Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds • Hacker News Board

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#91

Post by lawnchair_larry » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #20

cjf4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this complaint several times, but personally have yet to see any comments attributing the disaster to Theranos's founder being a woman.

And, yet, her catastrophe and the fact that it is founded by a woman gets vastly more press than any female successes. So, one must wonder why that is. And my feeling is that it is a form of sexism and the subtext is "See, this is why you shouldn't put a woman in charge." Also, at this point, there are six comments refuting what I said. Why is that? If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need…

Honest answer? Because it's fucking annoying.

You can't just decide to put reprehensible words in someones mouth and accuse them of bad behavior based on what you (wrongly) assume is in their head. I think you would protest if someone did that to you, no?

Also, nobody called you crazy or stupid. Telling someone that they are wrong is not telling them that they are crazy or stupid.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#92

Post by lawnchair_larry » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #26

yumyai wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need to step up and inform me of my error?" Because it is wrong?

Oh, and in addition to all the downvotes and the pile on, you needed to create a brand new account to join the pile on. But, sure, I am just a vitriolic, hysterical woman who is oversensitive. I couldn't possibly have a valid point or concern.

Why is it that you cannot simply be wrong on one particular comment, rather than be wrong, vitriolic, hysterical, ovsersensitive, and incapable of any valid point?

You're imposing a false dichotomy here. Being wrong doesn't include all of these offensive insults for anybody else. Why is it different for you?

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#93

Post by brilliantcode » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #58

brilliantcode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why the rest of YC is downvoting and claiming this isn't the case. If you search previous Theranos threads, you will find questionable comments extrapolating a blanket view on women in tech.

So it happened? I mean geez, "welcome to the internet," but are any of them credible? It seems just as unfair to extrapolate a blanket view on commentary about Theranos if it's just random shitposters.

Well I just find it hypocritical that the mods would censor dubious and subjective criteria for what's considered unsubstantial a.k.a. whoever the HN elite circles dislike or feels like a threat to their narrative.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#94

Post by brilliantcode » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #56

brilliantcode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why the rest of YC is downvoting and claiming this isn't the case. If you search previous Theranos threads, you will find questionable comments extrapolating a blanket view on women in tech.

Thank you.

No problem. As someone who is a firm believer in social equality across gender, orientation, race, culture and religious identity., it irks to me see the subtle and cleverly veiled micro-aggressions that women face in this environment where logic regardless of it's merit dominates all else, even empathy.

It's also the result of being around highly technocentric where we've erroneously optimized for logic as the driver in all debates. Unfortunately, dialectics aren't very popular.

For example, I regularly see transphobic statements that simply go undownvoted/unflagged on HN. I was even downvoted for adding Chelsea Manning, a transgender whistleblower, had full rights to be the correct gender because it was a human right.

Ever since Trump got elected, I find HN picked up a bit of intolerance.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#95

Post by grzm » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #93

rhizome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it happened? I mean geez, "welcome to the internet," but are any of them credible? It seems just as unfair to extrapolate a blanket view on commentary about Theranos if it's just random shitposters.

Well I just find it hypocritical that the mods would censor dubious and subjective criteria for what's considered unsubstantial a.k.a. whoever the HN elite circles dislike or feels like a threat to their narrative.

There are two mods on HN: 'dang and 'sctb. It's not clear to me if you're referring to the two of them in particular or using mod in a more general sense to refer to anyone who is voting or flagging. If the latter, I'd recommend not using the term mod this way on HN. If the former and you believe you have legitimate concerns about their activity (which they're quite open about), I recommend contacting them via the Contact link in the footer and raising the issues you see. In my experience they're very forthcoming.

In my experience, people often have a (completely understandable and human) selective view of downvoting and flagging activity. There's a wide variety of opinions and perspectives on HN and I've seen all of them downvoted or flagged at one time or another, just as I've seen commenters of all persuasions be civil, well-reasoned, and, unfortunately, egregiously trollish and ranty.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#96

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #5

To my disgust, the biggest thing most people seem to take away from it is "Yup, that's what happens when a woman is in charge of a business." I'm a woman. I am fine with her burning. But, geez, I hate the idea that there is lava-like splash back spattering all other women in the world who are trying to be taken seriously.

[deleted]