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

301–310 of 450 posts

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#301

Post by coldtea »

kweinber wrote: post #289
coldtea wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except if you make it to "fame/success status". Then you can use the minority card all the time in your favour.

Kind of like MLK, or Malcolm X, or Marcus Garvey, etc. etc.? What about those minorities wrongfully imprisoned for long periods of time for nothing short of suspicion before being released with no charges (or worse)? I'm pretty sure their public removal was a little harsher and unfair without a so-called minority card to play.

>Kind of like MLK, or Malcolm X, or Marcus Garvey, etc. etc.?

No, kind of like in 2016.

>What about those minorities wrongfully imprisoned for long periods of time for nothing short of suspicion before being released with no charges (or worse)?

What about them? I've talked about famous people.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#302

Post by Naracion »

A Pastebin of a Nodevember Slack channel, should provide more context: http://pastebin.com/3mQc7DfG

There is some discussion about the reason, and whether Nodevember should disclose a reason or make a public statement. For instance:

"Josh Crews [9:57 AM] Maybe Nodevember could make a public statement along these lines, "After announcing Crockford as a keynote speaker, we learned from others of things he's done and said at previous conferences that are against our Code of Conduct"

HermitPy [9:57 AM] why do we need to do that

[9:57] what does that do other than add more fuel to a fire?

Andrew Albright [9:57 AM] It would save people time for trying to find the answer themselves

[9:58] 'cause I burned at least ten minutes this morning to satiate my curiosity

HermitPy [9:58 AM] I personally hope people will do some research and form their own opinion

Andrew Albright [9:58 AM] ^ good point

Josh Crews [9:58 AM] you are reputation tarnishing somebody if you are not clear about the disinvitation

Andrew Albright [9:58 AM] opinion and reason for the decision are two different things though

HermitPy [9:58 AM] no doubt

Russ Anderson [9:58 AM] I will say that it’s difficult to do the research. I don’t think the twitter trail is very edifying. This chat has been much more helpful.

HermitPy [9:59 AM] We're dismissing a keynoter without context other than they didn't fit our view of the community (edited)

Russ Anderson [9:59 AM] however, I agree that you don’t owe anyone anything

HermitPy [10:00 AM] All this whole thing has done is ensure that I won't do one more fucking thing for the community, so next year other people can run their own conference and pick their own shit and deal with it (edited)"

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#303

Post by ajamesm »

tptacek wrote: post #299

Unlike the controversies about Strangeloop (which uninvited Curtis Yarvin) and Lambdaconf (which lost the overwhelming majority of its sponsors due to accepting Yarvin), this --- based on the evidence at hand --- seems entirely stupid. Unfortunately, there's no rulebook conference organizers (or their Greek choruses on message boards) can consult to say when rejecting a speaker is a good idea or not. It's a judgement…

> Unfortunately, there's no rulebook conference organizers (or their Greek choruses on message boards) can consult to say when rejecting a speaker is a good idea or not. It's a judgement call.

There is! if they bothered to write one.

I know, I know, everyone gets up in arms about Codes of Conduct, because they're oppressive SJW tools used to silence men, or whatever. But this, right here, is their use case.

If you want definitive standards, by which we can semi-objectively measure whether someone should be dis-invited from a conference, then consider a community statement of what constitutes [un]acceptable behavior.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#304

Post by [deleted] »

EdSharkey wrote: post #111

The whole bit about Kas saying "mmm" to Crockford's face when he said an insensitive thing and then publicly shaming him once he was safely back on the internet galls me, if true. Culturally, our tendency to troll needs to decrease on the web and increase in in-person encounters. I'm convinced we'd all be better off if we showed some spine and got more vocal whenever we disagree. I also don't like these (I assume) in…

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#305

Post by tptacek »

ajamesm wrote: post #303
tptacek wrote: post #299

Unlike the controversies about Strangeloop (which uninvited Curtis Yarvin) and Lambdaconf (which lost the overwhelming majority of its sponsors due to accepting Yarvin), this --- based on the evidence at hand --- seems entirely stupid. Unfortunately, there's no rulebook conference organizers (or their Greek choruses on message boards) can consult to say when rejecting a speaker is a good idea or not. It's a judgement…

> Unfortunately, there's no rulebook conference organizers (or their Greek choruses on message boards) can consult to say when rejecting a speaker is a good idea or not. It's a judgement call. There is! if they bothered to write one. I know, I know, everyone gets up in arms about Codes of Conduct, because they're oppressive SJW tools used to silence men, or whatever. But this, right here, is their use case. If you wa…

Virtually every code of conduct will prohibit misogyny. But that's part of what Crockford seems to have been accused of. The problem isn't judging the underlying issues; the problem is judging whether they're really manifest in a particular speaker, or whether (instead) that speaker just happened to piss someone off with a grudge.

Again: there could be stuff going on here that we don't get to know about.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#306

Post by minusSeven »

rtpg wrote: post #215
gnarbarian wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to bet that he didn't pose any danger to these people other than having the gall to publicly harbor opinions they are uncomfortable with. In other words, diversity does not extend to diversity of opinion.

So what? The talk organizers were faced with a dilemma: either keep Crawford and lose a bunch of other speakers or lose Crawford but keep others I do think clarification is needed, but I could see "being a jerk " as a legit reason to not want to associate with someone. People do the same with people like Torvalds Being unliked is also a reason that people won't want to associate with you.

Why can't we all just be a professional and move on ?

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#307

Post by [deleted] »

oldmanjay wrote: post #50
nopit wrote: post #3

Why is crybullying so rampant in the tech community?

Because there is a lot of money and power, which attracts politics, of which "crybullying" is a tactical maneuver. Also, it's a terrible word in an aesthetic sense. People don't try to bring much elegance to neologisms these days. Such a pity.

[deleted]

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#308

Post by ajamesm »

tptacek wrote: post #305
ajamesm wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, there's no rulebook conference organizers (or their Greek choruses on message boards) can consult to say when rejecting a speaker is a good idea or not. It's a judgement call. There is! if they bothered to write one. I know, I know, everyone gets up in arms about Codes of Conduct, because they're oppressive SJW tools used to silence men, or whatever. But this, right here, is their use case. If you wa…

Virtually every code of conduct will prohibit misogyny. But that's part of what Crockford seems to have been accused of. The problem isn't judging the underlying issues; the problem is judging whether they're really manifest in a particular speaker, or whether (instead) that speaker just happened to piss someone off with a grudge. Again: there could be stuff going on here that we don't get to know about.

"misogyny" meaning... being a misogynist? being labeled a misogynist? a documented history of sexual harassment? being a man raised in Western society? using misogynist language? the "B-word" or the "C-word"? talking over another panelist? forcible rape? eating miso soup? being socially awkward? getting called out on Twitter? having pictures of half-naked women in your slide deck, as a build-up to a joke? trying to pick up women?

I would hope that we all agree on "no misogyny" as an ideal, but that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. What is the actionable threshold? Both personally, and for your community? (Rhetorical question.)

The reader might say "now you're infantilizing convention attendees" and I don't disagree. Over-specifying behavioral standards is indeed infantilizing. But I would say that, to the degree you refuse to specify acceptable behavior, you waive your right to criticize arbitrary action taken by the management.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#310

Post by oldmanjay »

cgcardona wrote: post #75
oldmanjay wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is a lot of money and power, which attracts politics, of which "crybullying" is a tactical maneuver. Also, it's a terrible word in an aesthetic sense. People don't try to bring much elegance to neologisms these days. Such a pity.

I'm generally interested in why you think it's a terrible word in the aesthetic sense? thx.

Because it conflicts with my sense of English aesthetics. Sorry for not supplying anything more interesting than that but it is what it is.

Edit: I thought a little further about it, and I can expand a bit. It's in the unhappy valley between too clever and not clever enough. Sort of like referring to Comcast as comcrap.

Post reply on HN