“Let her speak please” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Let her speak please”

#331

Post by vacri » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:33 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #146

specialist wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be a sexist, racist to say stupid things. Bill Maher just dropped the n-bomb. It's not for me to determine what offends other people. To have successful interactions, relationships, I try very hard to meet other people where they're at, listen more than talk, adapt. Sometimes it doesn't work. Most of the time it does. --- In this case, the moderator's job is to make the panel shine, just like Johnny…

> the moderator's job is to make the panel shine To be honest, it wasn't any different from any panel I've witnessed, there's always people speaking over each other, let alone in vague subjects such as cosmology and string theory. Just a classic case of confirmation bias if you ask me; "Scientists are sexist" "Oh he interrupted her!" "Yup sexism is confirmed"

Sexist or not, he was rude as a moderator. I've only watched the bit of the video in question so I haven't seen how the others were treated, but he talks at length about the panelist's theories, talking for her. It wasn't just 'interruption', he was talking for the panelist.

If your moderator is getting as much talk time as your panelist, you have a bad moderator.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#332

Post by iiv » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:34 PM UTC

nervousvarun wrote: post #188

nailer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1:05:39 Nerds do this a lot. It's annoying AF. I've had conversations about topics like zopfli or 'HTTPS in the 90s' where I was sure I was right (and I was) but the other person was so confident and loud I genuinely wondered if I was missing something.

"Nerds do this a lot." Agreed but we can be less specific here...human males do this a lot.

We can be even less specific: humans do this a lot.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#333

Post by mark-r » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:35 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #268

qznc wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how should I deal with it? The only way I see is to have an objective definition, which can be objectively applied no matter which glasses I wear. What would that definition of sexism be?

No, this is silly. All language and behaviour has context. This idea that you can eliminate the shades of grey to find some absolute definition is largely what makes me uncomfortable with the more extreme proponents of this stuff. Such as those who believe particular words in isolation are always bad regardless of context. It would be much healthier culturally if we take into full consideration the meaning and intent…

To know the truth we would need to look at how the other panel members were treated. If the moderator spoke for them as well, or tried to but was forcefully overridden, then sexism probably doesn't come into play. But if she was the only one, well... I wish I had time to view the proceedings for myself.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#334

Post by dating_advice » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:36 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #274

_lex wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here - it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way. In other words, it's possible that other women who would have seen this event as being rooted in sexism may eventually be a part of so many similar events during their career that they effectively burn out and switch to more female friendly fields. This has b…

Or maybe she's just so classy that she can see taking the high ground offers stronger rebuke instead of objecting to the slight. Hubeny was not allowed to speak as uninterruptedly as the other panelists. I'm not really too thrilled at Talkington's outburst - it kind of makes the offense about her, not Hubeny, who if she wanted to could have asked Holt to shut up - but the sentiment was warranted if you watch more of…

Hubeny doesn't seem like a person who would tell someone to shut up though, and sexism or not, it's basic politeness to give shy people a bit more room. Certainly after announcing that you now finally want to hear their perspective :/ I doubt that moderator can watch that part and say "yeah, that's good moderation".

Just reading the FB post, I was taken aback a little, to be perfectly honest I rolled my eyes at "why is this sexism still happening" because from the description it didn't strike me as necessarily sexist. But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud that it made Talkington angry and finally speak up. Hubeny may not need "white knighting", but the impetus comes from a good place IMHO.

What of it if it makes the offense about Taffington? I also get mad when someone else mistreats another person in my eyes; if the victim in my eyes isn't a victim in their own comes secondary. That is probably arrogant, or even ironic because it can be disrespectful, but I feel it's usually easier to clear the air after overreacting or misreading a situation, than to muster the courage to stand up for someone after you already got used to not doing it. You have to do it when you see it, maybe after double checking, but you can't linger too long. Certainly not in a situation like that, where mustering the courage takes a lot either way. Hubeny is fine, but for Taffington this was and maybe is nerve wrecking. So kudos where kudos are due :)

Thanks for the context! That post was really missing video.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#335

Post by dewyatt » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

glutamate wrote: post #317

From http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-does-... > Q: Bone to pick: your list excludes women. > Jim Holt: It wasn’t meant to be that way! I was going to include a Harvard physicist who’s not only a woman but she’s extremely attractive. WTF?

Social awareness and "intelligence" often seem to have an inverse correlation in my experience.

Maybe he thinks the general public believes that the scientific community tends to discriminate against _attractive_ women the most, and he's trying to address that?

I don't know, but it seems like there may be a bit of a disconnect between him and the rest of society.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#336

Post by MaxfordAndSons » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

discombobulate wrote: post #254

sharemywin wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure your not more of a classist than racist? If the person were your race would still feel obligated to be nice because they were performing a service for you? Or maybe your just a dick and being nice to people in general is a chore. I know that's my problem.

> Or maybe your just a dick and being nice to people in general is a chore. I know that's my problem. Maybe I am a dick. I don't respect people unless they've earned my respect. I try not to be rude. It may seem like that if I'm in a hurry. I am rude if someone interrupts me with bullshit.

> I don't respect people unless they've earned my respect.

That's... just wrong. For one thing, everyone deserves a baseline level of respect as per our shared human dignity. Also living in a world where nobody is worth the time of day unless they've gone out of the way to prove themselves respectable just sounds miserable.

You should respect everyone unless they've done something to lose your respect.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#337

Post by cmiles74 » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

iiv wrote: post #327

cmiles74 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he did. He rambled over the only woman.

That he rambled over the only woman does not mean that he rambled over her because she is a woman.

Respectfully, I disagree. I am also not convinced that his motivations really matter, in the end he demonstrated that it's okay to let the men speak but not the one woman. In my mind, this is what really matters.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#338

Post by vog » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:39 PM UTC

ShannonAlther wrote: post #326

vog wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be uncomfortable, but it's the only way to make cultural progress. You should especially take care of that if you have any major position in a larger group, not matter if it is a company department, an open-source project or a user-group. If nobody cares visibly about social behaviour, that group is either doomed and won't achieve anything in the long run. Or it reduces a very low number of active participants…

"Prevent all potentially offensive behaviour" is not a valid solution. What constitutes offense is subjective, and furthermore the topic at hand is sexism.

The issue at hand is an example for precisely the opposite. Everybody agrees that the moderator's behaviour was inappropriate, the discussion is mostly about how bad it was (what should the consequences be?) and the label (sexism or not?).

More general, regarding subjectivity: Although the individual members of a group or society have different subjective standards, they can still find some common ground on what behaviour they accept or don't accept. You'll find such emerging consent not just in informal rules about social behaviour, but also in formal rules which we call "laws".

Re: “Let her speak please”

#339

Post by aggie » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:41 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #328

andai wrote: post #86

> You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was root…

> I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism So who is sexist in this scenario? Turns out its the feminist in the audience assuming that a woman needs someone to cause a public disturbance because she could not help herself be heard. Why is it every time some social justice event gains public attention, it turns out to not be sexism/racist/etc. at all.

To say "every time some social justice event gains public attention, it turns out to not be sexism/racist/etc. at all" seems like a wild overgeneralization. You would probably be more accurate in saying that while "sexism/racism/etc" are often over-attributed as a cause, they are in fact pervasive, but to varying degrees of influence. The first mistake is to assume there's a singular cause of any behavior.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#340

Post by sampo » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:41 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #181

andai wrote: post #86

> You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was root…

This might be the thing that is most problematic about 'call out' culture. We assume that we know the intention of people's behavior (sexism) and how it is received (offense). In many cases there may be neither. But I'm just cynical enough to suspect that this many not matter to people who 'call out.' They feel that they are on a mission to make society better regardless of whether there are problems in any individua…

> In many cases there may be neither.

The story tells how the audience applauded to the "let her speak" comment, and how afterwards a large number of people came to thank her for the comment. So in this case it was a large number of people who perceived there being sexism.