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

441–450 of 450 posts

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#441

Post by laser »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #155
laser wrote: post #77

Given information publicly available this seems infuriatingly ridiculous, but Nodevember's official statement in response seems quite reasonable: http://nodevember.org/statement.html The theories here about sociopaths attempting to exert control are quite exotic and interesting, though :P

> Given information publicly available this seems infuriatingly ridiculous, but Nodevember's official statement in response seems quite reasonable: http://nodevember.org/statement.html That statement is the opposite of reasonable. If you're going to call someone out, publicly, that they're making other speakers uncomfortable to the point where they won't show up if he's there (when he was one of the first confirmed s…

I didn't mean to suggest their initial behavior was reasonable. In their statement that I referenced they apologize for their initially insensitive behavior and offer to refund tickets for anyone that no longer wishes to attend. Does this excuse their initial gaffe? No. Is it a reasonable way to move forward given their mistake? I think so. Is it their obligation, and is it in the best interest of people to further elaborate on their decision at this point? Depending on the details, quite possibly not.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#442

Post by PavlovsCat »

pryce wrote: post #429
Corrado wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, if you don't have some solid evidence that a talk will be offensive, how can you ban it. Is this the Minority Report where you are punished for things you haven't done yet? Mr. Crockford is a leading Javascript expert, kicking him our of your Javascript conference should only be done with some very compelling facts not just hearsay and conjecture that you can't tell anyone about.

> Crockford is a leading Javascript expert, How is this relevant? This idea that we should apply different standards to "leading Javascript experts" than other people is far more troubling than the idea that a speaker might be invited to and then disinvited from a conference from time to time. > should only be done with some very compelling facts not just hearsay and conjecture I have already given several plausible…

> a speaker might be invited to and then disinvited from a conference from time to time

Alright then, nobody ever talk to that offended person in any shape or form again, ever. No biggie when that happens from time to time, right? And I can make a good case for it, too, certainly a better one than then non-case we were being presented with. You can invite her to anything, she can has any job, just nobody be friends with her. When she asks you something, act deaf. That's not too much too ask, correct? Totally fair, no biggie, we're not wearing armbands over here at all.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#443

Post by PavlovsCat »

jondubois wrote: post #227
rdtsc wrote: post #34

> We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all. If they are going to insinuate things about what he said, they should mention exactly what he said or did. The fact that they don't somehow tells me there is not much there to go on. To put it another way, if they have the guts to remove Crockford that should have enough guts to c…

The JavaScript/Node.js community attracts a lot of young programmers compared to other communities - But there are also a lot of older people - The range is just broader; that's why we often get into these kinds of debates... I guess it makes it more exciting.

But there is no debate, that's kind of the problem. There is vague doublespeak with fine print declaring no further replies will be made. Old or young, this is just inept.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#444

Post by PavlovsCat »

IsaacL wrote: post #377
tzs wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sympathetic to the cause of feminism especially in technology and I cringe hard at a lot of the casual sexism that gets thrown around, but this is truly baffling. It's not that baffling. Being a victim of harassment raises your status in certain circles. People in those circles tend to accept your word without requiring any other evidence, and so naturally some people will find harassment in anything tha…

Dude, dude, dude, you've almost identified the real issue here (interpreting everything as harassment for the sake of an agenda), and then gone off onto wild elaborate tangents about social status and evolutionary biology. Look at the actual people who incite these campaigns (e.g., https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 ). "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes". The…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBRGMcdAKzs&t=13m15s

"I have a theory, feel free to prove me wrong by "kicking out" "toxic actors", I dare you".

The sad part is, I think she does have a point. People who treat each other decently might soon enough LEARN to be great coders, while being good at something is really no excuse to be a dick. Not that I think Crockford is one, but generally speaking; the better you are, the more polite you ought to be towards "little ones", or you're an asshole. But the whole logic of let's prove it by assuming it's true, with ZERO thought given to what to do if it turns out wrong, is just one gaping wound of a brainfart, I'm just astonished. I'm not not just saying that to be snarky: it does remind me of things Hannah Arendt wrote about totalitarian propaganda, e.g. someone is declared as unfit to live and then killed, proving the theory correct, with some pseudo-scientific, pseudo-compassionate babble on the side. Oh, but they're "just" declaring people as non-existing for them and any decent person, so that's different, right? Well, not different enough to be acceptable. One way in which it is the SAME is that the words are just a bunch of hot air and sophistry, the standards are all double - it's all about the action, the movement, the in-group. You don't have to build concentration camps for there to be something deeply wrong with that.

> They can't be unaware of the messages they themselves are sending.

Oh, as foot soldiers of course they can be unaware. Between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect there isn't anything anyone cannot get themselves to believe.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#445

Post by hasteur »

It's overreactions to marginally risque content that strip humor from talks.

I'd hate to think what the "PC police" would say to the very tenured college abstract calculas professor who accidentally asked us to derive the tangent to secant z. He paused after writing sec(z) and made the comment in front of the entire lecture hall "I'm sure we all would like to be sexy."

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#446

Post by PavlovsCat »

habitue wrote: post #119
maglavaitss wrote: post #101

Leave Douglas alone!! (on a more serious note, I guess we're done with Appelbaum's lynching, so the next target is Douglas Crockford?)

Big difference there! Applebaum blatantly crossed the line sexual harassment. Crockford... is kinda cranky?

He was blatantly accused of being a "sociopath, rapist, plagiarist", with no hard evidence on even the plagiarism claim. After the hit job was done, the entitled victims retreated into their wagon circle of blocking people on twitter or at best writing soppy articles full of straw men and other sophistry, supported by hack "journalists" just parroting their side of the story. They openly displayed the narcissistic and psychopathic behavior they accused Appelbaum of, yet somehow, because they attacked first, noticing that was somehow beyond the ken of large swaths of the baffled crowd.

In all aspects that matter, this is the same stuff: they are projecting and displaying double standards, they are crying victim while attacking, and when the response is not as enthusiastic as hoped for, there is just a unilateral declaring it all over. That's all there was with Appelbaum, that's all there will be now. That's the pattern, if anything, and it's not just about the things people say and do, it's also what they are incapable or unwilling of. It's about the personal dysfunctions of the people in the lynch mob, not about what the person they were lynching may have done. That would be settled amongst adults in good faith, not via antics like this. In this case, the antics, the "medium", ARE the message and the content.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#447

Post by PavlovsCat »

eli wrote: post #92
aikah wrote: post #41

TLDR; personal vendetta against Crockford led to accusations of "sexism", and him getting uninvited from Nodevember conference. There is absolutely no proof of sexism anywhere ,only a bunch of people who want to take him out professionally because he might have pissed them off for whatever reason in the past. Only now these people can use dubious political arguments to justify their vendetta. This can happen to anybo…

I don't think public evidence of sexism matters if other speakers were uncomfortable enough to withdraw from the conference. They're trying to run a conference where people feel comfortable, not hold a public tribunal.

Of course it matters: it determines who is the aggressor in this. Whatever argument you could make for "making others uncomfortable", it goes orders of magnitude more for the shit they pulled and the lukewarm reaction to it. That people don't want the tribunal, and inform others of the execution after the fact is the problem not the solution, and "I cannot judge this" to me just reads like code for washing your hands of not even trying. Plenty of variations of that to be had, all cloaking cowardice as intelligence or morality. SSDD.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#448

Post by angry_octet »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #314
guitarbill wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar story. I worked really hard on my English accent, something I regret now. If you have a German accent you can speak more directly. Because many know about this cultural difference, people are expecting you to be more direct, and can cope with it. If you have a British accent and you're direct, this doesn't work. Brits think you're rude, but here's the kicker, won't tell you this - they'll just ignore you. For…

Interesting story, if you had fostered an American accent you'd have avoided the issue as well. They expect Americans to be abrasive. Behind you 100% on the Brits ignoring you thing. They're very responsible for the perception of what "polite" means and I blame them for so much passive aggression in what is considered "politically correct" speech. If you've ever watched their politics it's a damn joke. They fall all…

Since when are Americans abrasive?! Polite to a fault is more usual. The French otoh, wow.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#449

Post by PavlovsCat »

tptacek wrote: post #355
mzw_mzw wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But events like Nodevember, Strange Loop, and Lambdaconf are not academic conferences, they're not a serious part of the citation record for their field, they're put on by private citizens with their own objectives, they're fundamentally about entertainment, and they can make whatever calls they want." Claiming that a technical conference is "fundamentally about entertainment" is about as convincing a dodge as those…

I am very much a message board nerd; it has never been my intent in invoking that term to set myself apart from other people. You can verify that for yourself with the search bar at the bottom of the page: I'm usually pretty careful to include the words "like us". I wasn't this time, but now you know, and we don't need to litigate that point anymore. Your latter point is pure relativism. What can't you say that about…

> people suggesting that excluding any speaker ever

Oh? I did not see a single comment to that precise effect. Care to source that? Otherwise, why do you turn what actually is being said into a caricature, then turn around and accuse others of wanting things to be simple?

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#450

Post by [deleted] »

pryce wrote: post #396
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…

Nodevember is offering refunds, so it's very hard to see how this could be a scam, and difficult to imagine how Nodevember would stand to make anything but a large loss by removing Crockford as a speaker. They chose to proceed with this anyway, which is indicative of serious concerns. Removing him as a speaker and remaining quiet about the exact reasons can mean any number of things. Suppose they have compelling reas…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN