I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but if I were you, I'd take your original article off to the nearest Women's Studies department at a University. You're far more likely to get a reasoned response than here or on Twitter.
Game Over
21–30 of 99 posts
Re: Game Over
#22Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Wouldn't you then likewise defend the right of people to criticize the post, including to criticize it harshly, even if you disagree with he criticisms or the way they're phrased?
edit: That said, I can see a case for communities maintaining discourse norms, in order to promote discussion/etc. But to me that's precisely the opposite of a free-speech absolutist view, because discourse norms are limits on what/how/when to say things.
Re: Game Over
#23if you are apt to stop blogging/tweeting because someone(s) leaves a comment that hurts your feelings, then you shouldn't be sharing your opinion in public, anyways.
Re: Game Over
#24Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Wouldn't you then likewise defend the right of people to criticize the post, including to criticize it harshly, even if you disagree with he criticisms or the way they're phrased? edit: That said, I can see a case for communities maintaining discourse norms, in order to promote discussion/etc. But to me that's preci…
People did not criticize the post but the person.
Re: Game Over
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Wouldn't you then likewise defend the right of people to criticize the post, including to criticize it harshly, even if you disagree with he criticisms or the way they're phrased? edit: That said, I can see a case for communities maintaining discourse norms, in order to promote discussion/etc. But to me that's preci…
People did not criticize the post but the person.
Free speech still applies even if it's offending another person.
Re: Game Over
#26Leaving the flamewar world and focusing more on the work seems like a real healthy thing to me.
Re: Game Over
#27HN is starting to become drama central.
Re: Game Over
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
(edited because it was in the wrong place in the conversation) Your thoughts about sexism, at least how to express them? Absolutely. I don't want to diminish you or your ability to assess a complex system, but it seemed to me (and a lot of other people) that you expressed a great deal of ignorance and a lot of classic misguided assumptions based on limited and biased personal anecdotal experience. But if you don't ag…
based on limited and biased personal anecdotal experience. It's not as he presented his case as stone-cold fact and call me crazy, but aren't personal anecdotal experiences exactly the things that give birth to opinion? Since when did sharing a belief/stance/daring to opine on something demand anything other than anecdote? I don't like that thought pattern at all.
I'm not saying they're not valid because they're based on anecdotal experience, but that anecdotal experience is much weaker than say, serious study. Saying his opinions were based on anecdotal observations isn't why I'm saying they're off, it's why I'm saying perhaps there are deeper resources to be examined. That's all, I'm really not trying to demonize his experience in any way, just hoping for further reflection rather than simply being defensive against the extreme reactions from some
Re: Game Over
#29Just from reading the blog posts, it seems like this is a bit of an overreaction to some mild criticism of a mediocre blog post.
Then I looked at Twitter.
If there are multiple people tweeting basically "you're stupid" dozens of times ( https://twitter.com/kendall seems particularly egregious) it's not being in any way productive, it's a bunch of people being assholes and claiming "you're sexist" as a shield against anything they might do.
I don't know if it's something specific to Twitter, or just making people "celebrities" who aren't ready to handle the stupid comments that come with it.
Re: Game Over
#30I have no idea who you are or what you do, so this comment includes a certain naïveté. That being said, turning off comments doesn't accomplish anything. As you see here, your article was posted, and there are comments, and you're reading them, and you have no control over them. People will have opinions and that has nothing to do with you. The article itself-—as with any article that discusses sexism--was guaranteed…
He wrote Redis.