resignations. Then they get wierder when people refuse but the facts are then confusing nonsense about inflexibility and inability to reach a concensus, not a statement of vague unease about a speaker.

Given the terrible track record of the JS community with regards to basic behavior, I really have to wonder what is wrong and why anyone should risk their personal reputation by doing public activities in JS.

Perhaps transpiling purely to avoid interacting with caustic elements of the JS community will be the new normal.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#388

Post by Rylinks » Mon, Sep 05, 2016, 12:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #355

mzw_mzw wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But events like Nodevember, Strange Loop, and Lambdaconf are not academic conferences, they're not a serious part of the citation record for their field, they're put on by private citizens with their own objectives, they're fundamentally about entertainment, and they can make whatever calls they want." Claiming that a technical conference is "fundamentally about entertainment" is about as convincing a dodge as those…

I am very much a message board nerd; it has never been my intent in invoking that term to set myself apart from other people. You can verify that for yourself with the search bar at the bottom of the page: I'm usually pretty careful to include the words "like us". I wasn't this time, but now you know, and we don't need to litigate that point anymore. Your latter point is pure relativism. What can't you say that about…

>That there even exists some simple set of rules we can all follow, something that fits in 80 columns to match our source code style guide, that will resolve all these problems. No, these problems are complicated.

Resolving all the problems is not the goal. The norm of not excluding people for their political views is a truce, not an optimized solution.

Yes, it doesn't perfectly resolve all problems, but the problems it leaves unresolved are less damaging than fights over the correct people to exclude.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#389

Post by vor_ » Mon, Sep 05, 2016, 12:48 AM UTC

lake99 wrote: post #282

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 video was considered offensive because it advocated violence against women and had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it."

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#390

Post by vor_ » Mon, Sep 05, 2016, 12:57 AM UTC

ufmace wrote: post #312

rtpg wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? The talk organizers were faced with a dilemma: either keep Crawford and lose a bunch of other speakers or lose Crawford but keep others I do think clarification is needed, but I could see "being a jerk " as a legit reason to not want to associate with someone. People do the same with people like Torvalds Being unliked is also a reason that people won't want to associate with you.

So tolerance and diversity are apparently only good things if they're applied to the Right People with the Right Opinions.

If tolerance and diversity are good things, a position that is intolerant or anti-diversity would be a bad thing.