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

Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

bostinno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#121

Post by ceejayoz »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #110
ceejayoz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people alive today who were alive when women were not able to eligible in the USA. There are no people alive today who were alive when cupcake haters were not eligible to vote in the USA.

It would help if you explained your logic a little further. Why this fact is relevant? If this fact changes (e.g., once the last suffragist dies), will the conclusion change? Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring.

> Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring.

The fact highlights how recent this level of discrimination is in our history, and why "being a woman" and "disliking cupcakes" are significantly different characteristics when you're discussing power dynamics and discrimination.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#122

Post by dudeguy999 »

cjbprime wrote: post #92
toomuchtodo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if it doesn't offend them? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should condemn them. Men like women. Men are, speaking factually, the extreme majority in the tech industry. Don't be shocked if your values don't match those of others.

I don't think I understand your point, but to be clear: I'm a man, and I like women. My like of women extends to not wanting them to be treated like beer-servants and told that they aren't welcome as equals at a coding event, because it would make me feel awful if someone did those things to me. Empathy allows you to try to work out how something might feel from someone else's perspective, and is what should be used…

I go to Octoberfest events where sexy female beer servers are advertised. A lot of women seem to attend as well.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#123

Post by nirvdrum »

natrius wrote: post #117
toomuchtodo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! I don't feel like I'm being sexist at all. Scoot didn't say "HEH! We have naked women bringing you beer!" They said "We're having women server you beer". This is a perk for some men. What's the problem? Women coders/developers are sexist and don't want to be served beer by women? So be it. I, as a man, will happily serve those women who feel offended in the same garb the women will be serving men.

It's not an inclusive way to advertise an event. Making a minority in a community feel like an event isn't really intended for them is bad.

Honestly, when these sorts of things happen, I'd love for every man in the world to just shut up for a minute. I have a hard time stomaching this whacked out form chivalry where men somehow have to fight on behalf of women because they're unable to defend themselves. I understand it's of far purer intent, but it seems just as sexist to me. Actually, it seems worse because it has a tinge of hypocrisy to it. I'd much rather get a woman's reaction to it in an environment where she feels safe to speak her mind (and the Internet provides some pretty good avenues for this).

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#124

Post by spindritf »

electromagnetic wrote: post #97
rickmb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are weasel words, non-apologies that only confirm the notion that the people who wrote this are actually sexist a-holes. It's an underhanded way of blaming the people that are offended rather than genuinely apologizing for doing something offensive. "We realize this was wrong and offensive, and we are very sorry" would have been sufficient. No groveling needed. Instead, they chose to blame the offended parties…

Look at when comedians say something offensive. They either realise they went too far, or they stand by their joke. I've never personally heard a situation where a comedian causes mass offence and weaselly apologizes saying he's sorry but wishes his audience would grow up. Because it doesn't happen, because they're in the business of tastefully offending people. The problem is that douches like the guys running Bosto…

These non-apologies are pretty common from politicians ("Mistakes were made") to comedians (Adam Carolla: "I'm sorry my comments were hurtful. I'm a comedian, not a politician.") And there's a reason for that.

It this case it doesn't apply, it was just a lame attempt at humor. But in other cases there are whole organizations involved, with funding and lawyers and many of those organizations are simply bullies who manufacture controversies to show their importance (black hole/black hoe thing, Tracy Morgan offending some group). The best response would be to stand up to the bully: ramp up the joke, go further, but usually it would hurt too many bystanders who just happen to be in the group the bully pretends to represent or isn't feasible for other reasons so bullied public figures go with the next best thing -- a non-apology.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#125

Post by Symmetry »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #61
cjbprime wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is to realize why it was offensive instead of just that people got offended in some abstract sense that is unrelated to anything you can comprehend. For bonus points, further show enough empathy that you realize that what you said now offends you , too, culminating in some kind of "Damn, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that" apology.

And what if it doesn't offend them? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should condemn them. Men like women. Men are, speaking factually, the extreme majority in the tech industry. Don't be shocked if your values don't match those of others.

Maybe this can help explain. My recent ex-girlfriend is female, but is also bisexual and so likes women almost as much as I do. She was perfectly happy to comment on the attractiveness of the waitstaff to me (male or female), and appreciated when I did likewise to her. She'd be perfectly fine with a social event advertising attractive female waiters. I think she might even have been happy about the prospect of attractive female waitstaff at a hackathon too (she's also a programmer).

Listing the staff under the category of "Women" though, with the implication that these were going to be the only women at the event. And that would really piss her off.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#126

Post by jballanc »

byrneseyeview wrote: post #119
jballanc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is moral relativism. If I kill someone that everyone hates, is that wrong? If I kill a homeless person that had no friends and no family so nobody notices they're dead, is that wrong? The real question here is would you stand in front of the mirror, with no one around, and say to yourself "The women at this conference are a great perk!" without feeling bad? It's tempting to think "I have these…

Offensive comments are morally relative, though. Someone has to be offended, right? In your examples, the victim certainly notices and cares; if they get a vote, they're going to vote "immoral." But if you did something "murderous" in absolute privacy--like, say, doing some target shooting--I don't think it would be considered equivalent to murder. Similarly, if you do something "offensive" and nobody is there to get…

You're putting the cart before the horse. People are not upset because the wording was offensive. People are offended because the wording was upsetting. The flyer clearly objectified "Women". Objectification of any category of humans should be considered wrong in any context. This is not a case of moral relativism (or at least it shouldn't be).

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#127

Post by Czarnian »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #86
tzaman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. This was a prank gone bad. No one got hurt (apart from a few egos). Pulling sponsorship because of that is just lame. Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for women but that doesn't prevent me from pulling (even sometimes sexist) pranks on my wife. She does the same to me and we smile at each other. I dare you, everyone that's horrified by their prank say it out loud (and mean it!): "I have never,…

A prank? It was a rather bad prank. Not in just in the political correct sense but in the "comedy" sense. It's awkward and weird; it's not funny.

It's not even a prank. It's a couple of half-educated, drunken frat-boys who wanted to throw a frat party disguised as a hack-a-thon. For it to be a prank, there would have to be a punchline.

Had they hired a bunch of Chippendale's dancers to serve booze (because alcohol does wonders for your productivity) and big hairy bikers to give massages (as opposed to the girls in tight t-shirts they no doubt retained for the event,) would be a prank.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#128

Post by yummyfajitas »

ceejayoz wrote: post #121
yummyfajitas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would help if you explained your logic a little further. Why this fact is relevant? If this fact changes (e.g., once the last suffragist dies), will the conclusion change? Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring.

> Note that if the conclusion doesn't change upon the death of the last suffragist, the fact is irrelevant, and you bringing it up is a red herring. The fact highlights how recent this level of discrimination is in our history, and why "being a woman" and "disliking cupcakes" are significantly different characteristics when you're discussing power dynamics and discrimination.

I'm not disputing the existence of differences between the groups "cupcake lovers" and "woman lovers". I'm asking for a logical explanation of how those differences matter w.r.t. the points rauljara and I made.

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#129

Post by reinhardt »

jballanc wrote: post #102
reinhardt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this." Is this statement even controversial? The only reason someone issues an apology (honest or not) is because one or more others were offended. If nobody is offended, by definition there is nothing wrong with it.

What you're describing is moral relativism. If I kill someone that everyone hates, is that wrong? If I kill a homeless person that had no friends and no family so nobody notices they're dead, is that wrong? The real question here is would you stand in front of the mirror, with no one around, and say to yourself "The women at this conference are a great perk!" without feeling bad? It's tempting to think "I have these…

When I wrote "nobody" I meant nobody, not "nobody among those that happen to be within hearing distance". This includes the people I have an X opinion about. IOW if blacks/hispanics/women. etc are not offended by my opinion about them, is it still wrong?

Re: Heroku Pulls Sponsorship After Boston API Jam Publishes Sexist Eventbrite

#130

Post by gyardley »

temphn wrote: post #109
byrneseyeview wrote: post #36

A general question: when someone says something offensive, the apology is often "We're sorry: we thought this was funny, but obviously it wasn't, so we've changed it." This seems to get universally condemned, and lots of people argue that it's wrong to say "I'm sorry you're offended." But what are the alternatives? I suppose they could have said that they were deliberately sexist and hoped to hurt people's feelings,…

Mr. Byrnes, it is a little more complicated than that. Many of the people angry about this incident will, in another context, back up someone like Richard Dawkins when he offends. Dawkins happens to be one of my favorite authors, but he is quite provocative. And Heroku advertises the Dawkins Foundation as a success story: http://success.heroku.com/dawkins-foundation The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Scien…

Not at all.

When deciding whether you think someone should apologize or not for an action, the issue is not whether the party they offended can force an apology, it's whether you believe that person's action was wrong.

Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Therefore they believe the sexist should apologize, and Dawkins should not. Their opinions are consistent, and it has nothing to do with force.

Post reply on HN