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

The Disinvitation

blog.cleancoder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: The Disinvitation

#51

Post by dmit »

deogeo wrote: post #50
dmit wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I invited a dozen guests to a party at my house and half of them objected to having #7 on the guest list because he's a shitbag, it would not bother me one bit to have him disinvited. If, on the other hand, I myself were disinvited in such a manner, my first thought would be to reassess my recent behavior rather than suing the house owner.

Of course, when faced with a few loud complainers, you would never consider yourself to be right, and them wrong. You would recognize the folly of your ways, and the wisdom of the crowd that was right all along.

> If, , my first thought would be

> Of course, when , you would never consider

Presented without comment.

Re: The Disinvitation

#52

Post by vapapav »

duskwuff wrote: post #48
emsy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verbal agreements still count as contracts in some jurisdictions and having your schedule booked on a certain date means you're missing out on paying opportunities. I assume you're employed otherwise you wouldn't spout nonsense like that.

There is no contract, verbal or otherwise, because there was no consideration -- Martin would not have received anything in exchange for giving his presentation. (Intangible benefits like "exposure" don't count as consideration for the purposes of contract law.) The conference never had any obligations to him, and consequently he has not lost anything by no longer being engaged to speak. Even if there had been a spea…

And conversely, if he had backed out last minute for personal reasons, it would have sucked for the conference, but they wouldn't have been able to go after him for damages.

Re: The Disinvitation

#53

Post by disposekinetics »

pojntfx wrote: post #16
zarkov99 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? What is wrong with that? And what does the election cycle have to do with building software?

When someone like him still fills his blog with GamerGate-like Anti-SJW rhetoric in 2020, they are either stuck in the past or are actively still holding these beliefs, which are once expressed incompatible with the CoC.

How is being anti-social justice as a philosophical stance exclude one from working within the bounds of a CoC?

Social justice as an ideology is deeply flawed and runs counter to liberal democratic principles. Every CoC I've seen is just rules for engaging on an open source project. Clearly one could oppose a philosophy and abide by the terms of a CoC. A CoC isn't about policing people, but about civility and rules of engagement for a specific thing.

I would like clarity, as it seems like you are saying that that CoCs are exactly the ideological purity test and purge the detractors like to claim they are, but that seems uncharitable.

Re: The Disinvitation

#55

Post by quantified »

shaggyfrog wrote: post #39
quantified wrote: post #37

I wouldn’t have cancelled the contract, we’re not getting anywhere with purity tests. We can appreciate what George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did AND disapprove of their slaveholding. Life is ambiguous and messy. The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recent…

This is not a discussion looking back 250 years at someone. It's looking back on the behaviour of someone living 1 year ago. Or yesterday. Or today.

True... I can’t glean your point, though. Are we disagreeing somewhere, or are you amplifying/concurring? Am I missing something so egregious (a call to race war or similar) that he’s an incitement danger on the order of a Richard Spencer? I don’t even agree with him on every tech subject.

Re: The Disinvitation

#56

Post by antjanus »

zarkov99 wrote: post #35
jddj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From memory I think (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) there were some articles about hiring on merit rather than promoting gender (and possibly race/culture) diversity as an ideal?

Isn't it tragic that that stands out as objectionable?

it's tragic that people think merit-based promotions and hiring actually exist. Meritocracy is flawed and extremely biased -- because people that enforce meritocracy are biased.

Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?

There are literally studies on this.

Re: The Disinvitation

#57

Post by crawfordcomeaux »

mplewis wrote: post #7

"Disinviting someone from a virtual conference who can draw a potentially large audience away from that virtual conference is not a particularly intelligent tactic." I think Uncle Bob greatly overestimates his pull in the tech talks world.

And if not, certainly seems to value quantity over quality.

That's pre-apocalyptic thinking.

Re: The Disinvitation

#59

Post by tartoran »

I think he shouldn't have been dis-invited from the conference. But, on the other hand, I find Rob Martin overrated and very much like an snakeoil salesman, he needs to peddle something. He is very opinionated and his opinion changes too quickly to be useful, so he's not a person I really want to waste my time learning from. There are plenty of people out there who don't pretend to be gurus and yet what they teach is infinitely more useful.

Re: The Disinvitation

#60

Post by duskwuff »

dmit wrote: post #46
duskwuff wrote: post #9

So, let me get this straight. Conference asks Martin to give a presentation. No money is to change hands, no contract is signed. Conference changes their mind and decides to not have him speak after all. Martin's reaction is to throw around legal threats like "breech of contract" [sic] and "tortious interference"??? Sounds to me like the conference dodged a bullet.

There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit! This is all about getting exposure and perhaps channeling wallets towards his Patreon (or SubscribeStar, or whatever platform is en vogue with the bob martins right now).

> There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit!

Of course not. But that isn't my point.

My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.

Post reply on HN