Crockford
paulstraw.svbtle.com
paulstraw.svbtle.com
They can now say - "Hey - you have to listen to us! We Matter! Look at what we forced the Nodevember people to do. We're a moral authority!".
To go from complaining about a lack of diversity, to basically saying 'you screwed up and now need to prove your love to us by uninviting this JS superstar'. It's like the stereotypical abusive boy/girl friend requiring their lover to do something they normally wouldn't do to prove their love.
It's simple bullying, really.
What drives me to despair is that all too frequently it takes only a cursory glance at the Twitter feed of the person making the loudest complaints regarding inclusivity and diversity to find comments which compromise these values.
The individual in this instance goes by @nexxylove on Twitter, and has recently retweeted such statements as: "We love our freedom rhetoric in this country, but most white don't actually believe in true freedom. Removing choice is their default"[0] and "…I'm tired of the intellectual dishonesty of cis men. Disgusting."[1].
Thankfully I see significant effort by those around me to tackle these problems discreetly and in sobriety. Inclusivity isn't an extreme position, and discourse need not be monopolised by those who shout the loudest.
[0] https://twitter.com/polotek/status/772113530761859072 [1] https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771182690238287872
Think you're tolerant because, say, you don't mind being around gay people? Well, do you hate gay people? If you say no to that, then you aren't being tolerant at all by being around them, you're just normal.
Do you hate, say, Neo-nazis? Then you can demonstrate your tolerance by engaging with them politely and professionally if you encounter any.
Apparently, at some point, we not only ran away from being proud of our tolerance, many people are wearing their level of intolerance as a badge of pride. In some circles, it seems to be a good thing to find anybody who disagrees with you in some way, and gather a virtual lynch mob to make sure that the worst thing you can arrange happens to them.
Personally, I don't think Crockford did anything wrong. But if you do, why don't you try demonstrating your tolerance by welcoming him at your conference anyways and listening to his views on technical subjects? If he says something that bothers you, you can calmly and politely explain to him how his statement hurt you, or maybe even just let it go. That's what tolerance looks like.
Can we please get back to making real tolerance something to be proud of?
We now live in a world where anything is done to appease you if you only cry loud enough. It always used to be the case in personal conflicts that whoever was better at mud slinging had a significant hand up as compared to someone who's less talented, but in combination with the new fad of Crybullying, this is a devastating tactic.
Most often it turned out the complaining person was the problem.
Worst cases were third parties who requested such actions on behalf of the "victim". They were loud, asked other members to complain too and even showed up in our offices to demand account closings - without any proof or valid reasoning.
I never understood how people handle their real lives without being able to argue or verbally discuss such issues. Even if these include occasional insults. IMHO these are just words - you don't need to cry for higher authorities (site admins, conference organizers or law authorities) all the time.
My guess is they handle it very well, because they're just using a strategy that works out perfectly for them. This only has to be learned or reinforced once, and it becomes a problem solving strategy for life because it's such an easy exploit to use with our social protocols. It can be used to solve pretty much every issue where they can win by exerting pressure.
Whoever happens to get in their way also often takes permanent damage by being labeled something bad that sticks and this hampers that person's ability to not only resolve the issue at hand but prevents them from being heard in the future as well. Either way, you either acquiesce or you get bulldozed.
Considering the main value is out of the speakers selling before having much of anything confirmed or even finished just screams like yet another conference trying to cash in (they're even taking sponsors, too).
I don't mind conferences where you have to pay mind you but I've only seen the small, borderline scammy conferences where you have to pay before finding out the full line up of speakers.
Now if it's a free conference? Then I'm all for it almost always for it. YCombinator Start-up school comes to mind; I enjoyed it a lot the last time and I'm going to the upcoming one :)
You always have the option of not buying a ticket until seeing the speakers list, but you risk losing your early bird pricing or the conference selling out. I suppose that if attendees have so much confidence that they are willing to commit before seeing the speaker list and the conference sells out, one can't really argue against this model.
That's the thing - people who shame others are not looking at intent behind actions; they're getting offended by shallow interpretations (a sign of insecurity). Any reasonable person looking at Crockford making his "weak" joke would not think his intention was to harass physically weak people.
This kind of shit is also why you see people like /r/the_donald aggressively provoking and fighting back against these so-called "SJW's" - the pendulum has swung way too far the opposite way.
I'm not sure if you just referred to a subreddit as a person, or referred to a ridiculously famous man by the path to the subreddit about him?
Either way, wtf.
I think culturally we've entered into this weird area where we're not even judging people so much by their actions but rather by how their actions make some people feel. There is nothing wrong with being mindful of how your statements and actions are perceived. Communication is always a two-way street where what is heard is sometimes more important than what is said. It's just too bad that we're shifting so far away from being able to understand the intentions of the speaker. Fear of saying the wrong thing never teaches someone why and what is wrong to say.
This is no different than the puritans or any other group that wish to enforce their own opinions at the expense of everyone else.
What seems better to me would be asking for an explicit behavioral contingency on being a conference speaker. For example, "if you are going to make sexist remarks, then you cannot speak at the conference".
This makes clear that if you think Douglas Crockford is not fundamentally broken as a human, but could learn and become better at following the contingencies set by the conference, then he is fine to speak. It also opens room to work with Crockford to create a plan for him to speak at the conference, such as going over his speech beforehand, or sitting down with him afterward to discuss ways in which he may have violated the conference's standards.
He can't stop being Douglas Crockford, but I don't think that means he can't stop producing behaviors conference organizers find offensive or harmful (if he wants to).
P.s. check out the book Whistling Vivaldi for an interesting introduction to some potentially harmful (or beneficial) effects of identity contingencies.
The homepage for Nodevember has a big "code of conduct" section. No idea if it's new or not, but one bit is:
> Do not insult or put down other attendees.
Insult is taken, not given. You can't decide what insults me, the same as I can't decide what insults you. By that token, anyone can claim that anything anyone says is insulting to them.
I find plenty of common nodejs community 'norms' to be insulting to my eyes to read, never mind to my brain having to deal with the mental shenanigans required to try to make sense of the decisions made.
Does that mean I have the ability to say "NPM's dependency management is so poor quality it's insulting" and have any talk about NPM banned?
Agreed, and because the conference organizers wield the power to decide who speaks (or to implement deciding in some fashion), they can choose how the insult they're referring to is measured and responded to. For example, it could be by committee, etc..
I'm disappointed if, regardless of their belief on what constitutes insulting behavior, they didn't put forth at least some effort to see if Crockford could meet their standards.
> Does that mean I have the ability to say "NPM's dependency management is so poor quality it's insulting" and have any talk about NPM banned?
You can say that, and organize a conference that bans talk about NPM. As long as your were upfront about it, I'd be fine with it--just sounds like the trappings of a bad conference. If you invited a speaker, only to realize that they were planning to talk about NPM (say you hadn't made your contingency clear), then hopefully you would check if they would drop talk about NPM. If you found out that someone had talked about NPM at a previous conference, and so removed them from your conference without doing the above, I would be disappointed in you, too ;).
> Making rules like "don't be sexist" means that to prevent someone coming, you have to show that the person was in fact being sexist.
I'm not sure if you're saying that, to you, nothing in his behavior appears sexist. I was trying to think of the issue of what to do after / assuming they believed he had acted inappropriately in the past.
(for the sake of argument, let's say we agree that conferences have the unilateral right to invite and reject whomever they want for any reason that doesn't violate current federal laws)
1) What would that public and plausible explanation be? e.g. "Due to scheduling conflicts, we regret to say that Mr. Crockford cannot give the keynote speech but will be attending etc.etc."
2) How much time would it take (in days) to plan and then move on this?
3) Is Crockford the type to take this graciously and quietly and, even though he's justified in feeling wronged, doesn't feel the need to retaliate now or in the future?
edit: I think that Nodevember can do what it wants, but that it seriously fucked up for not vetting Mr. Crockford before inviting him and then really fucked up by throwing him under the bus. But that's been thoroughly discussed in last night's thread
What exactly does Mr. Crockford need to be "vetted" for, with whom, and how exactly did those people gain the authority to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't?
But generally, and again I've never run a conference, if you have standards, you should have them at the time of planning the conference, including when inviting keynote speakers.
For the ability to appease randoms on Twitter.
> with whom
With @nodebotanist and @nexxylove apparently.
> how exactly did those people gain the authority to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't?
Great question.
Then they came for Douglas Crockford and I did not speak out because I did not attend JavaScript conferences.
Then they came for me—and it did not matter because I am a C# programmer.
As far as anyone can tell, at worst Crockford has a conversational style that isn't excessively concerned with political correctness or charm. He used words like "gonads" and "promiscuous" in a way that can be misconstrued.
At worst, Brendan Eich can be accused of working to actively work against the aspirations of a community because they are different to him, even though these aspirations don't materially affect him.
How about marijuana legalization? It's coming to all of the US states sooner or later. Let's start making a list of people who are against it so we can start a revenge hit later.
I don't understand how the word promiscuous become such a toxic word even in the context of human relationship. We are several years into the era of Tinder and other hookup apps and people are still freaking out with the concept.
On the other hand, there is no question that advocates for inclusivity are sometimes overzealous and careless, and no doubt, some people have even exploited the issue in bad faith for their own aims. These mistakes confuse and alienate would-be allies in the community. While no doubt well-intentioned, Nodevember has hurt the cause.
My plea to those who are tempted to dismiss the whole project of inclusivity in response to this incident is this:
The program needs debugging, but that doesn't mean the program is unworkable or the goals are undesirable. Perhaps we forgot a semicolon somewhere, or maybe we need to do a complete rewrite. But creating a community that is comfortable for everyone is an inherently valuable goal. And it doesn't need to be uncomfortable for cisgendered hetero white men, either. Please don't abandon this goal. Instead, let's engage in a constructive dialogue to figure out how to do better.
Well, I can never be comfortable in a community where I might have my reputation and/or career destroyed over a reference to testicles that some might deem inappropriate.
The people doing this are vicious and hateful, and they need to be given a taste of their own medicine.
I disagree that retaliation is a constructive response.
They're like Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority when it was at the peak of its power, probably back in the 1980's. But they're more frightening, because they're able to accomplish with a few tweets and blog posts what took them many millions of dollars and a membership-based organization.
Some brilliant people might also have offensive ideas. Why not have a system that allows that brilliance to shine through?
The larger problem here is that these are not communities of hobbyists. Saying something silly or having someone misinterpret what you are saying within the community could cost you your living. Crockford will be okay because he is already well established, but what if he wasn't as well established?
Yup. And some brilliant ideas are offensive.
Who. Who has responded that way?
Have you read the article?
There is:
- no official message on exactly why he was shit-canned.
- references in his previous talks to:
- "gonads" (literally, a reproductive organ, i.e. testicles or ovaries);
- "huevos" (eggs, in Spanish);
- something "standing out like dogs balls"; and
- commenting that drunk people were giving stupid talks at a conference.
I know some people don't like eating eggs, but its hardly reason to complain about a presenter at a conference.
Dogs balls do stand out. Have you seen a male dog that hasn't been de-sexed? Who is attending these conferences, 5 year olds? If someone is so offended by a reference to dogs testicles being very obvious, how on earth did they even make it to the conference? Most modern tv advertising is more explicit than that.
I can't even begin to comprehend how the last one is offensive. Oh wait. I know. We have to be inclusive. So presenters should be allowed (nay, ENCOURAGED!) to present drunk.
> Instead, let's engage in a constructive dialogue to figure out how to do better.
Given that no one that actually made the complaint seems willing to publicly identify specifically what they believe Crockford did wrong, how would you imagine that is even possible?
Oh wait, let me guess.
Complainant: "<Person> is non-inclusive, let's un-invite/ban him"
Moderator: "Well, hang on now, what exactly did he say or do?"
Complainant: "The moderator is being non-inclusive, let's ban him!"
Sponsor-Suckling-Controversy-Allergic-Organisers: "ok, we've banned all presenters except you and your hand-picked list of friends. we've also gone ahead and implemented the attendee filter you requested, and anyone who questions this process will of course be denied entry"
I'm all for women in tech, I'm all for equality and people not being attacked for who they are. I'm not for people using ridiculous mis-representation of a person to have that person removed from an event.
In case you don't know, heuvos is Spanish (or just Mexican?) slang for testicles.
Then we don't disagree. I see too many people in this thread who seem to think the entire project of taking inclusivity seriously is either silly or actually offensive. Terms like Social Justice Warrior have been used to disparage inclusivity broadly instead of narrowly addressing ways we can do better.
Because they are consistently abused by manipulative sociopaths.
> While no doubt well-intentioned, Nodevember has hurt the cause.
It isn't well-intentioned at all.
In every large group/community there are those who will try and take advantage of others. You need checks and balances if you want to limit abuse.
In this case there clearly are no checks and balances.
As a brown man it isn't the "white hetro men" who are making me afraid to attend conferences.....
A "white hetro man" might make a comment or tell a joke that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. A power mad "SJW" will publicly shame me and hurt my career.
Why this assumption? All the information about programming is on websites that are accessible to everyone independently on their gender and race. I've witnessed very inclusive initiatives by most people, white or not. If we mostly get white males, does it make our websites racist? Is StackOverflow, Eclipse, SublimeText or Chrome racist? Is selling software online only available to white people?
I'd argue if we mostly get white males, it's a coincidence. Most people I talk with about a well-paying, international, career in IT tell me "I could never do that, it's too nerdy". Maybe they didn't have the support by their parents, maybe they didn't have enough Legos when they were children, maybe they identify as girls-who-don't-belong-in-front-of-a-computer. Say what you want, programming is hard and proportions don't make us guilty by default: Other people just chose not to do it.
Also, I've personally tried. I've brought my goddaughter into fablabs, industries, research centers, showed her Mythbusters, bought her a cubic meter of Legos, talked with passion about science in general, it cost me hundreds. She still identifies as a prince-charming girl. My sister on the other hand got into engineering, and she regrets having made this choice "based on people who told her they need more women in engineering", "because she would have preferred organizing cultural events". I've also taught a 15-year-old arabic immigrant person on how to program. He touched said goddaughter sexually.
Proportions don't make white males guilty. Programming was welcoming to diversity until diversity media made it a minefield. People just rarely had a preference for programming.
My entry to the tech industry was playing games. All of the work I have done online involved dealing with nicknames and aliases. Nobody cared if you were black, white, pink, gay, straight or female. All anyone ever cared about was that you contributed well.
Now everyone has to walk over eggshells to be 'inclusive'. I think its important that we enable all people who want to work in this industry to be able to and to support and mentor others. But this doesn't mean we have to lose ourselves in the process.
If someone finds a joke about floppy disks, or the terms promiscuous or slave/master so offensive that they can't be a member of the tech community. They really need to eat some concrete and harden up.
There are people who put down women and exclude others based upon certain characteristics within the tech community and frankly that is appalling and we should all be working to get rid of them. But incidents like this do nothing to help deal with those people and often make it harder.
Also, people who routinely seek to destroy the reputations and careers of people who don't speak and behave according to their strict standard should run the risk of having their own careers and reputations destroyed in response. This form of sweet justice happens once in a while, but not nearly enough.
Sadly, when people (are made to) believe they are victims, almost any amount of egregious behavior opens up for them.
We should not quietly tolerate puritanical bullying behavior from the far left any more than we did that from the far right.
All things in moderation, I suppose, and don't be afraid to look at the historical facts and likely consequences of decisions.
Not that facts help you make a values decision about what to do when there is a "zero sum", conflict of interest type situation...
There's a lawful vs chaotic dichotomy going on - Mr. Straw started out lawful conservative, but then found out about a different set of laws he could leverage into a position of power.
It's a similar but different power leverage being exercised elsewhere by a new generation. Feeling excluded by more usual measures like achievement or talent, they've taken to using social taboos and bullying to gain power.
It's vaguely annoying to watch, but it's best ignored. The very lack of talent that people who use social manoeuvres to get to the top means the groups they dominate won't be very important or effective, unless it's law making directly. I'll get worried then. I'm fairly sanguine about node.js conferences.
Just my opinion. I don't care much about the politics. I don't think either side of US politics is wrong or right per se, for example. I'm just very wary of people who have strong opinions that they want to turn into rules.
You'd be surprised. I grew up in the USSR. People you've just described were everywhere where there was a slight resemblance of power. You don't need to be very effective when you can just stomp your competition into the ground and if you can do this then you are very important.
This story was published to HN only an hour ago but has gathered over 115 points, yet it has been relegated to page 2.
The previous story [1] was published 14 hours ago and has over 540 points, yet is now to be found on page 4.
If the algorithm was operating as usual then both stories would still be in the top half of the front page.
We're trending towards a future where people can do anything they want as long as they have enough power and don't say anything offensive while doing it.
It's horse shit to be honest; most humans don't really give a fuck about a gendered presentation slide and removing all gender references from everything isn't how you magically gain 'equality'.
Some of the worst humans I know are the ones who love this garbage because it's essentially the current way to bully and silence the people you don't like.
Everything just feels very tense (to be clear, I think the reasons for this are understandable) but it also just seems kind of thankless.
Edit: Also interesting that the HN crowd always confirms the accusations they receive.
This seems to be the crux of the problem: accusations without anything at all backing it up. Not even specific pointers to talks given.
source ? because I was unable to find anything that promotes "a non inclusive environment" in what Mr CrockFord said. Can you tell us exactly what CrockFord said that feels "non inclusive". Can you also precisely define what you mean by "non inclusive".