Live data from Hacker News

Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

amandablumwords.wordpress.com

341–350 of 395 posts

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

#341
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you're being an idiot. White male is the most privileged thing to be, not some down trodden, exploited minority. Posts like yours belong in /r/mensrights with the other crap. And from your other posts, I think you're much better than this.

I see that you believe that, but you provide no arguments to support that. I only learned about /r/mensrights yesterday, checked it out but didn't like their attitudes at all. I think it is important to counter misguided feminism, though.

Look, there are certainly misguided feminists out there and I wouldn't even consider Andrea Richards a feminist but rather a "shock jockey" who stirs up fake controversy to drive blog traffic for fun and profit.

But that doesn't excuse making a post that could have been word-for-word copied out of mensrights about how downtrodden we are, complete with quotes to claim the wage gap doesn't exist. I'm all for countering misguided extremists from any side.

By the way, you're quoting articles from Rupert Murdoch's WSJ to support your point? Didn't they have an article that claimed that the WHO and Berkley reports were wrong and the US (pre Obama care) had the greatest health care in the world? Yea, not believing anything from WSJ.

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

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That definition of racism is certainly a minority one, and isn't supported by the dictionaries I checked. To intentionally misunderstand what most people mean by racism, and then tweet like that, it seems like she's setting up a straw man in order to get into a fight.

The popular definition of racism is popular because it robs the word of it's purpose, which is to fight power, not pattern matching.

I'd say the exact opposite. This attempt to redefine the well-understood term "racism" into "something only white people can do" is a shameful maneuver to commandeer the societal reserves of moral outrage rightfully reserved for use against racial hatred, and redirect them so that racists who hate white people are immune. It is absolutely Orwellian.

Racial hatred is despicable in all forms. Those who push for such an artificial redefinition of racism would have us forget this.

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is insulting a female inherently sexist? I wouldn't call someone a sexist if they called me a d ck or a son of a b tch. Obviously the response here is sexist, but calling somebody bad names is not sexist, regardless of their gender.

Well, it's not inherently sexist, but in Adria's case we can expect that some of those insults were motivated by misogyny.

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

#344
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you believe that, but you provide no arguments to support that. I only learned about /r/mensrights yesterday, checked it out but didn't like their attitudes at all. I think it is important to counter misguided feminism, though.

Look, there are certainly misguided feminists out there and I wouldn't even consider Andrea Richards a feminist but rather a "shock jockey" who stirs up fake controversy to drive blog traffic for fun and profit. But that doesn't excuse making a post that could have been word-for-word copied out of mensrights about how downtrodden we are, complete with quotes to claim the wage gap doesn't exist. I'm all for countering…

Something sounding like /r/mensrights does not make it right or wrong.

And I argue against misinterpreting a statistic here, not particular feminists.

I wonder why you are so emotionally invested in the belief that women are being oppressed? And what is absurd about men wanting rights?

One issue I have with the "discrimination causes the wage gap" theory is that it prevents looking into the real causes. WSJ was just something that came up yesterday. I am not from the US so don't know their history (similar wage gap in my country, though). Using common sense, too - and researching more.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal advice that companies like IBM and intel would have gotten in these situations would almost certainly precluded firing people over it, conservatism runs both ways.

Risk-averse large corporations would have either: * given the employees a formal reprimand, which would stink up the personnel file but probably be harmless, or * fired the employee, but with a decent severance package (1.5 * expected job search time for that position) including two-way non-disparagement. Discussing the termination in a press release would not have happened, as it shouldn't. You should only discuss a…

  Discussing the termination in a press release would not 
  have happened, as it shouldn't.
Not much point in firing someone to satisfy bloggers, twitter users and HN users if you don't tell them you've done it.

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

#346
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you believe that, but you provide no arguments to support that. I only learned about /r/mensrights yesterday, checked it out but didn't like their attitudes at all. I think it is important to counter misguided feminism, though.

Look, there are certainly misguided feminists out there and I wouldn't even consider Andrea Richards a feminist but rather a "shock jockey" who stirs up fake controversy to drive blog traffic for fun and profit. But that doesn't excuse making a post that could have been word-for-word copied out of mensrights about how downtrodden we are, complete with quotes to claim the wage gap doesn't exist. I'm all for countering…

You're right, this isn't reddit. Applying a derisive label in place of an actual argument doesn't work here. If you have a point, please feel free to make it. Either way, lay off the name-calling.

BTW, your post reads like a tour of logical fallacies. You can do better I'm sure.

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

#347
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?

Of course -- just like it's more acceptable to lay off a lady! Her husband can just get a job :)

You single guys supporting your parents or supporting people you're not married to (for whatever reason) or sending money back home to help out, your families are invisible.

One could argue that someone with a spouse has a bigger safety net than a single person -- which is actually true and is a contributor to the fact that married men have higher life expectancy than single men -- but it's easier to make assumptions. I'm sure someone will read this and argue that "on average married men need the job more"; I'd like to remind them that this is so because we (society) make it that way through paying men more, expecting men to be primary breadwinners, making childcare so *&^%ing expensive that it makes sense for the lower-paid parent to stay home, spreading elder-care responsibilities unequally.... The system does have its logic: someone's got to do the work, after all!

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

#348

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…

Man, this is such a fucking confusing case. I don't want to support harassment in a professional context, but I find it really hard to think of what those guys did as harassment.

I want to live in a world where you can make crude jokes with your work friends and not be afraid about who is listening in. Harassment shouldn't be defined by a list of taboo subjects or stupid rules. Harassment should mean intentional actions that make someone feel uncomfortable or afraid. That means there needs to be some reasonable leeway made for situations where you don't know you're making someone uncomfortable. It makes sense that we should be careful about the kind of jokes we make directly to people but we shouldn't by default have to assume that someone with absolutely zero sense of humour is listening in.

People should be free to make jokes and flirt and do whatever they like at the work place, as long as no-one minds. We have to spend half our life at work, what's the fucking point of having to be a robot the whole time? Sexual jokes aren't necessarily sexist, nor are they necessarily harassing. Neither is flirting, or kissing or flat out having sex, for that matter. (Might be inappropriate for a work environment, but doesn't have to be sexual harassment, does it?) On the other hand, if you do it in an inappropriate way, looking at someone could be genuinely terrifying harassment. I bet if you were careful and sadistic enough, you could turn any innocuous interaction into something that, over time, makes someone feel deeply uncomfortable.

Imagine if we work together. Imagine I am perfectly normal with everyone else, but when I put my reports on your desk, I slide them on gently, looking you in the eye, then I just hold them there, palm flat on the desk and I smile. I let the smile last just a second too long, then I go off and carry on being relatively normal with everyone else. I do that every single day, and each time you look less and less comfortable, and each time I either don't react or seem to enjoy your discomfort. How long would it take before that became very unpleasant for you? What kind of possible rule structure could be in place that could conceivable prevent me from doing this without requiring some communication from you? What would you ban? Looking someone in the eye and smiling for too long? How many seconds is too long? How would you time it? Moreover, how the fuck would this rule structure be able to distinguish intentional harassment from the situation where it turns out I am slightly autistic and I happen to really enjoy looking over your shoulder at your screensaver when I drop my reports on your desk?

We have to set the rules at a place of compromise and rely on explicit communication to sort everything else out. Otherwise we'll end up with segregated offices or women in fucking Burkhas or some other retarded solution to the general problem of otherwise clever people being unable to cope with social interaction.

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

#349
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you're being an idiot. White male is the most privileged thing to be, not some down trodden, exploited minority. Posts like yours belong in /r/mensrights with the other crap. And from your other posts, I think you're much better than this.

you're being an idiot Says the guy who resorts to name-calling. White male is the most privileged thing to be No, being an upper middle-class white male is the most privileged thing to be. not some down trodden, exploited minority Think positive, maybe one day a minority might become president.

>Says the guy who resorts to name-calling.

Notice I said being an idiot. Name calling would be saying that he was an idiot as a state of being. I didn't say that, nor do I believe it.

>No, being an upper middle-class white male is the most privileged thing to be.

If you have to be poor or middle class you want to be white male. Do you honestly think you'd be better off being poor and black or poor and a woman? Maybe some day we'll get there but we're not there today.

>Think positive, maybe one day a minority might become president.

Yes, one half-black person getting elected president means there is absolutely no racism of any sort (never mind all the racial motivated attacks Obama has had to deal with since before getting elected...).

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

#350
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, there are certainly misguided feminists out there and I wouldn't even consider Andrea Richards a feminist but rather a "shock jockey" who stirs up fake controversy to drive blog traffic for fun and profit. But that doesn't excuse making a post that could have been word-for-word copied out of mensrights about how downtrodden we are, complete with quotes to claim the wage gap doesn't exist. I'm all for countering…

Something sounding like /r/mensrights does not make it right or wrong. And I argue against misinterpreting a statistic here, not particular feminists. I wonder why you are so emotionally invested in the belief that women are being oppressed? And what is absurd about men wanting rights? One issue I have with the "discrimination causes the wage gap" theory is that it prevents looking into the real causes. WSJ was just…

>And I argue against misinterpreting a statistic here

Pretty much everyone who studies the issue concludes that there is a gap. It is likely that if anyone is misinterpreting a statistic it would be a laymen like you or I, not experts in the respective fields.

>I wonder why you are so emotionally invested in the belief that women are being oppressed?

I'm not emotionally invested in anything but the truth.

>And what is absurd about men wanting rights?

Obviously nothing. But /r/mensrights is a well known group of women-haters [1] who love to spout off one-off anecdotes to show how men are "actually the exploited group" and other such nonsense. There are cases where men get a raw deal (divorce court in the US comes to mind) but they are by far the minority.

[1] 2 seconds of searching: http://manboobz.com/2013/01/28/the-mens-rights-subreddit-a-n...

Post reply on HN