211–220 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but you're right: young. You forgot entitled. Also - racist jokes, really? Tell us a good one.
What is ten inches long and while? ... Nothing. Oh, I have another one: Jewess is sitting in a tram car and crying. One lady feels sorry for her, and wants to brighten her mood. So she goes to her, puts hand on her shoulder and says "Don't cry, I do believe in that holocaust of yours."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm having a hard time determining if you comments are meant to be trolling or not. You see to be adamantly against an opinion the people you're replying to don't exactly hold. You're doing the equivalent of yelling out a boilerplate rant anytime a keyword you've been waiting for pops up.
Why do you feel the need to determine whether I'm a troll or not? I'm tired of hearing the same old excuses for discrimination, namely "pattern matching." It's bullshit. It's everywhere on this thread as it so often is when posts about discrimination and harassment reach any level of awareness on Hacker News. And while most of the time I generally ignore it, rolling my eyes and occasionally just become depressed as h…
If you really don't care, why even say this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well, but here it is: Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. For this reason alone (let alone all the other good ones), there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry).
>Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race The popular, and dictionary, definition of "racism" is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really find it hard to understand why it would be frustrating for people to not take you seriously and constantly hit on you in a professional context? And what exactly are you defending here? If you're in a professional situation (which includes work related social events) then you shouldn't make unwelcome sexual advances. That's how you avoid sexual harassment lawsuits. If you don't have the social awareness…
Its all very good to admonish 'treat everyone well'. But when you meet a lot of people, a LOT of people, you need some filter. Cultural filters are unfair to a minority who break the mold. But the trouble is, they work very, very well most of the time. Call it by any bad name you like; but its here to stay, because it works. That a utilitarian argument I know; but in my experience the free market respects no other ki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the post you linked to... "So pattern recognition is a useless heuristic made up by a group of rich white men as a way to quantify something" If that statement isn't racist, biased, and, well, just quite mean really, then I'm not sure what is.
I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well, but here it is: Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. For this reason alone (let alone all the other good ones), there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry).
It never goes well because it goes into a corner of academia, takes a relatively new and by no means universally accepted redefinition and decides to not only add that definition to the word "racism" society-wide, but replace the existing definition entirely.
My personal opinion on the terms has gone back and forth so much that I don't even care about this pissing match anymore, but it's become clear to me why people aren't getting on board.
As if redefining instead of just adding a 2nd definition wasn't enough, what it attempts to define is already better known as "institutional racism," a subset of racism (where racism is just racial prejudice). If you don't see a new category being defined, it's hard to see the purpose of splitting these hairs as anything other than to redefine racial-prejudice-minus-power as something without the baggage the term "racism" carries around. It smacks of conversation re-framing through linguistic prescriptivism.
Or, occasionally it is interpreted less charitably. Someone does see a new category being codified, just not the one you want. They see it as a category of below-"racism" racism emerging that gives a pass to expressions of racism from traditionally disadvantaged groups, even in circumstances where the institutional racism isn't at play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Black people go to jail more, geeks don't do well with girls, etc. Neither is accurate. Both are exaggerations. Comparing crime between blacks and non-blacks may seem like it's useful data, the rates are pretty significantly different. But it's not, because the majority of people, white, black, whatever, aren't criminals. So if you use that "data" to treat people differently you'll be making an error far more often…
I'm not using this data to treat people differently: If I'm alone at 3AM and you come out of nowhere, I wouldn't care if you were blue, green, black or white. I wouldn't trust anyone equally. My point was, that one can understand how people think and stereotype given the data, as long as the data isn't corrupted. But coming back to the data: Sure, the majority of people aren't criminals, but the few who are, belong t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a good point, even if it's an unfortunate situation. I empathize with ericabiz - I'd love to see more balance between genders in software development. (and, sadly, I think it's only gotten worse since I started in the 90s). But, having gotten the 'eyes glazed over' look by every professional woman with whom I've tried to talk software within the last year, one just gets sort of trained after awhile. (may…
Alternatively, wear something that only a coder would wear. You mean a dress? I am a coder and that's what I wear. Yeah, you should definitely wear that next time.
Clothing is signalling; that's almost its entire purpose at this stage. If 95% of people who wear outfit A are marketers, and you wear outfit A, you're going to (initially) be treated like a marketer. Surprise!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My thought is that it's not because they mean to be rude. It's because they pattern match. I've noticed when folks see the same pattern over and over it's difficult to see outside it. My friends wife is an F16 fighter pilot. I was surprised to find that out. Truth is I should not have been surprised, but it went against the patterns I'm used to seeing. I wonder if that's at play here?
The pattern matching IS SEXIST! That's the whole issue. Your using gender as a "pattern" to match against. The point is to try to overcome making that match.
The situation described at the tradeshow in this article has also happened to me, repeatedly and consistently. The difference? I AM technical. I just also happen to be a woman. I love the tech industry. I've been in it professionally since 1997, and I've run tech startups as a CEO for the past 13 years. And if there's one thing I can count on, it's the consistent, pervasive assumption that I'm not technical. I hate g…
Given that this is a hot topic... Wouldn't a tech company have an enormous competitive advantage if they treated women better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Srsly? Someone's gotta write a program to autopost the stats about men in nursing and men in elementary school teaching, and particularly the way they get promoted faster with less experience. (One source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-o... ) And srsly? The continuing trope that it's "men who are sexist pigs" who are the problem rather than "people who persist in employing infantile patte…
>And srsly? English, do you speak it? >And complaining about getting hit on in work situations The grandparent was talking about at social events. Not work situations.
To kaitai: I do suggest that you write out the full word instead of abbreviating it to "srsly" - since that makes the comment a lot less interesting and distracts the otherwise insightful comment.