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

An Apology From TechCrunch

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#161

Post by tallio »

david_shaw wrote: post #43
yogo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the details. I've never read an article I learned nothing from like that one. Sexism aside, these two presentations are too funny for me not to think they were done intentionally.

> Sexism aside, these two presentations are too funny for me not to think they were done intentionally. As opposed to being done accidentally? These presentations were, of course, intended to be jokes. In fact, I'm sure they were designed to be harmless, unoffensive jokes. Who cares? Children and adults who were rightfully offended were all in the audience. TechCrunch showcasing an app designed to turn objectifying w…

Male sexual desire is healthy. Heterosexual men like tits - deal with it. There's nothing "objectifying" or "misogynistic" about it. Jesus, what's wrong with you people? Is a man allowed to even look at a woman or is even that considered misogyny? I like women and no amount of buzzwords will make me ashamed of it!

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#162

Post by tallio »

chrischen wrote: post #154
kintamanimatt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO both apps are tacky, however, I feel the whole thing is clearly a joke that some people found funny and some didn't. In any event, I feel the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I watched the videos and, while the Circle Shake presentation was cringeworthy, it was very mildly sexual at a conference that's aimed at adults, not children. There will have been people in the audience swearing in casual conv…

The straight women will still be alienated. It's not as if as long as you're not alienating some women (bi and gay) that it's fine. It also objectifies women. They're propagating the belief that women are only interesting as objects of men's sexual desires. They don't have to explicitly do something sexist or racist to have a negative effect. Sometimes negative effect can simply be achieved by inaction or mis-action…

>They're propagating the belief that women are only interesting as objects of men's sexual desires.

Nope. That's just your interpretation of it and says more about you and your biases than it does about the makers of that app.

>The reason why you probably won't be offended by "ManButtStare" is because such a thing rarely if ever happens.

Yep, because women definitely never stare at men's butts. Basically, women lusting after men is okay because... women just don't lust after men? Men, on the other hand, are to be shamed for expressing their sexual preferences. This is sexism at work.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#163

Post by tallio »

parennoob wrote: post #93
Amadou wrote: post #63

I watched the two presentations via the valleywag page others have cited. The problem I see with TechCrunch's apology is that they are mixing up terminology. I don't think either presentation was sexist and especially not misogynstic - what they were was sexual. Modern society has a similar problem distinguishing between racist humor and racial humor. While there certainly can be overlap between -ist and -ual humor,…

This. Ted Dziuba has mentioned the tech industry being extremely sex negative, and him being almost afraid to criticize it because of the inevitable massive backlash he would face. And this is being reinforced by the increasing "don't even mention anything related to sex in a prrrrrofesional setting" approach being taken by a lot of popular organizations these days. For example, just look at github's repository forki…

>This.

4chan is that way >>>

>Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity?

Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#164

Post by Amadou »

tallio wrote: post #163
parennoob wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Ted Dziuba has mentioned the tech industry being extremely sex negative, and him being almost afraid to criticize it because of the inevitable massive backlash he would face. And this is being reinforced by the increasing "don't even mention anything related to sex in a prrrrrofesional setting" approach being taken by a lot of popular organizations these days. For example, just look at github's repository forki…

>This. 4chan is that way >>> >Sex is a biological need of humans. A lot of the tech industry has forward, progressive views on things such as gay marriage. Why retain these puritan, intolerant, purse-lipped attitudes towards sex-positivity? Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long.

Because feminism is invading. If you can't see this, you've probably not been a part of the tech industry for too long.

You appear to be saying that feminism == puritanism. That's just completely wrong.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#165

Post by pcerioli »

davidedicillo wrote: post #33
mesozoic wrote: post #26

From my understanding that hackathon is basically just a way to get free tickets to Disrupt. Thus no one takes it seriously and you get things like this.

1) Yes, probably a lot of people was here to get the free ticket (including myself) 2) Most people (including myself) still took it very seriously (proof all the people who worked 20 hours straight and slept on floors for few minutes).

We presented at the hackathon, but how did you get the ticket to Disrupt? We asked and they told us that they were going to email them to us, but so far, no ticket in the email ... ;-/

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#166

Post by jaredsohn »

tallio wrote: post #161
david_shaw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sexism aside, these two presentations are too funny for me not to think they were done intentionally. As opposed to being done accidentally? These presentations were, of course, intended to be jokes. In fact, I'm sure they were designed to be harmless, unoffensive jokes. Who cares? Children and adults who were rightfully offended were all in the audience. TechCrunch showcasing an app designed to turn objectifying w…

Male sexual desire is healthy. Heterosexual men like tits - deal with it. There's nothing "objectifying" or "misogynistic" about it. Jesus, what's wrong with you people? Is a man allowed to even look at a woman or is even that considered misogyny? I like women and no amount of buzzwords will make me ashamed of it!

Reread the GP; it is not arguing with you at all. The issue is the appropriateness of such things within the professional sphere (of which a hackathon is a part.)

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#167

Post by batemanesque »

mhurron wrote: post #71
WestCoastJustin wrote: post #9

Anyone coming here, wondering what happened, there were two presentation which were clearly inappropriate. First one was an app called TitStare , which allows you to view, upload, and share softcore photos of.. use your imagination. The second, circle shake , was an app to measure how fast you can jerk your wrist, upload and share your scores, accompanied by a pretty wild presentation. I think the first one must have…

> app called TitStare, which allows you to view, upload, and share softcore photos of.. use your imagination I don't see the problem. Pornography is perfectly legal and big business.

it's the misogyny, not the pornography, that's problematic here.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#168

Post by hokkos »

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #9

Anyone coming here, wondering what happened, there were two presentation which were clearly inappropriate. First one was an app called TitStare , which allows you to view, upload, and share softcore photos of.. use your imagination. The second, circle shake , was an app to measure how fast you can jerk your wrist, upload and share your scores, accompanied by a pretty wild presentation. I think the first one must have…

It is pure cringe, hard to watch without feeling embarrassed, neckbeard and brogrammers.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#169

Post by roguecoder »

ng12 wrote: post #51
objclxt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not have been personally offended, but if you're not able to understand why somebody might have been offended then that really does sum up why lots of people think tech has a problem with misogyny. The fact 'it was a joke' really isn't an excuse...I'd argue it actually makes it worse.

I don't understand why the presentations in question were sexist/mysoginistic. Immature? Yes. Crude? Yes. Probably shouldn't have made it on stage? Yes. Sexist? I'm unconvinced. I also don't understand why they were only a problem because they were "sexist". The apps were parodying behavior that well... many men engage in -- which is something you can acknowledge regardless of your gender. The immaturity alone should…

Were there shots of men's cleavage? Nope? It was sexist by any reasonable definition of "sexism". Pointing that out isn't "heavy handed", it's the truth.

Whoever doxed them was heavy-handed, but since I haven't seen any threat worse than "I will never work with them" apparently not that heavy-handed. There are consequences for performing your sexism for all the world to see.

Re: An Apology From TechCrunch

#170

Post by roguecoder »

cpayne wrote: post #44
rfnslyr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but I really think everyone should collectively loosen up.

It really depends on how you view the event. If it is just a bunch of blokes hanging out, I can see (but do not agree!) with your point of view. If you see it is as even a semi professional event, then I do know how you could justify it.

If professional events are "just a bunch of blokes hanging out", that's a pretty good example of how an industry could be systematically sexist.
Post reply on HN