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

Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

geekchick77.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 392 posts

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#381

Post by oinksoft »

geekchick77 wrote: post #327
oinksoft wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I did! It seemed the posting account was a "Denise", and recent changelogs on the project website only attributed documentation changes to her. Her approach to "hacking" sure differs from mine ... from using "#!./tbenv/bin/python" (rather than "/usr/bin/env python" which will find the virtualenv link) making the code unusable for most people out of the box, to requiring a bunch of third-party libs to complete a…

I'm not hard to find, if you are interested: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jessamynsmith I didn't know there was a more elegant way to do the shebang. I've fixed that now. It hadn't occurred to me that there was a particular advantage to being able to reload without restarting, but I am considering that now. Personally, I prefer using libraries to reinventing the wheel. YMMV.

For me, that depends on the size of the library and how much I am using it. I really don't need a library to handle the logic of connecting to a server and sending things as simple as IRC messages. This is not something that I really expect to use outside the context of a bot. However, if there were a good library for creating a flexible bot (which would thus include the small low-level IRC stuff) then I would be interested. But investigating what was out there for creating IRC bots in Python, I really wasn't impressed. Most every bot framework is designed for sitting in one channel and listening for specific commands or command prefixes. Nothing wrong with that, but that only covers one sort of IRC bot.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#382

Post by wpietri »

batista wrote: post #370
wpietri wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am indeed saying that you are acting like a nutjob. Well recognized. And nice work confirming that with a rambling 25-paragraph reply.

> I am indeed saying that you are acting like a nutjob. Well recognized. And nice work confirming that with a rambling 25-paragraph reply Let's see: another ad-hominen insult, and still no specifics or counterarguments. Oh, and you managed to miss all of my arguments. And the problem is the length of my reply. Yes, I can see how I am the nutjob for expressing an unpopular opinion (with arguments), and not being satis…

I have no obligation to respond to a raft of talking points from somebody I don't perceive as sincerely interested in having a discussion. I have better things to do.

If you'd like to know my particular positions on this issue, I've commented plenty in this and related threads. If you have some particular sincere question (that is, a non-rhetorical question) about some view I have expressed, feel free to ask.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#383

Post by bct »

temphn wrote: post #374
bct wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> down-vote the heretic > "forbidden thought" > I don't care about "thought crimes". Bad news: you're not the brave thinker that you seem to think you are (in fact your "forbidden thought" is probably more common than the alternative that we're presenting!). People aren't disagreeing with you because they think it's morally wrong to think the way you do, they disagree because they think you're wrong .

No, you are disagreeing solely because you have been trained to do so in college. Unlike batista you are not reasoning from first principles (which start with the brute fact of XX and XY), you are instead simply siding with those who have the most power among the elites. There are a lot more feminist Harvard grads than Harvard grads who explicitly endorse Larry Summers' conclusions. Thus if you want to advance your c…

Those are some pretty wild assumptions you've got there.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#384

Post by geekchick77 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #220
wpietri wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! Startup cofounder here. Working in and with startups since Web 0.8. I see you're a student, so I want to take the time to be clear: Suppose you worked at my startup. Suppose further that you suggested to one of your colleagues, as you did now, that they quit because they weren't inclined to put up with what they saw as a hostile work environment. You know who would be gone? You. Startups are a team sport. We don'…

I see that I need to update my bio... The reason I am so pissed is that I work in a company where we do things and make jokes that would get you kicked out the door in most suit companies and everybody enjoys it -- including the girls (who are often the best) -- and yes there is the guy who doesn't find it funny to change his screen, so we don't. To him. If he finds it obnoxious that we make those jokes with others,…

Given that you've said you would try to force someone who didn't agree with you out of the company, I'm sure all your current coworkers are completely honest with you about what they enjoy.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#385

Post by goblin89 »

jasonlotito wrote: post #373
batista wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Can you point to the rude parts? Or is that too much to ask? > Any of his comments in this thread are rude. Practically each on seethed with immaturity and rudeness for the other people in the thread. Any particular part? Yeah, the parts where he was commenting . So, you accuse the other guy of being rude, but when asked to give a specific example, you resort to platitudes and generalities. Thanks for the mature c…

> So, you accuse the other guy of being rude You > but when asked to give a specific example, you resort to platitudes and generalities. You first reply was littered with immaturity and insults. Everyone after that is combative, abrasive, and immature. Considering your contribution up to this point, I've put in far too much effort already. > Thanks for the mature contribution. You're welcome. At the very least, you c…

> You first reply was littered with immaturity and insults.

Sorry, I tried to verify that, but it looks like it is your comment, the one mentioning an immature brat, that sounds at least very arrogant and condescending, if not rude. I honestly fail to notice such qualities or insults in batista's comments down the thread after yours (although complaints about being downvoted he certainly could omit). Though it might be my insufficient understanding of language or culture, so I'd be grateful if you point out the offending parts.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#386

Post by wpietri »

bmelton wrote: post #371
ugh wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, wow. You are the false equivalency master. The problem here is not that the bot is annoying, the problem is that the bot is sexist. Responding to sexist remarks with something that signifies that those remarks are sexist is not the same as making sexist remarks. Whether or not those two bots are annoying is a different issue that is now used as an excuse to rationalize hating on the second bot. How can you be so…

It's not that I'm blind to that, it's that I don't consider it a good enough excuse to go around pestering one's co-workers. The other thing is that there are more than two parties in this situation. There is the guy who put the TWSS bot in place, and there's this person, who put the anti-TWSS bot in place. Let's assume you're the third person (or fourth, fifth, whatever). You didn't put any bots in place. You're jus…

If I were the third, fourth, or fifth person, I wouldn't want my co-workers to feel like they were working in a place where they weren't welcome. Because it's by having great co-workers and a collegial environment that I expect to make my startup work.

Also, you're putting your thumb heavily on the scale here. Adding a bot that responds to "TWSS" jokes hardly makes an IRC channel "half as useful as it was".

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#387

Post by groby_b »

hosh wrote: post #341
groby_b wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least partially that might well be because society perpetuates the stereotype that gut-reactions are a female thing, guys are really bad at listening to their heart, and in general emotionally stunted. At some point, it becomes internalized - and you see men simply ignoring emotions and feelings that they're well aware of. Sure, it's dressed in sugar coating ("guys are rational !"), but it's still affecting behavi…

Ignoring your gut or your heart is a behavior that can be unlearned through various means, including meditation. Being mindful of your emotions has nothing to do with society and stereotypes, and everything to do with your own habits of the mind and experiencing reality as is.

And society and prevalent stereotypes shape your habits and how you experience reality in the first place. Nobody is saying you can never get rid of this behavior - just that we're all being indoctrinated from a very early age, and that it takes lots of work to break that conditioning.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#388

Post by Strallus »

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #147
ElliotMingee wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how logic works... I don't mean to be condescending but, when a word has a specific definition, it's pretty straightforward to determine whether or not it accurately describes a situation. Consider it like a mathematical proof: credentials, judges, and everything else are irrelevant if you've shown the word doesn't apply.

Whose definition, though? "It is argued that sexual objectification is a form of sexism" - http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Sexism

TWSS isn't a case of objectification, though. Objects don't talk.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#389

Post by Strallus »

unalone wrote: post #73
Strallus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most slang words for penis (and other slang words describing men) are also normal words. (wood, hard, sausage, pork, balls) This is not the case with slang words for the female anatomy, which usually have no place in daily conversation. Google "slang for penis" and "slang for vagina" if you don't believe me/don't know very many slang words. Consequently, something a women would say in bed is more likely to crop up in…

The fact that the woman is only talking because she's in bed is what makes her a sexual object. The shes of this world say a whole lot more than cheesy bedroom euphemisms, you know. But the joke is situated on the premise that it's cool to brag about what a man's made a woman say while fucking her, or, its opposite, that it's embarrassing and unmanly if a woman's been disappointed by a man in the bedroom. In either c…

The thing is: Women are the fuckees. The man is the one doing the fucking. That's just how nature works.

Re: Jessamyn Smith: Fighting sexist jokes with a Python bot

#390

Post by geekchick77 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #163
wpietri wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Also, what's up with Miss Manners suggesting other ways for people to be polite? Why is she keeping me down with her "chew with your mouth closed" and "use the toilet paper, not the hand towels" bullshit! No one can police me! The constitution say so! I DO WHAT I WANT! Or, and I'm just thinking out loud here, we could recognize that, especially in professional contexts, we actually want to behave towards our col…

There is a difference -- you can ignore miss manners if you want (at your peril) in this case you have the room equivalent of a screaming maniac yell at you (politely) each time you do something wrong. And yes if you had that in real life, it would be considered rude.

"bot quoting a notable woman" == "the room equivalent of a screaming maniac yell at you (politely)"

That's quite the assertion you are making.

Post reply on HN