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

371–380 of 395 posts

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

#371

Post by georgeorwell »

dspeyer wrote: post #284
georgeorwell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's a kind of ad hominem, because it says, "This person's arguments are not worth listening to because this person's behavior is not in line with what they are arguing for." But if arguments are rational things with inherent truth then it doesn't matter who says them. Her argument about overheard dongle jokes being sexist is weak enough as it is. The added hypocrisy just makes for sadly entertaining drama / go…

And, as usual with ad hominems, we must be careful not to throw out too much. She argues that the joke was offensive. Her evidence was that she was offended. Evidence that her concept of offendedness is flawed does argue against the offensiveness of the joke. Had she asked three people sitting near her if they were offended, and they had said yes, then she would no longer be a part of the argument and her hypocracy w…

Let's assume an identical situation, except that this time one of the two guys said something to her like, "Hey baby, I'd like to fork your repo, so do you wanna see my dongle?" Would her hypocrisy have any bearing on her claims of sexism? Would her personal emotional reaction have any bearing on her claims of sexism?

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

#372

Post by Jaigus »

unalone wrote: post #264
nsxwolf wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called Critical Race Theory, and it's just as valid to question it as it is to espouse it. It's not hard science. One could argue it gives minorities license to say as many racist things as they want to and claim it isn't racist. It's an argument constructed so that one side wins by default.

Well, it's an argument that one side does win by default, and that "racism" should be used to acknowledge that power imbalance. "Minorities saying racist things", by this theory, doesn't hold a candle to, say, the fact that minorities are more frequently imprisoned, more often pulled over/searched illegally/beaten by law enforcement agents, more often feared, more often treated with bias in the workplace or dating wo…

I agree with you. I took notice of how the backlash was disproportionate as you mentioned, and I believe its because of what I've heard people describe as "racial fatigue" (in this case it's gender). The media is constantly bombarding us with racial issues, and at times even finds ways to racially charge stories that have nothing to do with race. I'm sure the accused party (white people, or Men in general) gets tired of being portrayed as the proverbial villain, so when someone attempts to blow something out of proportion under the banner of sexism(and it turns out to be bullshit), you get this colossal shit storm.

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

#373

Post by georgeorwell »

dragonwriter wrote: post #353
georgeorwell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's a kind of ad hominem, because it says, "This person's arguments are not worth listening to because this person's behavior is not in line with what they are arguing for." But if arguments are rational things with inherent truth then it doesn't matter who says them. Her argument about overheard dongle jokes being sexist is weak enough as it is. The added hypocrisy just makes for sadly entertaining drama / go…

> Yeah, it's a kind of ad hominem, because it says, "This person's arguments are not worth listening to because this person's behavior is not in line with what they are arguing for." But if arguments are rational things with inherent truth then it doesn't matter who says them. The inconsistency claimed here was an argument against the credibility of the claimed offense. "Offense" is not a objective conclusion of a ra…

If you evaluate whether or not those guys deserved the treatment they got on the basis of anyone's emotions, then it's all up for grabs. It's incorrect in the first place to support a claim of sexism on the basis of an individual's emotions.

Remember when we meet the Lion in the Wizard of Oz? Hyper-aggression and hyper-sensitivity go hand in hand. It doesn't make the hyper-sensitivity untrue in some way, but it also doesn't positively or negatively affect any arguments the Lion might have about the existence of abuse - they'll hold water on their own if they can.

I mean, the whole purpose of argument is objective reasoning, right? I thought this was primarily a discussion about whether or not there was sexism involved. All we can really say subjectively is that she got offended and apparently overreacted. Whatever she claims her emotions to be, they are valid claims.

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

#374

Post by squozzer »

sdgwerwer wrote: post #348
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…

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 acti…

I like the cut of your jib, but most rules (including laws) exist to keep people in a state of fear.

The people in charge don't care if you transform yourself into a robot to cope with the fear, so long as they get their pound of flesh or whatever it was you promised in exchange for the job.

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

#375

Post by dspeyer »

georgeorwell wrote: post #371
dspeyer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, as usual with ad hominems, we must be careful not to throw out too much. She argues that the joke was offensive. Her evidence was that she was offended. Evidence that her concept of offendedness is flawed does argue against the offensiveness of the joke. Had she asked three people sitting near her if they were offended, and they had said yes, then she would no longer be a part of the argument and her hypocracy w…

Let's assume an identical situation, except that this time one of the two guys said something to her like, "Hey baby, I'd like to fork your repo, so do you wanna see my dongle?" Would her hypocrisy have any bearing on her claims of sexism? Would her personal emotional reaction have any bearing on her claims of sexism?

With that phrase, you could find others to vouch for its offensiveness, so she would be far less relevant.

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

#376

Post by WalterSear »

sdgwerwer wrote: post #343
Draco6slayer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As is much of the defence of her behaviour are quite clearly double standards driven by misandry.

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

#377

Post by georgeorwell »

dspeyer wrote: post #375
georgeorwell wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume an identical situation, except that this time one of the two guys said something to her like, "Hey baby, I'd like to fork your repo, so do you wanna see my dongle?" Would her hypocrisy have any bearing on her claims of sexism? Would her personal emotional reaction have any bearing on her claims of sexism?

With that phrase, you could find others to vouch for its offensiveness, so she would be far less relevant.

So with other people claiming sexism O, hypocritical Adria H, and sexist remarks S, you're saying !O -> (H -> !S), but O -> S. I guess I don't believe that the truth of statements depends on the number of people making them (this is what you believe, right?). I also don't see much point in the use of subjective experience as the basis of argument. She felt the way she felt, legitimately, but for a claim of sexism she'd need to demonstrate how the dongle jokes were somehow demeaning to women, as opposed to just being immature. Nobody is disputing that she got offended.

Plenty of people are claiming it wasn't sexism, but it seems like it's not a large enough number of people for you to dismiss her hypocrisy as irrelevant.

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

#378

Post by superjambo »

rmc wrote: post #361
superjambo wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be because women tend to value the economic worth of potential mates more than men value the economic worth of potential mates. So any man choosing higher discomfort for more pay isn't just getting more money he's also improving his chance of finding a mate. Meanwhile women have a smaller incentive to take discomfort since they will not get the compensation of enhanced attractiveness.

Except that most of the high paying jobs aren't physically discomforting (e.g. sitting in a nice office all day), and there are loads of jobs that are poorly paying that are very uncomfortable (prostitution, cleaning toilets, etc.). So your theory doesn't match reality.

Sorry I was not talking about physical discomfort but all negative aspects of a job. Men have a greater incentive to seek high pay & status at the price of longer commute / longer hours.

Women do not in my experience value pay as highly and consider the (non-monetary) costs more carefully than men.

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

#379

Post by dspeyer »

georgeorwell wrote: post #377
dspeyer wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that phrase, you could find others to vouch for its offensiveness, so she would be far less relevant.

So with other people claiming sexism O, hypocritical Adria H, and sexist remarks S, you're saying !O -> (H -> !S), but O -> S. I guess I don't believe that the truth of statements depends on the number of people making them (this is what you believe, right?). I also don't see much point in the use of subjective experience as the basis of argument. She felt the way she felt, legitimately, but for a claim of sexism she…

No, that's not what I'm saying.

The causal network looks like this:

       S->O
       |
       V
    D->A
    |
    V
    H
    
    S=sexism
    O=other people being offended
    A=Adria being offended
    D=Adria being dishonest
    H=Adria being hypocritical
We know that A and H are true. We don't have data for the others. O would allow us to conclude S. H suggests D, which explains A, causing A not to be evidence for S.

It's like how flying saucer cultists being visibly crazy is evidence against flying saucers if their statements were the evidence in the first place, but if you had actual radar tracks, then it wouldn't matter.

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

#380

Post by georgeorwell »

dspeyer wrote: post #379
georgeorwell wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So with other people claiming sexism O, hypocritical Adria H, and sexist remarks S, you're saying !O -> (H -> !S), but O -> S. I guess I don't believe that the truth of statements depends on the number of people making them (this is what you believe, right?). I also don't see much point in the use of subjective experience as the basis of argument. She felt the way she felt, legitimately, but for a claim of sexism she…

No, that's not what I'm saying. The causal network looks like this: S->O | V D->A | V H S=sexism O=other people being offended A=Adria being offended D=Adria being dishonest H=Adria being hypocritical We know that A and H are true. We don't have data for the others. O would allow us to conclude S. H suggests D, which explains A, causing A not to be evidence for S. It's like how flying saucer cultists being visibly cr…

Okay, thanks for explaining, I better understand your position. For myself, I don't believe A -> S or !A -> !S. I also don't believe O -> S or !O -> !S. People will get offended over the silliest things, and conversely victims of abuse will also deny that any was done to them. I also don't believe D, in that I don't think she was intentionally lying about being offended in order to manipulate the situation. I'm not sure that H suggests D, unless you mean emotionally dishonest, which of course I believe. She did fabricate the bit about forking being sexual, but I thought that was more jumping to conclusions than lying. But, I do understand your position insofar as if A implies S, then H matters.

It does seem to me that when you say A is evidence for S, even though your diagram only has S -> A, that you're just affirming the consequent. That is, given P -> Q and Q, claiming P is true.

So, my position is, she's a hypocrite, she got offended, obvious character flaws, etc. But whether or not there was sexism can only be determined by looking at both sides of the description of events that we have. For the most part, it seems people are saying that it isn't sexism, and that it would have to be specifically degrading to women.

I don't think the flying saucer analogy applies, because nobody is disputing the events that took place, people are only disputing whether there was sexism, i.e. what the meaning of the events was. To me it's more like, crazy person sees something fly overhead, claims it was a flying saucer and the beginning of an alien invasion, and proceeds to escalate the situation, when everyone else who looks at the data after the fact says it was just a plane.

At any rate, barring a conversion one way or the other to the truth of A -> S and !A -> !S, I think this is at a standstill, but it was an interesting discussion, so thanks.

Post reply on HN