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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: undefined

#21

Post by flomble »

foolrush wrote: post #9
flomble wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antihumanism is an edifice wrought of unsubstantiated assertions, self-contradictions and wilful ignorance of evidence.

Of course it is, which disregards a good deal of research in cultural studies accumulating over the past half of a century. But you know that, as you clearly have studied the field.

The implication being that the only reason I could disagree with the idea that there is no human nature is that I have never encountered critical theory, structuralism, or postmodernism. Actually, one can acknowledge that we are all immersed in social structures that shape our thought in ways that we can't objectively understand, that communication is fraught with signs asserting cultural preconceptions, that there is a close connection between knowledge and power, etc., while repudiating the idea that external reality is illusory or unknowable, or that human behaviour is purely a function of context.

Human beings are animals, and thus the product of evolution. We are not blank slates, but highly specialised machines with innate tendencies and potentials. Almost anyone could, with minimal difficulty, list any number of phenomena universal to any human society: pain (and aversion thereto), communication, laughter, anger, etc. It is avowedly extremely difficult to separate ourselves from our inculcated norms when reasoning about human nature, but that does not refute its existence.

Of course, suggesting that human beings have no natural tendencies evolved for their survival ignores an overwhelming preponderance of evidence accumulated by biologists over the past century. But you know that, having clearly studied the field.

Re: undefined

#22

Post by jbob2000 »

eesmith wrote: post #18
charmides wrote: post #8

Without trivializing institutionalized sexism, the author's highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude makes me feel uncomfortable, not because of the genders of those involved but because he seems to let the workplace hierarchy completely define both himself and the boss. I am not familiar with the author, but is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about…

I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productiv…

> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss

People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me. Humans are fluid like that.

You can read about Bradley, he’s been around the open source community for decades. The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him, how is that not immediately obvious? Why be disingenuous and think that it is something more insidious (why would you even suggest something sexual? There was no indication of that....)?

Re: undefined

#23

Post by eesmith »

smsm42 wrote: post #15

Can somebody explain me why the situation described in the tweet is an example of sexism? The person wants to donate, and wants to speak with some other person about it with which he is comfortable dealing. That person happens to be male and his boss (the author of the tweet) happens to be female. Why does it make the situation sexist? Is there an obligation that if I contact somebody in the organization to make a do…

There are many ways it can be sexist.

Let's start with "which he is comfortable dealing".

There can be many reasons why a person could be uncomfortable. One could be that he does not believe women are not authority figures, and that Sandler's role as director is a figurehead.

So, if he is "comfortable" dealing with Kuhn, but not with Sandler, simply because Sandler is a women, then actions which make him more comfortable is supporting a form of sexual discrimination.

You ask "Is there an obligation that ..."

The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do. In the case of making a donation to the Conservancy, it seems the most appropriate thing is to talk with the current Executive Director. Who happens to be a woman.

I see no need to posit there is an implied obligation to "speak to a person of an opposite gender or I will appear sexist".

You write "isn't she getting the donation her organization needs, and having her employee do the work that is his job?"

An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole.

As an example of a no-win situation, suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation. On the other hand, Kuhn and others might decided they don't want to work in that sort of environment, and leave.

Thus, it's not always the case that "getting a donation" is something that an organization needs.

Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job?

Re: undefined

#24

Post by eesmith »

jbob2000 wrote: post #22
eesmith wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productiv…

> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me.…

What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes.

When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description?

I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts.

You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him"

Do you have evidence that that is the case? Because as presented, we don't know the specific reasons, and Kuhn states that "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen". I presume Kuhn doesn't think his reputation is relevant.

Nor do I see a reason to think that Bradley's reputation is relevant. If the donor wants to speak to Bradley, why gate the donation on the private meeting? Why not donate the money without that thread attached, and independently arrange a private meeting with Kuhn?

Also, Sandler also has a reputation. She has been in the free software community for 13 years, has a legal background in defending free software, is the Executive Director, and (according to Kuhn), "better than [him] at the key jobs of a successful Executive Director."

The question isn't "why would someone want to have a private conversation with Kuhn?" but "why would a donor gate a donation on having a private conversation with Kuhn?"

It is certainly not "immediately obvious" that Sandler shouldn't also be at that conversation. Can you explain why it's obvious to you?

The "disingenuous" comment I made you mentioned is because the OP wrote "unfathomable", which is an extremist viewpoint which sidesteps the topic. I can make up fathomable reasons - and indeed I did - but they are all much more improbable than the stated reason of institutional sexism.

Re: undefined

#25

Post by eesmith »

jbob2000 wrote: post #20
charmides wrote: post #8

Without trivializing institutionalized sexism, the author's highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude makes me feel uncomfortable, not because of the genders of those involved but because he seems to let the workplace hierarchy completely define both himself and the boss. I am not familiar with the author, but is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about…

It’s also worth pointing out that role changes take time for people to realize. This guy used to be the executive director and people knew him as that guy. All of a sudden Karen replaces him and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on. The exec holding back the donation wasn’t holding it back to speak to a man , he was holding it ba…

You wrote: "and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on."

As described, that is not the case for this situation. Kuhn wrote:

> Yet, the executive, who was previously well briefed on the role changes at Conservancy, repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me.

How do you turn that into "instantly supposed to treat her as in charge"?

Re: undefined

#26

Post by eesmith »

covermydonkey wrote: post #16
lowry wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, looking at the tweet, it seems that the senior tech director wanted go have hand-on information about how things are going, not marketing speech from someone at the top.

I've had to do the same with suppliers and software vendors. A quick one-on-one with the "tech person" has often been far more informative & accurate than anything I've heard from the execs or senior managers.

I think you all have overlooked that Kuhn used to be the Executive Director of the Conservancy, with experience in advocacy and public speaking.

As such, why should anyone believe he is a "tech person" who is not also able to give a marketing speech?

Re: undefined

#27

Post by jbob2000 »

eesmith wrote: post #25
jbob2000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also worth pointing out that role changes take time for people to realize. This guy used to be the executive director and people knew him as that guy. All of a sudden Karen replaces him and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on. The exec holding back the donation wasn’t holding it back to speak to a man , he was holding it ba…

You wrote: "and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on." As described, that is not the case for this situation. Kuhn wrote: > Yet, the executive, who was previously well briefed on the role changes at Conservancy, repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me. How do you turn that into "instantly suppose…

I find your activity for this article highly suspect. You are picking apart some lay comments as if this is a doctoral dissertation. This is not the place for nuanced debate, especially around trite personal problems someone on the other side of the continent is having.

Re: undefined

#28

Post by charmides »

eesmith wrote: post #18
charmides wrote: post #8

Without trivializing institutionalized sexism, the author's highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude makes me feel uncomfortable, not because of the genders of those involved but because he seems to let the workplace hierarchy completely define both himself and the boss. I am not familiar with the author, but is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about…

I got zero sense of a 'highly submissive (almost grovelling) attitude'. I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss. Kuhn writes "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productiv…

>Since you don't know what he's done, why do you second-guess his explicit statement by positing "is it unfathomable that he has accomplished something that some donor would like to speak to him about privately."

>Apparently yes, it is unfathomable to Kuhn and Sandler.

I am second-guessing it because it obviously not unfathomable that the author, who has many years of experience in his field, has accomplished something that someone finds worthy of a private conversation. When there is any doubt of people's motives, you should not go around and assume the worst, let alone make angry, public accusations.

>I cannot easily reconcile what you wrote, when I compare it to the original text, as something other than trivializing institutionalized sexism.

It is regrettable that you had to add an inappropriate accusation like this to your comment. I hope you are more respectful in your daily life when you encounter people with opposite viewpoints to your own.

Re: undefined

#29

Post by charmides »

eesmith wrote: post #24
jbob2000 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me.…

What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation a…

>You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him"

>Do you have evidence that that is the case?

OP does not have the burden to prove something about the donor's motives. The burden is on the author who wrote this inflammatory article, because he is the person who is making a claim that the donor is sexist.

Re: undefined

#30

Post by eesmith »

jbob2000 wrote: post #27
eesmith wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote: "and everybody is instantly supposed to treat her as in charge and totally disregard their previous relationship with him? Come on." As described, that is not the case for this situation. Kuhn wrote: > Yet, the executive, who was previously well briefed on the role changes at Conservancy, repeatedly insisted that the donation was gated on a conversation with me. How do you turn that into "instantly suppose…

I find your activity for this article highly suspect. You are picking apart some lay comments as if this is a doctoral dissertation. This is not the place for nuanced debate, especially around trite personal problems someone on the other side of the continent is having.

My reply was much closer to high school debate than a doctoral dissertation.

What you said was clearly not a valid interpretation of the evidence presented.

If it's so trite, why are you chiming in at all?

Post reply on HN