41–50 of 175 posts
Is there something that can collectively be done about Gawker (more Vallewag)? I know, freedom of speech, etc, but they time and time again publish the most incendiary articles based on the wildest of intentional misinterpretations. It is the farthest thing from "hard-hitting" or "raw" journalism, and at times borders libelous.
Sure: don't talk to their writers.
This article seems to be related to http://valleywag.gawker.com/paul-graham-says-women-havent-be... It is the first time I saw Paul Graham appear on my Facebook. It is not worth reading, the author is just going for clicks by making baseless accusations. Paul also claims he was misquoted and thinks he should start bringing a recorder to interviews. It is a shame, one of the appeals of reading a Paul Graham interview…
Seeing how badly people reacted on Twitter, I don't see any upside for anybody to say anything about this issue at all. Which probably won't help matters much…
It's very mobbish right now. It's really a turn-off.
But I do think it's a fad that will self-correct. Once it goes too far people will lose followers for joining the mob-du-jour and will adjust accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gawker is horrible, but if you read the original article in The Information that they're quoting from, it's not that distorted. Graham is asked whether YC discriminates against women. Graham is aware that when he's asked this, the subtext is that there is a marked gender imbalance among YC founders. Graham could answer "no, we don't discriminate, and I don't know why the imbalance exists or exactly what we should do…
Despite its discouraging content, what do you feel is incorrect about it?
But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible. Why? 3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enoug…
You said: > Women are so entitled nowadays. I don't know if you're just incredibly tone deaf, callous to what your words mean, or are trying to be funny. If you think that women have equal ability to men (by your comment, maybe you don't), and you think that people should hold jobs equal to their abilities, then you should wonder why 50% of your colleagues aren't women...
The percentage of women applying for pure CS related jobs (not business jobs, but specifically tech) is very little.
It's not my problem that a small part of the resumes I get are women. It's not sexism. It's just statistics.
I work a majority of women actually, they out number us very very hard.
I've yet to find a substantial argument for the men against women in tech movement. Did someone yell into your face "get out of my office you fucking WHORE", or is there some VC that subscribes purely to "I ONLY EVER HIRE MEN". Is there some CEO that raped his co workers?
All I'm seeing is a few nancies getting offended at:
a) they didn't get hired likely because they were not good enough, not because they are women
b) women that feel they are entitled to get offended at any little off putting remark/joke/jab.
Downvote me, I really don't care.
Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I happen to agree. But I think the volatility of this issue makes it difficult to discuss accurately. "You have all the same opportunities men do, at least in this space." I also agree with you. But I'm open to being proven wrong. And I think that's the sticking point here. Some audiences (male or female, doesn't matter) believe that women do not have the same opportunities as m…
After finishing with a statement so women-hating and/or trolling as "Women are so entitled nowadays.", there really can't be a sensible discussion. Downvoting is, I believe, the only reasonable option.
Check your sensitivity. That's how I feel from my own experience dealing with women. A lot of them feel that they are being crushed by men with no real world example, it's a large modern bandwagon. Modern day pseudo-feminism, that is.
But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible. Why? 3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enoug…
Yes, those people too.
> Women are so entitled nowadays.
GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.
Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities.
When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical. The threshold for participating goes down to zero, which brings in more people. And they tend to say incendiary things, which draw more and angrier counterarguments."
> Misogyny is alive and well, from Hacker News devolving into a disgusting sea of victim blaming after a female poster discussed being sexually assaulted at a tech conference, to the HR-free world of venture capital ( ask any female founder who has dealt with investors - 9 times out of 10, that investor has used his power to sexually harass the founder ). In my mind that last parenthesised bit stands out like I don't…
That quote makes more sense if you replace "that investor" with "a investor". It seems plausible that founders have to deal with many founders, and it seems further plausible that many founders have had at least one bad experience.
9/10ths of founders having at least one bad experience with an investor and founders having bad experiences with 9/10 investors are obviously two very different things.
Of course we should obviously still be asking ourselves "what the fuck?!?"
But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible. Why? 3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enoug…
Also the "Why not blacks? Why not midgets?" line is a particularly poor choice. My understanding is that little people do not like being called midgets, and by slurring them in the same breath that you speak of women and blacks, you give the impression that women, blacks, and midgets are all categories of people you disrespect.
Finally, entitlement refers to the sense that you deserve what you have, not the feeling that you deserve something you ought to have but don't have.
Therefore, ironically, YOU are the entitled one here. You feel you're entitled to carry on as you have been carrying on.