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

In defence of Douglas Crockford

atom-morgan.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 450 posts

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#261

Post by prance »

justaaron wrote: post #252
prance wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, absolutely reasonable. They say that multiple other speakers have stated that Crockford's "presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak." So they chose to prioritise them over him, something which they can totally do as organisers. Do they owe everyone a detailed explanation for that? I think not.

1) "owe" - as in some kind of contractual obligation? were I a ticket-holder or Mr. Crockford, I would speak of being owed something, but I think you are using a strange word for a privately-presented public-conference that has insinuated quite a LOT, actually, by such a provocative statement. This private organization presenting this public conference can, of course, refuse to divulge anything it wishes to. The sten…

I meant "owe" more like as in "you owe me one". If contractual obligations for ticket holders exist, I guess they'd have to offer a refund.

Regarding the other meaning, I could only repeat myself: they state that some other speakers have big problems with Crockford, and that they chose them over him. I think it's totally ok for them to do that, even without providing more information.

In fact, it's totally conceivable that revealing more information could hurt more people, or the same people more, or Crockford himself, or all of this. I fail to see how it would "advance humanity" if they did such a thing.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#262

Post by eli »

iopq wrote: post #135
eli wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they insinuated anything beyond that he apparently made others uncomfortable.

"We have deleted eli's messages from HN because he made others felt uncomfortable."

If the HN moderators wanted to do that after reviewing complaints against me, it's certainly within their rights.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#263

Post by hackaflocka »

douche wrote: post #218
hackaflocka wrote: post #191

David Crockford, if you are reading this: You need to declare yourself a closeted gender-queer trans-sexual immediately. After that, anything you say will be excused due to past oppression. And the conference will re-instate you. Drop a message below if you want my help with this. I will give you a step by step PR strategy to achieve this. Paul Graham: if you're reading this, would this be a viable startup idea? Help…

I don't think that's enough to take out all the stain in the minds of the pitchfork brigade. Just look at Milo Yiannopoulos. Even being gay isn't enough to shield some opinions.

If Milo weren't gay and Jewish, he'd have the EU human rights commission on his ass. In a bad way.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#264

Post by eli »

justaaron wrote: post #167
cheez wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it looks now, the people who voiced concerns and threatened to pull out were the same person.

which begs the questions: 1) whom 2) why and it's rather "put-up or shut-up" time, I'd say. I've never heard of this conference. I've read Crockfords books, and while any given person on earth may be a total bear to deal with, I'm not buying this greasy smarmy "he'd been uninvited for undisclosed reasons but we'll imply lot's of socially-disapproved-of reasons without confirming nor denying any of them" what a kafka-…

They're free to invite and disinvite whoever they please. You're free to not attend. I don't think airing private grievances will help anyone.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#265

Post by guitarbill »

eli wrote: post #262
iopq wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have deleted eli's messages from HN because he made others felt uncomfortable."

If the HN moderators wanted to do that after reviewing complaints against me, it's certainly within their rights.

> after reviewing complaints against me

you'll have gotten better treatment than Mr. Crockford did, because clearly there wasn't much reviewing done by Nodevember. Otherwise, they could surely fill us in on what they reviewed?

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#267

Post by defen »

EdSharkey wrote: post #125
defen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about instead of crybullies we call them Corinthians. > And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I stro…

I think that was an affirmation of God's saving grace. It describes the ease of putting one's faith in God when suffering under great stress or pain or loss. The 'grace' comes from the fact that God won't judge us for our sins because Jesus took our place in the courtroom. So rather than our being damned, Jesus saved us through His perfect sacrifice. Crybullies are the persecutors, no? They're the ones to pray to God…

Well it's obviously not the originally intended message, but the idea is that "crybullies" get their strength from weakness, in the sense that it gives them a feeling of moral superiority due to victimhood. They then use this as a platform to attack opponents. "Punching down" is the worst sin in the modern liberal conception of morality, so if your peer group consists of those people (and that means, nearly everyone in the middle and upper classes of modern western society) then you can very effectively have someone shunned by the group if you paint them as an oppressor. It doesn't appear to matter how tenuous those claims are, if the purported victims are sufficiently weak.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#268

Post by forgottenacc56 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #160

The Nodevember folk(s) posted a statement regarding this whole kerfuffle [1]. It's pretty hollow IMO. > While we have a tremendous respect for Mr. Crockford's abilities as a speaker and his contributions to our craft, we became aware that based on private feedback - not simply the dialogue on Twitter - that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak. Okay so…

Stand up cowards and respond to this excellent comment.

The conference organizers are making me feel uncomfortable.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#269

Post by calgoo »

eli wrote: post #262
iopq wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have deleted eli's messages from HN because he made others felt uncomfortable."

If the HN moderators wanted to do that after reviewing complaints against me, it's certainly within their rights.

You are missing the point... It does not matter if you feel comfortable or not. If you dont like something someone says, you dont have to attend. Instead of ruining a conference for people who dont care that someone uses normal language to describe things. Heck, I like speakers to be a bit raw, including people like Linus etc. So what if they are a jerk, I value them on their work, not their language. Of course I also have a personal limit of what i can classify as "acceptable", but if someone goes over that limit, i just ignore and move along. Why would i try to change the speaker or event to cater to me? Even if it was a slur or comment directed at me, it would be so much easier to just ignore it. I dont understand what gives these people the balls too try to publicly shame someone who have produced so much more value to society and tech then most of these guys combined.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#270

Post by mcphage »

mpweiher wrote: post #212
madeofpalk wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the way that sentence would normally be said where I'm from (Australia) would be "as long as they give a good talk" - no need to use specifics when you're talking about a specific person. I find it disjoining when I hear otherwise. I also find it weird that German and Spanish inject gender into every noun, although I do get that there's little meaning behind it (from the little quizzing I've given speakers of eac…

> But the way that sentence would normally be said where I'm from (Australia) would be "as long as they give a good talk" Yes, language evolves. Currently, this is almost certainly grammatically incorrect, "they" being the third person plural and (not shown here, but assumed) the speaker being singular. "They" is being pressed into service as the non-derogatory, gender-neutral third person singular that's missing in…

> Currently, this is almost certainly grammatically incorrect, "they" being the third person plural and (not shown here, but assumed) the speaker being singular.

"They" has been grammatically correct for single person of unspecified gender for hundreds of years. Do a little research before saying ignorant things.

Post reply on HN