Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#371

Post by philwelch » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #370

philwelch wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given that you leapt in to accuse me of being part of HUAC Speaking of failing to comprehend the exact words someone wrote. If you want to be taken seriously you should extend the same courtesy to others, even those who disagree with you, full stop. I was disagreeing with you in good faith because I was troubled by the implications of what I thought you were saying, and instead of providing any kind of helpful…

Ok. Taking you at your word: I'm sorry if I misunderstood. You drew an analogy to Arthur Miller and communism. I presume the reference was to Miller's famous troubles with HUAC. Not seeing anybody else nearby, I assumed was the witch-hunter in this analogy. I also assumed that you were equating anti-sexist efforts with anti-Communist hysteria, which I think is a) wrong, and b) insulting to the last 150 years of peopl…

I do think that "anti-sexist efforts" have risen to the level of a witch-hunt or anti-Communist hysteria, which is not to say I'm supportive of sexism any more than a critic of HUAC was necessarily supportive of communism. I think that's a reasonable way of looking at things and if you can't imagine someone holding that opinion in good faith then I suppose we have no more to talk about.

Specifically, I think it's reasonable for Uber executives to take exception to their company being characterized as misogynistic. I don't think taking exception, even strong exception, to these accusations is a misogynistic act in itself.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#372

Post by wpietri » Sat, Nov 22, 2014, 2:05 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #371

wpietri wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Taking you at your word: I'm sorry if I misunderstood. You drew an analogy to Arthur Miller and communism. I presume the reference was to Miller's famous troubles with HUAC. Not seeing anybody else nearby, I assumed was the witch-hunter in this analogy. I also assumed that you were equating anti-sexist efforts with anti-Communist hysteria, which I think is a) wrong, and b) insulting to the last 150 years of peopl…

I do think that "anti-sexist efforts" have risen to the level of a witch-hunt or anti-Communist hysteria, which is not to say I'm supportive of sexism any more than a critic of HUAC was necessarily supportive of communism. I think that's a reasonable way of looking at things and if you can't imagine someone holding that opinion in good faith then I suppose we have no more to talk about. Specifically, I think it's rea…

I agree that it is reasonable for people to disagree with their company being characterized as misogynistic. However, I continue to believe that responding to reasonable accusations of sexism by spinning elaborate fantasies of revenge against a woman could reasonably be taken as further evidence of sexism. (I also believe that it's deeply improper to try to keep journalists from journalism: the First Amendment includes press because they are a foundational part of a functioning democracy. But that's mostly beside the point here.)

Do I believe that one can in good faith believe that current concerns about sexism are a witch hunt? (Note that "hysteria" is an unfortunate word choice here in that it was an imaginary disease used to smear women for centuries, and the name itself is rooted in the notion that having lady parts makes you crazy.) Sure, I guess. In the same sense that I think one can have a good-faith belief that anthropogenic climate change isn't real. In both cases I think some are consciously acting in bad faith. But I think the bulk just don't know enough about the topic to have a valid opinion, so they run with the one that's politically and/or personally convenient for them to have.

As a guy, I get it: the shift from thousands of years of male domination to something more equitable feels like a loss. We quite literally didn't have to think about how women would take things. Now suddenly our speech and actions are having consequences they didn't used to have. It's easy to feel that we get in trouble for saying "normal" things. But it didn't work the other way: women always had to be conscious of how men would take what they said.

The system of beliefs and behaviors that punished women for speaking up and speaking out is on the wane, but as we see with Kathy Sierra, it's still powerful. Until it's destroyed, I think everybody has an obligation to help end it, or at least stay out of the way. And when people do things that look a lot like supporting and continuing that system (as Michael did here) they should not be surprised when people do not look charitably upon that.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#373

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 9:53 PM UTC

Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…

[deleted]