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

Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

geekchick77.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 392 posts

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#351

Post by batista »

hythloday wrote: post #263
Lockyy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that bothers me about any and all up-vote/down-vote systems is exactly what has happened to Batista. He expresses an opinion that is contrary to what other people are saying and he gets down-voted into oblivion. This just feeds into the creation of a culture bubble and never lets anyone in the communities views get challenged. As a side note, I would like to clarify that my view on the issue is: A) Not rele…

One one hand, down-voting someone because (you think) they're wrong is counterproductive to a healthy discussion, but batista is doing the equivalent of walking into a technical discussion about, let's say, improving Django performance and saying "look, just use Rails, duh!" - there's nothing insightful about that position (which just seems to mirror normative culture), and the posts have a slight tin-foil-hat tone.…

>One one hand, down-voting someone because (you think) they're wrong is counterproductive to a healthy discussion, but batista is doing the equivalent of walking into a technical discussion about, let's say, improving Django performance and saying "look, just use Rails, duh!"

That would be "being off topic".

But what I did was being counter-general-HN-sentiment, which is different.

I replied on the same topic, added counter arguments (which few of my commenters did --instead, they kept it on the personal level, Batista this and Batista that, like here)

>- there's nothing insightful about that position (which just seems to mirror normative culture)

So, normative culture has nothing insightful to offer? Hundreds of millions of people beg to differ.

I'd rather say that it's the prevalent position that can be described as de facto normative, and the prevalent position on the thread happens to be the opposite of mine.

So, could a counter-position be insightful? Or is just nodding in agreement and adding another argument in favor of the prevalent thread position insightful?

>There are some statements that are just not worth arguing against and are tangential to the point of distraction.

And, as always, people fail to mention which. Or argue against them, since, as they claim, it's so "easy".

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#353

Post by wpietri »

agateform wrote: post #340
wpietri wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree that the notion of patriarchy is inherently biased. It's a reasonably neutral description of a social system. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople apparently likes the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Constantinople Also, patriarchy doesn't imply that all men have incredible power, any more than institutionalized slavery meant that all white people had incredible power. Patr…

Sorry for the large reply but please bear with me. >Also, patriarchy doesn't imply that all men have incredible power, any more than institutionalized slavery meant that all white people had incredible power. Patriarchy also misuses men who step outside their role in the system, in the same way that white anti-slavery and anti-segregation activists were treated poorly. You are comparing patriarchy to slavery which im…

I'm not saying that sexism is a one-way issue, and I agree that a patriarchal system acts to oppress more than just women. However, I am saying that turning up in a discussion of a particular incident and saying BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEE is dubious behavior, and smacks of privilege. It also seems to miss the millennia of oppression of women and the ongoing effects from that.

And for the record, I'm not making assumptions because you're just some guy. I'm happy to make assumptions about any privileged person who derails a discussion like this.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#354

Post by guelo »

agateform wrote: post #345
rayiner wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my group of friends: I have a friend who (jokingly) characterizes her boyfriend's amorous advances when he's drunk as "rape-y." When my male friend mentioned Emma Watson was hot in the most recent Harry Potter movies (when she was 18+), our female friends ribbed him about being attracted to children. When an awkward guy tries too hard to hit on a girl, we might joke that his advances are "kinda rape-y." My femal…

You might want to tell your girlfriend that joking about domestic violence is very dangerous to you as a male.

It's just a joke. Lighten up.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#355

Post by wpietri »

fryguy wrote: post #330
readymade wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is wrong about writing an IRC bot that responds to "that's what she said" with quotes from famous women? I'm curious. Because the only answers I can imagine are (a) you think writing IRC bots is wrong, (b) you think that displaying quotes from famous women is wrong, or (c) engaging in public discourse that politely and indirectly calls attention to sexist behavior is wrong. I'll wait. I'd really lov…

I'm not the person above, but I have an analogy that might help understand the point he's trying to make. Suppose that you are a software developer that sits in a communal area along with other developers. One day, someone decides to hook up a siren to the continuous integration server to make a siren sound whenever someone breaks the build. Most people think it's funny, but I think the sound is annoying and don't li…

You realize that this analogy misses the key point, which is sexism in the workplace, right? Her problem was not that there was a bot. Her problem was that there was a bot that made jokes she found sexist, and that her coworkers ignored her requests to take it down.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#356

Post by batista »

wpietri wrote: post #283
Lockyy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that bothers me about any and all up-vote/down-vote systems is exactly what has happened to Batista. He expresses an opinion that is contrary to what other people are saying and he gets down-voted into oblivion. This just feeds into the creation of a culture bubble and never lets anyone in the communities views get challenged. As a side note, I would like to clarify that my view on the issue is: A) Not rele…

The interface design problem here is that people are trying to express two things with one button: A) I disagree strongly, and B) that is a poor contribution to the discussion. Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other…

>Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view.

Noticed how you equate the issue of sexism with evolution theory?

To imply, of course, that those that happen to disagree about the importance of sexism are NUTS, and that the importance of sexism in keeping women away from IT is as indisputable as a scientific theory.

So much for YOU coming here "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view".

So, when you say that the ideal is for one to come to a discussion "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view", you only mean it for those with opposing views.

Because YOUR view is a priori as irrefutable as evolution --your simile--.

>When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion.

Let me see.

1) I come in the discussion with an opposing view.

2) You held that I'm akin to someone coming to an evolution discussion with an opposing view --i.e a nutjob arguing against science.

3) I provide several arguments, mention some logical explanations about how things could not be so, etc.

4) Instead of replying in specifics, you resort to ad-hominens. Batista this, and Batista that.

5) Notice how all your message above is devoice of specifics, even on the meta-level of discussing my comments:

= = = = =

"Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista."

No mentioning why.

"Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured."

No mention of how that applies to Batista, plus the vulgar comparison of anyone disagreeing with the current topic to someone disagreeing with evolution/science.

"When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion."

No mention of what that technique was. Saying something besides what everybody else says?

"From his further replies, I'm sure of it."

Again, no mention of specifics.

"Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that."

Again, no specifics as to what is "that".

= = = = =

And you have the nerve to say that it's me that "I'm not interested in conversation"?

Talk about blame the victim.

You're true on one thing, though: "life's too short to waste time talking with people like that".

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#357

Post by wpietri »

agateform wrote: post #323
wpietri wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that bro culture and brogramming are actual, existing things started by guys, yes? And you also realize that she intentionally didn't go to HR about the problem? And you realize that women have been oppressed in our culture by men for, oh, millennia?

I agree that a job post for brogrammer might not seem welcoming towards woman. >You realize that bro culture and brogramming are actual, existing things started by guys, yes? Please tell us your definition of brogramming and brogrammer. From watching the initial joke video on brogramers I understood that brogrammer is a prejudice term for male coder which likes to party, drink alcohol, flirting and is usually more in…

I would say that you seem to have a poor understanding of pop culture in the US. Bro culture is a prexisting thing. See, e.g.: http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&#3...

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#358

Post by cperciva »

rayiner wrote: post #318
wpietri wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think stereotypes imply the characteristic to be common. In your example, I think the stereotype is that Catholics have large families (which I believe was true at one point), and the dozens is exaggeration for effect.

The characteristic need not be common, just easily associated. See the study here for rape and sexual abuse statistics: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault... . Even if we limit "rape" to situations involving violence and the threats of violence,[1] the study found about 1.3% of the college students questioned admitted to acts that met the definition of rape, and 1.1% admitted to acts that me…

If you include people who answered "yes" to the question of whether they had sex with someone who was "too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)" the number skyrockets to 6.4%.

Sadly, this study did not ask the question of what happens to that number if you reverse the genders. I have multiple male friends who meet the definition of rape victim -- but wouldn't dream of reporting it as such because they're in long term (and aside from the occasional misunderstanding, entirely consensual) relationships with their rapists.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#359

Post by wpietri »

batista wrote: post #356
wpietri wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interface design problem here is that people are trying to express two things with one button: A) I disagree strongly, and B) that is a poor contribution to the discussion. Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other…

>Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. Noticed how you equate the issue of sexism with evolution theory? To imply, of course, that those that happen to disagree about the importance of sexism are NUTS, and that the importance of sexism in keeping women away from IT is as indisputable as a scientif…

I am indeed saying that you are acting like a nutjob. Well recognized. And nice work confirming that with a rambling 25-paragraph reply.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#360

Post by EvilTerran »

zem wrote: post #223
EvilTerran wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, that link should be nearer the top of this thread. That's food for thought right there. On the other hand, "The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists" is a nasty false generalisation -- it ignores apath-feminists (damn, that doesn't work nearly as well as 'apatheists'); those who are thinking "can't we all just get along?", with absolutely no motive to stymie feminism; those who've never do…

"indiffeminists"

Now that, I like. I'm going to remember that one for future conversations.
Post reply on HN