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

When Nerds Collide (2014)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 361 posts

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#321

Post by mistermann »

djcapelis wrote: post #28
mistermann wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brogrammer is perhaps used for efficiency, so you don't have to write a 10 page screed as we just read (which was excellent by the way). I don't think there's any way to say it in a non-derogatory way if the central message is derogatory. The article seemed to be saying, we have a culture, and if you people infiltrate it, there is a good chance you will ruin it. I happen to agree with him.

> I happen to agree with him. Her, for whatever it's worth.

Well that's a nice surprise.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#322

Post by Buge »

Kalium wrote: post #285
Buge wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant the 4 in the list (women, bisexuals, Texans, engineers).

The last item is "engineers who aren't hackers". I have no idea if Meredith is bisexual or Texan.

Here's what the sentence is saying:

There are people who aren't like me who are hackers. Also there are people who are like me who aren't hackers.

The list of people who aren't like her is: progressive, libertarian, anarchist, moderate, communist, conservative, liberal, and reactionary.

The list of people who are like her is: women, bisexuals, Texans, or engineers.

Why else would she come up with 4 random traits? They obviously have something in common: they describe her.

The "who aren't hackers" part doesn't apply directly to engineers. It applies to the entire list. So if you were to parenthesize it to show precedence it would be "(women, bisexuals, Texans, or engineers) who aren’t hackers." Not "women, bisexuals, Texans, or (engineers who aren’t hackers)."

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#323

Post by questerzen »

Not everyone has had the same negative social experiences. I was very lucky to go to a school where being an outsider with nerdy interests was respected so long as you did it with passion, aspired to excellence, and were not afraid to show others what you found cool; and we were expected to have the same respect for the sportsmen, musicians, artists etc. In a sense we were all doing the same thing through different outlets. It's a culture I'm very proud to have been a part of and it produced some great people in many different fields. In contrast, in my programming niche, I frequently feel uncomfortable with the level of aggression and exclusion on display - every comment on a forum seems like you are exposing yourself to ridicule and judgement. Conversely, in pure maths forums, which I also participate in, the atmosphere is far more welcoming, open, patient and respectful of good work. I think the problem is that in computing it is far easier to be a dilettante and much harder to tell the difference. Yes, all communities will have their dicks, but responding with aggression and elitism pollutes the community for everyone and encourages hostile and collective responses from others: be sure that the dicks are a lot better at playing hardball and ganging up together than we are. Let's take some responsibility for creating communities we're proud to be a part of. Please.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#324

Post by c3o »

angersock wrote: post #177
arrrg wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meritocracy is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It’s an illusion, a joke.

Diversity is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It's an illusion, a joke. Equality is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It's an illusion, a joke. See what I did there? You've got to explain why you think it's a bullshit term--because as an ideal, it's a damned sight more useful than whatever else people are pushing.

- Because the criteria of "merit" usually "just happen" to be a description of the people who get to define them and evaluate others.

- Because measuring only at the finishing line while ignoring how far people have had to come is in fact unequal, not equal treatment.

- Because the concept victim-blames those who aren’t allowed/enabled/supported to succeed according to it.

- Because it's a really astounding statistical anomaly that all those "meritocratic" communities "who don't care about gender etc." are in practice ridiculously less diverse than the population in general.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#325

Post by wpietri »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #246
wpietri wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And I'll add that a private conversation is one thing. A conversation had in the middle of a crowd is another. And it's another still when that crowd is at a convention with a code of conduct and the conversation violates it.

I think the article mentions how in the good old days, conventions didn't have (or need) codes of conduct and a politically correct squad on standby to escort people out of the building if they made innocuous jokes that anyone turning on the TV to watch a sitcom gets peppered with (followed by laugh tapes to make sure people understand that it was supposed to be funny). What was said code of conduct? Saying things in…

The good old days? Seriously? Hearkening back to a mythical golden age is your response?

This is the code of conduct: https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/

In particular, I think this was the part that was violated: "All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks."

The jokes were about forking and big dongles; they were obvious sexual references. The maker of the joke, the overhearer, and the people running the conference all agreed that it was a code of conduct violation, so there's nothing really up for debate about that.

That you don't understand why these codes were created or what practical benefit they have means little other that you haven't taken the time to learn anything before opening your mouth.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#326

Post by pseudoplatypus »

forgottenpass wrote: post #319
pseudoplatypus wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, tech went mainstream and blockbuster movies are made out of cult classic books. That's one of the points in the post, those things used to be signals of particular kind of person but are no longer. They were more than signals, they were the culture that reflected the values we identified with: the wonder of discovery, the beauty of places that didn't exist, the value of smarts and imagination. Those values ar…

And, do people do unjust oppressive things in the name of justice and anti-oppression? Sure. So you're obviously aware why conversations about where the line between activism and asshole-ness is always turns to shit. You'll understand why I'm gonna bail on this conversation.

Ok, I don't need you to or expect you to reply. Just, consider this if you wish: when you are told that people are harmed by things other people in your community do, or things you might be doing without thinking, is it not worthwhile to listen?

Take this whole discussion, for example. My takeaways are that:

1) There is a group/generation/subset within nerd culture that has had "social norms" and "proper conduct" used as a weapon against them, in order to attack them over what they feel is unintentional social clumsiness or voluntary disregard of norms they don't agree with, without intent of harming anyone. I tend to trust what people tell me, so I now believe this is a significant grievance for a number of people. It was never quite as large a part of my own experience with nerdyness, but I acknowledge it has been for others.

2) Public shamming is an effective tactic (in pointing people to the existence of a problem), but also a terribly aggressive one towards the person being named. Specially if they are only been picked as an example of what is considered bad only because of how common the behavior is and the toll it exerts on people in aggregate, not just that particular instance. This is, by the way, a point I have seen made before, within activist communities. I'd still argue naming and shamming is a valid response in cases of obvious ill intent or physical harm (e.g. rape), but not for all types of "inappropriate behavior" (in which I am including unintentional or miss-measured psychological harm).

Could you, reciprocally, consider giving some though as to whether some of the things people label as unwelcoming, harmful or oppressive within a subset of nerd culture might be real grievances as well? How about considering whether the people exposing these grievances really come from outside the community, or from within? Or whether or not, if the grievances are real, they are right to demand that the culture addresses them?

And, while I stand by the point you quoted, I'd still wager more oppressive things happen in the name of "this is how we always have acted" and "you are not really part of this group", than in the name of anti-oppression.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#327

Post by pseudoplatypus »

mcguire wrote: post #156
kaitai wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, blfr... but: If people like hyperion2010 or others want an abrasive culture, why can't they take what they dish? Why is it so ok for someone to call me a c*&t but I can't say the words "male privilege"?

Because they're on the inside and you're on the outside.

Is she? Why?

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#328

Post by pekk »

nailer wrote: post #86
pekk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are interested in certain things that are not mainstream, and then other people who aren't really interested in those things come in and screw things up for interested people by acting in a selfish and conceited and exclusionary way, and we call those people jackasses or brogrammers or whatever, that doesn't make us the same as them. It's just an observation. And any culture worth its salt rejects forces active…

Really? I thought brogrammers were programmers that exercise and aren't introverted. Never really considered brogrammers to be a 'force trying to tear down programming'. At least that describes everyone I've ever met described that way, including some very talented, welcoming people. Likewise, some of the most technically talented people in node identify as feminists. Thinking about it (which I'm forced to because my…

"I thought brogrammers were programmers that exercise and aren't introverted."

I don't know how on earth you reached that bizarre conclusion. For starters, if that's what it means, then how would it be derogatory and then why would people be complaining about the word?

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#329

Post by djcapelis »

Buge wrote: post #322
Kalium wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last item is "engineers who aren't hackers". I have no idea if Meredith is bisexual or Texan.

Here's what the sentence is saying: There are people who aren't like me who are hackers. Also there are people who are like me who aren't hackers. The list of people who aren't like her is: progressive, libertarian, anarchist, moderate, communist, conservative, liberal, and reactionary. The list of people who are like her is: women, bisexuals, Texans, or engineers. Why else would she come up with 4 random traits? The…

Oh, that makes more sense when it's parsed that way! English is often ambiguous. If you're familiar with Meredith's work, the fact that this thread is all basically because of a parsing error is all very funny.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#330

Post by copsarebastards »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #314
hsod wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"“You felt fear?” I asked. “Danger,” she said. “Clearly my body was telling me, ‘You are unsafe.’” [...] “You talked about danger,” I said. “What were you imagining might…?” “Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at them and women are afraid that men will kill them?” she replied. “So. Yeah.” from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-s...

Quoting a witty Margaret Atwood line two years after the fact is not the same as saying "my life was threatened by someone". She's clearly describing a physical reaction to anxiety, hair standing up on her neck at the thought of a confrontation, which reminded her of school. If not she could have answered the simple question "You felt fear?" with "Yes, I feared for my life".

hsod quoted what I was referring to, and whether you buy my interpretation or not, what I said was not an "easily disproved lie".

Also, hsod didn't even quote the entire thing, and context only makes it look worse for her. The interviewer gave her plenty of chances to clarify her position, that the quote was just talking about anxiety. But she stuck to what she said. She definitely believed that she was in physical danger.

Post reply on HN