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

A Reminder To Investors

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#251

Post by acdha »

equoid wrote: post #189
mtrimpe wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always 'circles' where this is considered appropriate behaviour. In the fashion world there are a few photographers which almost openly do this, known to us mostly because they got so used to it they put their dick in a girls mouth unannounced and rather than suck it she talked to the press about it. [1] An old colleague worked at an IT company thirty years or so ago and on the upper management floor, as he…

Exploiting a position of power or influence so that one can "get away with it" does not mean that it was ever considered appropriate behaviour.

That's a pretty meaningless distinction if it has no other consequences – it's essentially demoting this to the level of seriousness of wearing non-matching socks and the only people who benefit from this are the abusers.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#252

Post by angersock »

tptacek wrote: post #97
angersock wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's actually explore the idea a bit, and you'll see that it actually is not completely worth dismissing outright. One of the big problems with unwanted romantic advances is that they can come unexpectedly: you're there to do a deal, and the other person is trying to find a way of getting in your pants; you give out your number for business, other person calls you with non-business propositions. It's stressful a…

I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?

I understand where you're coming from, and that's fine.

As for context, I disagree--I think this is a perfectly fine time for it--OP was saying, in effect, "Folks, we're about to do Demo Day, don't be scumbags and/or harass our founders; there's a price to that."

My comment was in response to a (completely valid and correct!) complaint about the tainting of business relationships for investing with romantic/sexual nonsense. I asked a question that several people interpreted as crass, which is unfortunate. I later refined and elaborated on the topic, showing it could be taken quite seriously and evaluated beyond just being thought of as some lowbrow joke.

The troubling thing to me about this all is the out-of-hand rejection of the idea without further argument than "This idea makes us really uncomfortable, and we summarily refuse to evaluate it".

It's a sign of intellectual laziness, of prejudice, and perhaps most unfortunately, mob mentality on a forum I generally respect.

If we want to fix a lot of these issues we have as an industry, we can't shy away from ideas we find odious or comfortable: we must engage them on their own ground and show them to be folly.

It's a pity that more people don't see that.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#253

Post by angersock »

dang wrote: post #166
angersock wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's actually explore the idea a bit, and you'll see that it actually is not completely worth dismissing outright. One of the big problems with unwanted romantic advances is that they can come unexpectedly: you're there to do a deal, and the other person is trying to find a way of getting in your pants; you give out your number for business, other person calls you with non-business propositions. It's stressful a…

This comment was killed by user flags.

steveklabnik posted a good link for PG's take on downvotes--do we have a similar reference for flagging? I recall a couple of polls on it, but beyond that, nothing comes to mind.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#254

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was never accused of any misconduct beyond wearing sunglasses while disagreeing with feminists. This is self-evidently false, so much so that I'm confused as to how you could have written this comment.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing Pax Dickinson with someone else. http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... http://www.businessinsider.com/statement-2013-9 Just a bunch of tweets mocking feminists, liberals and Mel Gibson. [edit: Tom I really don't understand how you think this disagrees with what I said above. How do these links imply any misconduct, or anything other than disagreeing with fem…

You just refuted your own comment upthread and pretended like that was a rebuttal!

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#255

Post by swombat »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #177
tptacek wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really unfortunate comment. The actual points it makes are superficial and, unusually for you, not backed by anything other than anecdote. It's mean-spirited. And most importantly, it's written in a way that can't possibly persuade anyone who isn't already on your side. You're too smart to believe you're trying to communicate here, so I'm left believing you're writing this comment just to stick a fork in pe…

Lately I stick to purely factual arguments, and as a result ignore most of HN. For some reason I felt like actually having a conversation on HN today. I don't expect this comment to persuade most people. However, I do believe the argument I'm making here, and I believe it can persuade some people. HN is a pretty good crowd. For example, over a few years, I've observed the conversation about HFT on here has shifted wi…

My opinion: the comment was a little on the weak side, but the analysis on your blog is sound. In other words, I agree that this blog post is likely to be signalling. Not that I disagree with the signal being sent. It's a sensible signal to want to send!

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#256

Post by angersock »

gohrt wrote: post #190
dsg42 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the fuck kind of response is this? Attitudes like this are the reason harassment is a problem in the tech industry. Yes, it happens. Occasionally. But not in a situation with these kinds of power dynamics. It is never appropriate to flirt with someone who is trying to engage in a business transaction with you. No exceptions.

Never? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Gates

Carmack as well, I'd bet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Anna_Kang

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#257

Post by dsirijus »

cylinder wrote: post #239
dsirijus wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for Hefner.

And here is how you casually reveal your misogyny.

Good that you haven't caught on any actual argument I've provided, but a casual non-offensive joke.

Please continue traversing irrelevant nodes.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#258

Post by axlprose »

dragonwriter wrote: post #184
axlprose wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the fact that we have powerful regulatory bodies like the EPA, and are much better off environmentally than countries like India and China is somehow just a fluke? Global warming is an environmentalist issue, but environmentalism != coherent global warming prevention -- that's really not a small problem, and would be a tall order for any nation to fill.

> Then the fact that we have powerful regulatory bodies like the EPA, and are much better off environmentally than countries like India and China is somehow just a fluke? The EPA does not exist to address global warming specifically. The claim I addressed was that "we as a country are trying to do something about global warming", not "we as a country are trying to do something about environmental issues more generall…

You are correct. Apologies if it appeared I was talking specifically about global warming, but the context was with regards to what the parent was addressing with "being green" and the environmentalist movement as a whole, so that was the main point I was trying to convey.

But in any case, global warming is an environmentalist issue, and the environmentalist ideology does have power -- whether or not the government has managed to take coherent action about it yet is not indicative of the significance of the issue within the nation, because like I said, it is not a simple issue to solve, and we are still doing more[0] than India and China to help it anyway. And like I said in my original comment, while there is obviously still much room for improvement, there's no need to undermine what we have done to fight it... we'd all be worse of if environmental progress completely stopped in the 60's. Still a shame that we haven't done more of course.

[0] actively regulating pollution is a form of action...

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#259

Post by lisper »

angersock wrote: post #252
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?

I understand where you're coming from, and that's fine. As for context, I disagree--I think this is a perfectly fine time for it--OP was saying, in effect, "Folks, we're about to do Demo Day, don't be scumbags and/or harass our founders; there's a price to that." My comment was in response to a (completely valid and correct!) complaint about the tainting of business relationships for investing with romantic/sexual no…

I thought you answered your own question:

"I imagine such a thing would be amazingly toxic and hopefully collapse into a vortex of bad."

That's exactly right. Your idea is nothing more than a thin veneer over a brothel. And that's exactly the reason it merits no further discussion. (Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with brothels, but that's not what HN is about.)

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#260

Post by lobotryas »

StandardFuture wrote: post #133
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?

>Can we have it some other time? No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.

Disagreed. Any form of discrimination or ignorance should be challenged with more dialogue instead of less. Take whatever abhorrent ideological position you can think of and I will tell you that we should discuss it publicly, challenge it publicly, and destroy it intellectually in a public forum.

This has the advantages of:

* the person who held these thoughts outs themselves as a bigot as opposed to being a toxic agent

* a corpus of knowledge how to dispel/combat such positions is formed

* people who may be in the beginning stages of harboring such ideas are either discouraged due to strong public pushback or are helped to realize how wrong that position is

Post reply on HN