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

Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

amandablumwords.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 395 posts

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#311

Post by yarrel »

honri wrote: post #300
michaelochurch wrote: post #45

Let's simplify the rules to basic decency. Don't Be a Dick. Oh wait, I guess I can't say that now. Well, fuck me. Whoops, can't say that either. I hope mr-hank gets a huge severance out of PlayHaven. (At-will employment is not as simple as employers like to say it is.) At this point, he has position for something substantial, given that they discussed the termination in the public (disclosing an opinion that he is gu…

Too bad the "77 cents on the dollar" feminist mantra has been debunked ad nauseam. If you're looking for real sexism to fight, you might want to start from the morally bankrupt and misandric family court system...

Hello MRA.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#312

Post by coldtea »

zeteo wrote: post #243
devilshaircut wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you are referring to the men and not Ms. Richards. Because her "little mistake" resulted in the firing of a decent human being with a wife and 3 kids.

She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?

>She posted a tweet.

A tweet ratting out people for having a personal conversation she eavesdropped on. With their picture and everything.

And for what? For something that was absolutely not her fucking business.

Also telling is what she didn't do:

1) She didn't complain to them. 2) She didn't ask them to stop (if they were talking loud). 3) She didn't ask the conference organizers to take some action. 4) She didn't post a generic tweet/blogpost with her opinion on the incident without naming names.

So, no, she didn't just "post a tweet". She is as much responsible for the guy getting fired as his manager.

And she didn't even apologize (at least for the getting him fired part).

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#313

Post by coldtea »

tfigment wrote: post #272
zeteo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?

Can someone explain why having 3 kids and a wife should change any decision here? Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?

>Is it somehow more acceptable to layoff someone that is single?

Both are bad, but in the first instance you cause suffering and income loss for the dependent members also (kids).

A guy can even sleep for a while in some friends house (or in his car, or under a bridge) until he gets another shot to paying the rent. A guy with three small kids, not so much.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#314

Post by coldtea »

andsosayallofus wrote: post #269
zeteo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?

Either we hold everyone responsible for what they say publicly, or we don't. On one hand a person was having a conversation that was over-heard and caused offence. We admonish him and hold him responsible. Is this right and fair? Consensus seems to be yes. Whether it was a private conversation or not, and whether it was intended to cause offence or not is irrelevant. He spoke publicly and whatever the result was was…

>Either we hold everyone responsible for what they say publicly, or we don't. On one hand a person was having a conversation that was over-heard and caused offence. We admonish him and hold him responsible. Is this right and fair? Consensus seems to be yes.

What consensus? I find it absolutely horrifying and terrible that this thing happened for a private conversation (that the conversation took place in a public place means nothing. People talk privately in public places: restaurants, city parks, whatever, offices, all the time).

And judging from the comments I've seen, most people agree.

Only Adria spoke in public: on twitter and her blog, and intending the posts to reach a wide audience.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#315

Post by coldtea »

samiur1204 wrote: post #105
WalterSear wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not puns - just one pun. The repo forking was, though informal, a thoroughly unpurient and non-sexual comment that she read meaning into.

She's allowed to be offended with those comments (or single pun), but the method of communicating her offense was definitely not called for. And honestly, even if it were sexual, it isn't sexist. I think that's a distinction that certainly needs to be made. Calling Adria a c*nt and other horrible things online definitely is sexist though.

>Calling Adria a cnt and other horrible things online definitely is sexist though.*

I'm not sure. We call other people names, "a dick", "a cunt" etc, all the time, including people of our own sex, if we think they deserve it.

So, if Adria deserves the verbal abuse --and judging by what she did, one can easily think she does-- then there's nothing sexist about it (even if the swear words concern sex. Just as when we call a guy a "jerk-off" there's nothing sexist about it).

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#316

Post by rplnt »

onemorepassword wrote: post #112

So what we know now is that Adria Richards' issues are not just with sexism, offensive behavior in general or gender equality, but that she has an ideological agenda that goes well beyond that. Her issues with pornography are ideological, in that they aren't shared by many men and women who would take issue with sexist behavior or gender based discrimination. However, like many ideologues, she doesn't make that disti…

This was the first article I read about this "case" and what I found amusing was the name (or at least url - haven't clicked) of her blog. She seems to be (just from these few paragraphs I read) the stereotype of a feminist (stereotype in a bad way). People like her just hold the progress of gender equality back.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#317

Post by erichocean »

martinced wrote: post #216
girvo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly didn't know Appeal To Hypocrisy was a fallacy! Probably one I'm going to continue to make; hypocrisy is the one thing that drives me insane.

"hypocrisy is the one thing that drives me insane" Me too because hypocrisy is clearly a form of intellectual dishonesty in itself and I don't want to lose time with intellectually dishonest people. As simple as that. If someone I know is a torturer and doesn't know I know it and tells me: "torturing people is bad", I'm not going to argue with him. I'm not going to think: "his point may be wrong because he's intellec…

> Me too because hypocrisy is clearly a form of intellectual dishonesty in itself and I don't want to lose time with intellectually dishonest people. As simple as that.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but personally, by your definition, I don't know anyone who's not a hypocrite.

It's just a simple fact that the conscious mind is not in 100% control of an individual for every minute of their life, and furthermore, that even if it was in control, that it would never make a decision that was contrary to some position they've espoused in the past.

Point is, maybe ease up on people a little. Hypocrisy should be limited to people who espouse one thing publicly, and espouse the opposite thing privately. Not merely laps in the application of an honestly held belief.

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#318

Post by sp332 »

coldtea wrote: post #312
zeteo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?

> She posted a tweet. A tweet ratting out people for having a personal conversation she eavesdropped on. With their picture and everything. And for what? For something that was absolutely not her fucking business. Also telling is what she didn't do: 1) She didn't complain to them. 2) She didn't ask them to stop (if they were talking loud). 3) She didn't ask the conference organizers to take some action. 4) She didn't…

She at least said she was sorry to hear he got let go, and hoped they brought him back. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#319

Post by flyinRyan »

Tichy wrote: post #304
michaelochurch wrote: post #45

Let's simplify the rules to basic decency. Don't Be a Dick. Oh wait, I guess I can't say that now. Well, fuck me. Whoops, can't say that either. I hope mr-hank gets a huge severance out of PlayHaven. (At-will employment is not as simple as employers like to say it is.) At this point, he has position for something substantial, given that they discussed the termination in the public (disclosing an opinion that he is gu…

The 77 cents on the dollar thing is just a symptom of the same thing, blaming men for all and everything and portraying women as victims (to excert special compensation for women). If you research the paygap issue a little bit, you'll find that it really isn't an issue of discrimination at all (hint: among other things, women chose other professions than men). I admit that I have started to become very angry about th…

Oh here we go. Didn't realize there was a "Men's rights" section on HN.

"People just don't understand how hard it is to be a white male!"

Re: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

#320

Post by flyinRyan »

tptacek wrote: post #277
michaelochurch wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be technically true. So, then, if you're fired over hearsay, your next step is to mandate that the firing employer cooperate fully in your suit (defamation, tortious interference) against the originator of the hearsay. If not, then there will be a termination suit. If they don't want to cooperate in your suit against the libelous person, or be sued, then they pony up a settlement. Termination suits often c…

Exactly what legal risk for the employer are you referring to? "Termination suit"? You've assembled a series of statements that certainly do sound credible, but I can't figure out how to actually attach them back to employment law. Firing someone without cause or even for a demonstrably faulty cause is not a tort, Michael.

I think the issue is that you can fire someone for no reason but you can't fire them for a wrong reason, even if a "right to work" state.

I haven't seen this in law but I worked for a very large company in a "right to work" state and this is how they behaved in all things. If you were fired you would never be told why. If you called for a reference you would be told the length of employment and last position held. Nothing more. I don't think they went to all that trouble for no reason.

Post reply on HN