Public Apology to Jeremy Howard • Hacker News Board

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#271

Post by tchaffee » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #72

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned: 1) Liberal values are associated with privilege. 2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from l…

Systems without a CoC are just as authoritarian, but the rules just are unwritten and favor the privileged.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#272

Post by tchaffee » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #38

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

Do you think it’s possible to empathize with people who are harassed, or experience harassment, and oppose codes of conduct? Assume that empathy includes caring about protecting people.

People don't want empathy. They want solutions that fix the existing and long-standing problems. Lacking a better solution, CoCs are here to stay. So if you really oppose CoCs, the burden of creating a better solution is on you.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#273

Post by omginternets » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #263

omginternets wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're being downvoted because people are misreading your tone, but I agree with the overall sentiment: D&I is often (though not always) coded language for "critical-theory ideology". I'm likewise suspicious of organizations that reify this in a particular board or department, especially when the company culture seems to be very procedural, bureaucratic and/or CYA. When it comes to weeding out *ism, these g…

> Edit: I don't really think the parent comment needed to be flagged ... You can vouch: - click on the timestamp - click vouch - IIRC dang will taking vouching privileges if he spots someone abusing it

I did not know this! Thanks!

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#274

Post by suckitfuckers » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

franga2000 wrote: post #229

chowned wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can criticize this specific instance of CoC enforcement without making fun of legitimate gender issues in technology.

Not OP, but I don't think they were making fun of the legitimate issues. There have been plenty of instances of pronoun-related overreactions in and outside the tech sector - see the recent-ish StackOverflow mess for an example. There are obviously many issues, but there are also many overblown non-issues and I don't see much harm in making fun of those.

Some people make jokes and don't realize the effect they have on the people who have to be the victims of those comments day in and day out. I'm sorry if that's not easy to understand. These are the same people who think women don't belong in tech, or that people who choose pronouns are "snowflakes". It's why we don't have as many women in tech and it really needs to stop.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#275

Post by SilasX » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #150

dsq wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have violated the CoC by presuming to use the honorific "sir", thus promoting gender opression!

FWIW I've got a female friend who was in enlisted the US Navy and she spoke of female naval officers who were addressed as "Sir" rather than "Ma'am" (though most went by "Ma'am"). So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.

That's a common trope in sci-fi -- I think Star Trek TNG and Battlestar Gallactica had the female officers addressed as "sir".

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#276

Post by Yetanfou » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #259

Yetanfou wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purpo…

I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.

But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk. As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to take back control over the meaning of words and the fact that words in fact have specific meanings which can not and should not be allowed to be changed on the spot to fit some narrative - viz. Websters dictionary suddenly changing the definition of the term 'preference' [1,2].

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-defini...

[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/merriam-webster-barrett-se...

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#277

Post by gojomo » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

mundo wrote: post #228

gojomo wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems nitpicky. Saying "we apologize" multiple times is the same as "we're sorry". They've said their communications were in error in the way they described the complaints, the status of the investigation, and their charged language. They've kicked the whole thing up to the responsible organizational Board of Directors for more action - which is to say, completely removed the group that made the errors from next…

They did apologize, but not for the stuff Howard complained about. A: You kicked in my front door, walked in unannounced, and stole my TV! B: I apologize unreservedly. I should have announced myself.

They apologize for, and I quote, all of the following:

* "our handling" * "causing this stress" * "a crucial miscommunication" * "not communicating... clearly" that "the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined" * "overly-charged language" * "saying a violation occurred" * failing to say "multiple complaints have been made" * failing to say "the alleged violation investigation had not been resolved"

Given that all of the problem interactions were communications that misled & distressed Howard, what did they miss? The 1st two words, "our handling", were already expansive enough to cover all their actions, and all the admissions of miscommunication acknowledge that he'd previously been told the wrong things about the actual progress.

(You could ungenerously call those prior & now-admitted misstatements "lies". But when you're trying to return to a friendly mutual resolution, with redress for wrongs, it's helpful to let people characterize earlier errors as mistakes rather than intentionally-hurtful deceptions. And, as bad as the bad communications were, they're more likely overzealous young inquisitors who thought they were doing right, and needed more coaching/practice, than consciously mean & deceptive people. So let them apologize!)

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#278

Post by tkt » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

adamcharnock wrote: post #173

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What fascinates me is that all companies and organisations (at a certain scale) will have to decide a governance structure that is better than - that guy is in charge. Co-ops are one step forward but that was basically a century ago and stopped. What's the 21 C answer?

I came across the concept of teal [1] companies a few years ago, perhaps that may be relevant / of interest. The article talks about the various ways of structuring organisations, giving each a colour. The author sees teal companies as the latest evolution. [1]: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00344?gko=30876

Thank you for this. I hadn’t seen the teal management approach described before.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#279

Post by omginternets » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

jph00 wrote: post #185

I'm not going to read the comments here, for obvious reasons, but I do just want to clarify three things: - I accept the apology. - I do not accept the assertion that "At the time of the interview, the committee had not determined that there was a violation of the code of conduct, only that there were two complaints filed and being examined." The email to set up the call said "We would like to schedule a meeting so t…

I respect and admire your class in response to these events. The temptation to get vindictive must be enormous, as must be the temptation to demand a groveling apology.

I noted your support for diversity and inclusion initiatives —- with which I sympathize —- but I’m also increasingly uneasy about the pressure from certain interest groups to “judicialize” organizations. I’ve noticed a tendency for many (though certainly not all) CoC-enforcement bodies to devolve into witch hunts, and this appears to be part of what happened in the present case. If this is something you’re interested in discussing publicly, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the matter. I can also understand if you’d prefer to stay away from that discussion.

In any case, please let me reiterate: I admire how you handled this.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#280

Post by omginternets » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #233

wskinner wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the real issue. CoC proponents seem to think writing down the correct rules is sufficient. But rules are only as good or bad as their enforcement.

CoCs didn't jump out of the void for no reason. They are a response to years of harassment and unprofessional behavior at conferences. Conferences have always had a list of rules to follow and breaking the rules could get you ejected from the conference. In theory all a CoC should do is codify some bad behaviors that people believe to be acceptable but are actually not, so in that regard they shouldn't be controversi…

I think I agree with your points on the surface, but disagree with (what I presume to be) your implications. It sounds like you're arguing that the current system is somehow a step forward. I very much question that.

To your point, CoCs are not really the issue. The issue is that CoCs and their subsequent enforcement are often advanced by ideological zealots engaging in witch hunts. I don't see how that is in any way an improvement over the status quo. I see no evidence that suggests these zealots are able to effectively deal with real harassment when it happens, either.

>All we can do is judge them by their actions.

Quite right.