Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Let her speak please”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 723 posts

Re: “Let her speak please”

#711

Post by zzzeek »

Chris2048 wrote: post #681
zzzeek wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"subjective for some" takes place when one particular party fails to look at a situation objectively. They are relying on subjective opinion and they are wrong.

In which case it's sarcastic, not literal. Why not state directly what you believe to be the case? Just say "that isn't the case, and you only believe otherwise because you are not a victim", them defend that claim.

Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool used throughout the history of literature and language. I was not aware that Hacker News prohibits sarcasm and i would argue those of us who rely on sarcasm to communicate in many scenarios are being unduly silenced.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#712

Post by walterstucco »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #604
devmunchies wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I advocate violence? I was trying to take a step back by suggesting that there may be no sexism involved here. Its a valid point.

You didn't. I don't think you did. It was just a reverse moving goalposts argument to suggest that both propositions were wrong. But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man. Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory…

> "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism.

no. because men don't interrupt women 3x as likely but it's sexism to assume they do just because you believe it's true

Re: “Let her speak please”

#713

Post by walterstucco »

dang wrote: post #459
walterstucco wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're not a man (or you don't define yourself as such) I've been talked over by literally everybody, including my dogs and cats

You've been posting unsubstantive "so what?" dismissals, which is trollish when it comes to a divisive topic. Worse, you've crossed into personal attack. That's a bannable offense on HN, so please don't do it again.

I'm just saying you are not a man because you are clearly pushing an agenda when you don't want to accept all the evidence that disprove your belief that men are worse than women in conversations

so you're just like my dog, you don't listen, bark and don't care if you're right or not

you just wanna bark for the sake of barking

and threats of ban are laughable

if they ban me, I can create another account

it's not really important what HN commenters thinks of me or what I write

Re: “Let her speak please”

#714

Post by walterstucco »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #604
devmunchies wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I advocate violence? I was trying to take a step back by suggesting that there may be no sexism involved here. Its a valid point.

You didn't. I don't think you did. It was just a reverse moving goalposts argument to suggest that both propositions were wrong. But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man. Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory…

> Sexism IS a biological tendency

not at all

sexism is behaviour

sexism is believing that women cannot do something because women are inferior by design, not thinking that they are generally weaker (biologically true) and it's probably best if it's the man who carries the heavier luggage

Re: “Let her speak please”

#715

Post by walterstucco »

azernik wrote: post #385
walterstucco wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in this instance, if you watch the video, males were treated differently. and in other instances women were treated differently. so what? what's the point? do you wanna say that this instance represent the way women are generally treated when they talk?

Studies generally say "yes" - this is the way women are generally treated when they talk.

studies in US generally say yes

We all know US men are generally terrible...

Re: “Let her speak please”

#716

Post by Chris2048 »

zzzeek wrote: post #711
Chris2048 wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case it's sarcastic, not literal. Why not state directly what you believe to be the case? Just say "that isn't the case, and you only believe otherwise because you are not a victim", them defend that claim.

Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool used throughout the history of literature and language. I was not aware that Hacker News prohibits sarcasm and i would argue those of us who rely on sarcasm to communicate in many scenarios are being unduly silenced.

Strawman. It's your opinion that sarcasm has been "effective and appropriate" in communication. In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.

> I was not aware..

Not the case, just more sarcasm from you. Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways, btw, in the form of mod restrictions and bans. Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm, and care to do so - why waste peoples time otherwise?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#717

Post by mosselman »

DanBC wrote: post #74
mosselman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. It is beyond all doubt that sexism exists in the world, there are countless examples of it, from Disney movies, toy advertisement, philharmonic orchestra, etc, etc. I find it a bit strange to label the speaker as a sexist just because he didn't let someone speak. Maybe he is just a dick? Maybe she was rude to him back stage? Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe the chemistry between them was off?…

People talking over other people is a problem of sexism because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly (but not always) women; but also because the consequences for challenging this behaviour are different for men and women. If a man asserts himself he's seen as confident and assertive, and other positive labels If a woman asserts herself she's seen as aggressive, shr…

> ...because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly (but not always) women;

I find _this_ sexist. I know cases where the opposite is true as well as where the interruptor does not care about the gender of the other person.

> If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of sexism.

If A=A then A=A, therefore we can conclude that A=A. How wise.

I am not saying sexism doesn't exist, I am just saying that the author of this article is very liberal with her accusations based on a single observation of the moderator. Moreover, ironically, it is very sexist of her and I find this unfair to the moderator and men in general.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#718

Post by smartlysmart »

croon wrote: post #264
andrepd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you watch the rest of the video you will find the moderator imposes himself and cuts off the panellists and talks over them multiple times, seemingly regardless of gender. This makes me strongly inclined to believe that this incident had nothing to do with sexism, but rather with the annoyingly dominant and imposing personality of the moderator. Maybe you think otherwise. Why would you say this incident is a "pain…

> If you watch the rest of the video you will find the moderator imposes himself and cuts off the panellists and talks over them multiple times, seemingly regardless of gender. Honest question: Did you watch the rest of the video? I did and completely disagree with your assessment.

I watched much of the video and he does interrupt other panelists frequently. He also gives a less obtuse lead-in and allows her to speak uninterrupted at around 27 minutes. Following that, other panelists acknowledge the importance of her statements.

Also, the panelist herself wrote that she thought it funny that the guy was asking and answering a question at the same time; she didn't feel she was targeted or silenced during the event.

This guy just likes to dominate conversations and lacks self/social awareness. I bet he's like that all the time. Does he do it more to the woman in the video? Yeah, you might have a good argument that he does. But I've met plenty of these people in management-level meetings and they do it to everybody; it's soooo annoying. Very hard to assert yourself without making things awkward. Impossible to assert yourself when it's a woman who's overriding everyone else.

The solution is usually to appoint a meeting moderator that everyone knows to be fair beforehand (obviously, this isn't always viable), but we found it shortened up our medical practice meetings quite a bit. The guy who likes to hear himself talk still goes overboard from time to time, but we have a third-party moderator who can cut him off without worrying about upsetting a supervisor.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#719

Post by lgas »

mirimir wrote: post #664
lgas wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Bullies have something specific going on. They are trying to hurt people. Many average people get excited when they talk about a subject they are passionate about and enter into a state entirely unlike any bullying I've ever seen but which nevertheless results in non-bullying behaviors like talking over people. These people are exhibiting behaviors like interrupting because they are excited and passionate…

I'm occasionally accused of interrupting others. But here's the thing: I like being interrupted. I enjoy conversations with lots of rapid back and forth. When I'm misguided, I want to be corrected as quickly as possible. I want others to finish my thoughts. But hey, I mostly rein it in :)

That's what I'm saying -- you're not a bully.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#720

Post by zzzeek »

Chris2048 wrote: post #716
zzzeek wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool used throughout the history of literature and language. I was not aware that Hacker News prohibits sarcasm and i would argue those of us who rely on sarcasm to communicate in many scenarios are being unduly silenced.

Strawman. It's your opinion that sarcasm has been "effective and appropriate" in communication. In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent. > I was not aware.. Not the case, just more sarcasm from you. Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways, btw, in the form of mod restrictions and bans. Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm, and care to do s…

Per the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, there is no such rule that "sarcasm is not allowed" on Hacker News. And yes, if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind in a real life conversation, sarcasm would certainly be appropriate in response to a statement so thoughtless.

> In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.

That's not particularly relevant...

> Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm

The poster who I was responding to was certainly not being agreeable by smugly suggesting that sexism is a "purely subjective" phenomenon. Victims would not find it "agreeable" to have to defend against absurity such as this.

> Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways,

In this case, if any mod looked at this thread, the first thing they'd see is: "zzzeek made a comment that people felt was inflammatory, it got -4 downmod". And the conclusion any reasonable mod would draw from that is, "the system worked! the end." If it ended there, I'd be fine with that as well - I posted something too strong for folks, it got downmodded, oh well. I have about 4000 karma to spend so this is certainly anomalous behavior for this poster, no further action to take.

However, for some reason you have the need to jump on top of this comment and continue to lecture and "correct" me on something, and quite frankly it's a bit disturbing. I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points. If there is something about my comment that is so disturbing that it warrants prolonged argument and discussion, maybe it shouldn't have been downvoted, but as it was, continuing to browbeat on the poster is definitely a much greater productivity drain than a simple one line, inflammatory comment (in response to another that not everyone thought was so inflammatory) that was downvoted within seconds.

Post reply on HN