Hacker News Reader

> It disappoints me to see how many folks on Hacker News have responded to this incident by condemning the entire concept of standards of conduct

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.

> But creating a community that is comfortable for everyone is an inherently valuable goal.

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 agree: overzealous activism is a real problem when it makes people fearful of freely participating in public discourse.

I disagree that retaliation is a constructive response.

If you know of a better way to check the growing power of these vicious hateful busybodies, I'd like to hear it.

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.

Maybe the idea of communities in tech should just go away. People who share similar ideas on tech should just get together to share those ideas without having to setup a bunch of arbitrary rules and gatekeepers.

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?

> Some brilliant people might also have offensive ideas.

Yup. And some brilliant ideas are offensive.

You really need to grow up. Our community was founded on being different. It wasn't that long ago that nerd and geek were pejorative terms. Geeks didn't get the girls form a reason.

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.

> There is no question that our community too often can feel hostile to those who aren't white hetero men.

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.

You don't need to look far to find women who've had bad experiences in tech culture. Of course it's not all bad. It's natural for groups to value their common qualities and tend to devalue those of people outside their group. Techies aren't monsters. But we surely can still do better.

> It disappoints me to see how many folks on Hacker News have responded to this incident by condemning the entire concept of standards of conduct and the idea that the developer community should take the goal of inclusivity and sensitivity seriously.

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.

If you claim that referring to having gonads is "exclusionary", because some people may have neither, then fuck it, you can't ever present anything that references the concept of seeing or hearing, because thats exclusionary to people with vision/hearing issues.

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.

> I know some people don't like eating eggs, but its hardly reason to complain about a presenter at a conference.

In case you don't know, heuvos is Spanish (or just Mexican?) slang for testicles.

> 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.

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.