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

191–200 of 361 posts

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#191

Post by tedks »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #26

This article is so spot on and covers many of the things that have bothered me for years about people who try to join nerd communities and then immediately start complaining about "inappropriate behavior" (eg the dongle thing). Yes, there are cases where there is real inappropriate behavior surrounding positions of power in corporate or workplace settings, but in the community at large and in the communal and public…

It's definitely spot-on. I think it has a great example of anti-feminist/male-privileged mindset:

> Desire for civility and freedom from objectification is "censorship"

> Wanting to not support misogynists/rape apologists/rape denialists/sexual predators is worse than the soviets

> My fear of social ostracism is as or more valid than your fear of being raped

> My chosen "identities" are as important as the assigned social castes you've been placed in and are violently oppressed into staying in

> Not having friends in high school is the same as being a woman, or black

Eventually feminism will win; anti-racism will win; these are inevitabilities we can trace from the first slave revolts in Sumeria to John Brown to the Black Panther Party to even Barack Obama, in his own way. The ratchet of history turns only ever in one direction. Reactionaries howl over lost ground, but they'll never reclaim it.

I eagerly await this world, where finally we will have real hackers, hackers that bring their skill to bear against real enemies, fight real battles, and are strong, rather than weak, building on a foundation of just conflict between the oppressors and the oppressed, rather than being mentally locked in the 3rd grade in the moment of shame when their lunch money was taken.

One day the creeps will be gone. Only the strong will survive. Choose your side wisely, for you can only be on one side of history, and one it has left you behind you will be behind it forever.

>Trying to convince hacker culture to change its norms by appealing to progressive values alone won’t work. You’re going to have to appeal to hacker values, and nobody’s done that yet.

If progressive values are not hacker values, the hacker values will be, should be, and must be destroyed.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#192

Post by anon1385 »

reitanqild wrote: post #183
gadders wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, how would you apply the above to Brendan Eich?

That is a sad case of people proving that once the tables got turned the once who once was oppressed will happily deny others the right of free speech. And, the majority, the ones who care less about right and wrong as long as they are on the correct side, will happily follow along, just as they did when Catholics ruled, just as they did when White Straight ruled.

The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to not face any social consequences for your speech.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#193

Post by jf »

hueving wrote: post #77
jf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to meet people "talking hacker-speak" in the Bay Area, then I would suggest that you go to events that would only attract that sort of person. In general this will mean shying away from events about technological pop-culture and instead focusing on the events that cover very specific and "boring" topics. In your particular case, I would suggest going to events that focus on building things ("project night…

We need a meetup group dedicated to strategies for writing parsers. There is nothing 'hip' about that so it should flush out the standard meetup cruft (e.g. "my name is X, i'm a non-technical person looking for a technical cofounder").

This sounds amazing. How do I learn more?

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#194

Post by sgift »

Argorak wrote: post #100
sgift wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable. The real problem is that there is no coherent definition of abuse and people who are better at playing the social game use that skill to define every…

That's exactly the reason why I put up CoCs for example - we define what is inacceptable in a certain space and put it in clear writing to avoid gaming. It binds the organizers as much as the attendees. It cuts out the play. For example, CoCs for dating environments look very differently then those for confs. (did you know there are cuddling meetups and they have very strict rules to ensure people feel comfortable?)…

I think that CoCs are not bad, but the question asked by the article or rather the problem found is: Who writes the CoCs? Who is "we"? My understanding of the article is that there's a "weirdo nerd" group, which has their CoCs. These are rather loosely defined (the weirdos like it this way) and build the status quo (because the weirdos were there first, they defined the space, they wrote the first CoC). Now, various groups of newcomers - all better versed in the social game than the original CoC authors - join this space and start a "war of CoCs". Every new subgroup says "We and ONLY WE have the right to push CoCs", while the next subgroup cries foul, because in their world only THEY are the final arbiters of the CoCs. That's why we are both right on the point of "good at the game": Some groups use the "we are bad at the game, so don't bother us" tactic and try to win the war that way. Another group is more direct and uses the "we are good at the game, so listen to us" tactic, another group uses a third tactic. All abuse their skills for their own purposes. But that is not the point.

The point is: In the end none of these group has a right to redefine the CoCs. They've joined a space which has been built by the "weirdo nerds" for their purposes and has the CoCs those deemed fair. Joining this space was no problem, the "weirdo nerds" welcomed them (or didn't bother to say: GO AWAY, both interpretations are acceptable), but now they try to dominate this space by abusing their skills in the "game of social skills" and rewrite the spaces CoC to one they like more and that's neither fair nor right.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#195

Post by misuba »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #171
misuba wrote: post #23

But the proof can't be made. If you’re conditioned to feel like an outsider, you’re going to believe the rejection is always lurking around the corner, and the acceptance is never real, never complete. You’ll remain in sullen sureness that outside is where you’ve been placed — or you’ll keep testing , poking and prodding for the thing you could do that’s horrible enough to prove that you were never really welcome. Th…

It's not always about just being wounded. Many became "weird nerds" because they don't like the tons of bullshit, politics and signalling games mainstream society lives and breathes. You can't "fix" them without destroying who they really are. I say them, but I myself am a part of this group.

If, by your own admission, you just don't like something, you can't claim that "who [you] really are" is being "destroyed" if you're taught how to avoid injury in dealing with it. Your pet peeves are not a part of you.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#196

Post by reitanqild »

anon1385 wrote: post #192
reitanqild wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a sad case of people proving that once the tables got turned the once who once was oppressed will happily deny others the right of free speech. And, the majority, the ones who care less about right and wrong as long as they are on the correct side, will happily follow along, just as they did when Catholics ruled, just as they did when White Straight ruled.

The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to not face any social consequences for your speech.

Funny that you should bring that up: Until recently it was the other way around - tell someone you aren't straight and risk losing the job.

Why is it suddenly be acceptable the other way around?

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#197

Post by misuba »

spiritplumber wrote: post #42
misuba wrote: post #23

But the proof can't be made. If you’re conditioned to feel like an outsider, you’re going to believe the rejection is always lurking around the corner, and the acceptance is never real, never complete. You’ll remain in sullen sureness that outside is where you’ve been placed — or you’ll keep testing , poking and prodding for the thing you could do that’s horrible enough to prove that you were never really welcome. Th…

Definitely the case over here.

And, I should be clear, for me as well. I happen not to have bad reactions to expressions of feminism - if I knew how I avoided that, believe me, I'd tell the world - but I carry those wounds from my childhood and they fuck up my life every day.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#198

Post by misuba »

paul wrote: post #49

This article is delightfully thoughtful. Her other post is also worth reading: https://medium.com/@maradydd/okay-feminism-its-time-we-had-a... It makes me wonder though how much nerd culture is driven by forms of autism. Those wishing to end oppression women should be careful that they are not instead perpetuating the oppression of autistic people.

Please, please, please do not help every nerd who experiences discomfort at being called out on sexism to believe they have some undiagnosed shadow syndrome and are being oppressed because of it. Please don't do that. If only because it would be profoundly disrespectful to people with real diagnoses.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#199

Post by modfodder »

angersock wrote: post #182
modfodder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: barry-cotter affirmative action: I believe is a necessary evil as white society has refused to correct the wrongs of the past. After 400+ years of systemic physical and economic oppression you can't just expect to say "we're now going to treat you as equals" and everything is ok. That is not to say improvements haven't been made but when power structures are designed to suck the economic and physical power from o…

a true merit based system should provide equally safe and secure environments for all citizens to thrive Incorrect. The best and worst part of a meritocracy is that, if you don't have merit you don't belong. There is no obligation to "all citizens". Now, the corollary to this is that, if a citizen proves their merit, they must be rewarded for it, because that's the social contract in play. But, there is no reason tha…

Yes, true if speaking of a pure meritocracy. I was more imagining something close to our current society but merit based (one where people aren't just discarded for lack of certain merits).

I don't disagree that a system has to reward unproven individuals. My point in most of these comments is that we, no matter how much we say we are choosing based solely on merit or production, most often are not. We are a bundle of overt and hidden biases.

Re: When Nerds Collide (2014)

#200

Post by picks_at_nits »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #172
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who try to join nerd communities and then immediately start complaining about "inappropriate behavior" (eg the dongle thing) You seem very sure about when Adria Richards (the lady involved in "donglegate") "tried" to join the nerd community. And yet you're wrong. Here's a partial bio from a recent article: "She was introverted, smart, and "weird" (according to the other kids)—a burgeoning nerd. By age 17, sh…

Is the dongle thing even remotely defensible? She got a man fired over a private conversation. One of the rules of civilized behavior is that you don't do that .

What exactly did she do? I recall she complained on Twitter, and exercised her freedom of speech to express her opinion. A number of people shared that opinion and also spoke freely about their opinion.

In the fullness of time, his employers acted like craven cowards and sacked him. Did she sack him? No.

Was he scarred for life? Ostracized? No, he found work again quickly. But what happened to her? A bunch of other people exercised their freedom of speech and shared their opinion of her choices, and she was also fired. Was she ostracized? Yes. People said things like, “She should never work in tech again.”

To anyone on the outside of that incident, it’s quite obvious that the treatment of the two persons involved was completely asymmetrical, especially considering that what she did was express an unpopular opinion.

Which is something that hackers, especially hackers here, often say is something that ought to be protected. But there’s always the weasel words that “speech has consequences,” which mean that in reality, “privilege” is being insulated from those consequences, and lack of privilege is being exposed to the maximum consequences.

Getting back to your rules, she didn’t get anyone fired. She spoke out about something that was said in a public place loudly enough for her to hear it.

I’ll gladly defend that. There is nothing remotely civilized about saying that she shouldn’t be allowed to object to anything she hears, or express her opinion about how a civilized society should respond.

White males do that all the time. Why is a black, Jewish female not afforded the same option?

Post reply on HN