Hacker News Reader

> It seems like most comments here (and in previous times this has been discussed) are avoiding the actual reason why Crockford was disinvited

Au contraire, from what I can tell that's all everyone is talking about; everyone is trying to work out what the actual reason could be.

We've looked at the official reasons given and seen that they are vague, disingenuous and unsupported.

We've looked at the contextual reasons and surmised that it's likely nothing more than a petty personal vendetta.

We've scoured around for historical reasons and found some incredibly unremarkable attempts at programmer humor which would barely raise an eyebrow.

There's plenty of things in this world that make us uncomfortable at conferences. Some people sneeze and cough unhygienically. Extroverts can occasionally make introverts feel awkward or unwelcome. Speakers make terrible dad jokes. Bad coffee is very discomforting. And most of us are able to accept a bit of discomfort and get on with life. That's the solution: a modicum of tolerance.

    > Instead of addressing this point

What point? Their only is this extremely vague statement. How do you deal with someone trying at all cost to avoid giving concrete information?

We do know Crockford from many, many opportunities of seeing him as a speaker though, and from that uninviting him has no basis. As we can read in the statement he even spoke at the same conference last year without any problems.

Read this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevemb... which debunks that there were "many" people, and/or that those one or two who complained had any evidence at all.

> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response.

In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races?

If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event.

My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them.

I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience.

(edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)

I think you're half right.

First the emotional part. I think you've nailed the emotional tone of whatever response the conference makes. We're friends here. We want you to feel safe and relaxed. Here are some things we've done to help you out if you don't feel that way.

But the emotional part only works inside a logical context. It can not exist on its on. Otherwise we're just swaying wildly in the wind, responding to whatever discomfort anybody feels anywhere. That's not workable.

So the question really becomes this: what is the minimal logical construct we can create in order to facilitate each of us being nice to others so that they can feel safe?

Reading the comments here, surely there are a lot of folks pissed off that they disinvited Crockford. And there had to be some folks who were pissed off that he was invited in the first place. That leads us to our first rule: no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed off. Therefore, people being pissed off cannot be a motivating factor one way or the other. Otherwise conferences just become big battles of who can get more pissed off.

How about this for a minimalist rule? If you are a conference speaker, and you are bothered by another speaker and are threatening to boycott the conference because of it, make your case in public. After all, if you're not going to show up, that's a public statement. So instead of putting all of this on the conference organizers and expecting them to sort it out, you get online and make the case yourself. You are the person who was invited to speak in public. You are the person threatening to make a public statement. You are the person causing this public furor. So go head and do that: make a public statement. Don't use somebody to do so in your behalf. That's not fair to the conference, the other speakers, or the attendees. (Or to rest of us, trying to sort through all of this to see if there's anything really there.)

The problem is people holding the idea that they are entitled to "feel comfortable" in social settings, with no specific definition of what or whom is or may cause discomfort. I might feel uncomfortable attending a conference where I may see too many men wearing utili-kilts (OSCON) but that doesn't mean my personal discomfort overrides everyone else's right to wear or say what they want. If there's a specific behavior, or history, to point at, sure, people should speak up. I would feel uncomfortable at a KKK meeting or a gun show. But I could describe the real offensive behavior in those cases.

I don't understand lumping gun shows in with the klan meetings. Can you elaborate on what you believe to be offensive about gun shows?

Not the previous commenter but I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons.

Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gunshow+accident

Thank you for answering my question. I understand that many people are uncomfortable around guns.

As someone who frequents gun shows you piqued my interest in determining how dangerous they really are. The numbers are hard to pin down. But I tried to be as conservative as possible using the available stats. So if these numbers are wrong, chances are they are incorrect in your favor.

The ATF stats state that there are approx 5000 gun shows per year and they generally have 2,500 to 15,000 [1] attendees. We could use the low estimate (2,500 * 5000) and it gives us 12,500,000 attendees. (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows).

Using the dailykos's stat stating that for three years there have been around 1 gun show accident per month gives us 12 per year. [2]

The chance the average person will be struck by lightening is 1 in 960,0000. [3]

The chance of dying in a fatal car accident in the US in a given year are 1 in 11,000 [4]

So, the chance of a gun show attendee who attends one show once per year getting shot (at a gun show) is actually 1,091 times smaller than the chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year. It's also less likely than being struck by lightening. It's important to not let media crazes influence your perceived risk of an event happening.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States...

[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-s...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

You're assuming the people going to gunshows would never attend two or more shows per year and that they do not re-visit gunshows on alternate years either.

I did mention that. " (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows)."

#1) We're talking about on a given year here. and all my stats revolve around the risk of an event happening for a person over the course of a year.

#2) Multiple visits increase the odds of being in an accident. because it's impossible to know how many people attended multiple shows. I am looking at attendees as an individual visit to a gun show. The risk factor showing the odds of being in an accident at a single visit to a single show are more meaningful anyhow.

If you go to one gun show in a given year your odds are around 1 in a million for being involved in an accident. If you go to two your odds jump to 2 in a million.

Get it?

I missed your () entry, apologies. And yes, I 'got it', there is no need to be condescending.

Regardless of the stats, I'm still uncomfortable around amateurs with guns. Comfort and rationality are not always aligned.

I did not mean to be condescending. I was legitimately asking if you understood after rewording and explaining my conclusion.

I didn't really expect to change your view. Education, familiarity, and practice often dispel the sense of anxiety someone feels around something they are not comfortable with. Learning to drive a car is one example of this.

It's my hope that through reaching out to people who don't feel comfortable around guns and dispelling misconceptions in an even keeled way helps show that we aren't a bunch of reckless crazy rednecks engaging in sophistry to prove a point. I think it's important for everyone to reevaluate their assumptions regularly.

Guns are dangerous, But if you are following the rules[1], it's nearly impossible to have an accident. The vast majority of legal gun owners follow these rules.

[1] http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Catego...

You should try having that conversation face to face some time with someone who lost someone dear because of a stupid gun accident.

I've never met one. But if they were campaigning to infringe upon my gun rights I certainly would.

That's not an argument.

Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that we install lightning rods every twenty feet and legally mandate nonconductive clothing. Obviously you'd sympathize with them, but you can't base national policy on emotion. You have to look at the facts.

> but you can't base national policy on emotion.

As if the majority of the pro-gun ownership arguments aren't based on emotion.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble using reason to defeat them. Go on, then.

No, on the contrary.

They're based more-so on reality. You can argue there are appeals to emotion ("protect your family!") but they aren't completely devoid of fact and ignoring statistics.

People hunt (some for game, some for sport) and need guns. People get robbed and would like a gun to keep in the home for self-defense. Some people live in criminal ridden areas where being mugged is a relatively common occurrence, having a gun helps there too.

> you can't base national policy on emotion

Value propositions are all ultimately rooted in emotional responses to propositions which cannot be objectively supported, and all policy is ultimately rooted in value propositions; you can't not base policy (national or otherwise) on emotion.

That is very interesting. In the strictest sense you are correct. It comes down to how I value the freedom to bear arms over reducing gun violence.

Regardless of that, some arguments are more rational/illogical than others.

Odds of being struck by lightning in a given 12 hour period: ~1 in 180 million.

(strikes have gone down in recent years: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml )

The gun show risk is far easier to control than driving risk and lightning exposure risk.

Fair enough. The point is, the risk is so low compared to other risks we take daily as to be irrational and totally inconsequential.

Avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot is like avoiding skyscrapers because of a terrorist attack, avoiding commercial airlines out fear of a crash, or avoiding swimming in the ocean because of sharks. All of these are statistically irrational.

I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational.

The specific question was what would make one uncomfortable at a gun show and I answered that question.

To now see that equated with 'avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot' is utterly unfair.

The statistic being what they are I'm no more inclined to visit a gun show than I'm about to visit a church when there is a mass or to visit a convention on tattoos, I have zero connection to guns, religion or tattoos.

That said I do know how to shoot but feel that America's love affair with weapons isn't helping at all, fortunately there is an ocean between there and here.

I am reiterating this in the most respectful way possible. Do not ascribe any nasty tone to this as I assure you there is none.

Your statement which started this whole statistical discussion was:

"I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons. Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be."

Had you said, "I just don't like guns", "I am not interested in guns", or "I can't stand the atmosphere/people/politics at gun shows or gun shops". That would have been the end of the discussion. That's an opinion you are of course free to have.

Since your statement implied you are not comfortable at gun shows because you perceive shows to be dangerous, I looked at the stats as generously as possible and determined the risk to be negligible.

Then in the comment directly above to which you just replied I said:

"I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational."

In other words, I understand that you have no interest in going to a gun show because you are not interested in guns and that is totally fine. Which is why you should have just said that instead of lobbing that silly canard my way.

But it is bizarre for you to tell me that I was being unfair for directly addressing and then refuting the rationality of your stated reason for not feeling comfortable at gun shows.

I can be both not interested in guns, and not be comfortable around amateurs handling weapons (in any setting).

The question was about the latter, not about the former.

Of course you can, But that doesn't change the fact only one of those opinions is defensible.

If someone were to say they don't feel comfortable around Scottish people because they commit more crime. I'm sure you would (rightly) have an issue with that and agree that it is indefensible.

I didn't lump them together, I gave two examples. Irrelevant why I find gun shows uncomfortable. I've been to a few.

"I would feel uncomfortable at a KKK meeting or a gun show. But I could describe the real offensive behavior in those cases."

I guess you can't describe the 'real offensive' behavior after all.

You're missing the point. I can describe why I would find a KKK rally or a gun show offensive. That doesn't mean everyone would be offended, or uncomfortable about the same things. My point was about vague claims of "not feeling comfortable" at a conference with no explanation of what caused the discomfort. From what I've read there's no substance: Crockford didn't do anything, a few people made some vague claims about how they felt, not about anything Crockford did.

It's one thing for me to say I don't like overt displays of racism and bigotry, or I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display. It's another thing for me to try to ban a gun show or prevent people going because I'm uncomfortable with some aspect of it.

Some people don't like spiders. I get it, although they don't bother me. But is it my problem to deal with someone's fear of spiders? Of course I wouldn't shove a spider in their face, but am I responsible for their terror if they see a spider in my garage? I am responsible for my feelings and how I react to them. I don't hold gun owners or Klan members responsible for how they make me feel.

I got your point perfectly. You and I agree 100% regarding Crockford. As someone who loves guns and owns plenty, I honestly just wanted to know what you found so offensive about gun shows. You stated that you could describe the behavior and I obliged you.

"... I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display."

That is all I wanted to know. Thanks.

Have you been to them? They are pretty scary with all the Nazi, and not so subtle racism. I have only been to them in the Northeast but they kind of feel like a Trump rally.

I go to them all the time. I love them. I have gotten some great deals there. I love seeing real WW2 guns and equipment regardless of which side.

You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else?

I guess regarding the search for facts/reasons/examples - I guess we're interested in trying to form a view as to whether that is an understandable position on the part of these 'other speakers'. No doubt there is a spectrum here. If it is just "person X doesn't like person Y because they hurt X's feelings once" that is quite a different thing to "persons X, Y and Z have been physically threatened by person A and fear for their lives".

> You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else?

"Some speakers" was from http://nodevember.org/statement.html and I used "a number of speakers" as being equivalent to that unknown but small number. I wouldn't say "many speakers" though (British English).

I am also curious about the actual number - and also the number of supporters or allies not directly involved. It is quite different actual threats, experiences and imagined thoughts and emotions. And then (passive or active, online and offline) supporters to anothers emotions or experiences. I would argue that all these types of response can be addressed in a positive way.

Emotions can be addressed in kind - and perhaps reducing the number of concerns is similar to increasing the level of comfort. For example, I might say "well my friend is concerned that the venue is far away from public transport stops and it's at night" but a good response from the organizers may say "don't worry, we have security on the venue, it's well lighted, there will be good taxi service, we're working with the venue and local police etc". This may well reduce my hypothetical concern, and increase my comfort. I couldn't speak for my friend though - but I'd imagine my, as an ally, reassurance would help.

Blacklists and Other Economic Sanctions:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm

Listen, the behavior at some past conferences and in the industry in general are unprofessional, unacceptable, and egregious. It's at the point that I want to disregard anyone who uses the term "social justice warrior" as an imbecile. Everyone should be as comfortable as possible in this community. Everyone should be welcome.

But punishing people based on the words of an unknown person or persons, with no recourse or defense is not better.

"mx"?

The gender-neutral honorific, apparently.

Certainly not one in common use, and more importantly, a signifier often used by political bullies. One would think an "evangelist," whose job is to convince people and not drive them away, would put more thought into such things.

Because it is discriminatory to use comfort as a criteria to exclude people in the social sphere. It's like trying to ban your ex-partner from a local bar because bumping into them evokes strong feelings like anger or jealousy, and therefore makes you feel uncomfortable. This is not only wrong but it is an immature way of dealing with personal issues in real life.

> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response.

In response to this? ->

> 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.

I find that not just acceptable, but fitting.. I mean, what more could you say in response to some unnamed person having unnamed concerns?

> Conferences are about bringing people together. We hope the community can accept our apology and move forward

This is just a bunch of doublespeak, directing it all into the memory hole after not addressing anything seriously. If I was part of that community, my response would be a resounding "No, that's neither thorough nor adult enough. What else other than this squishy foam do you have to offer?".

> it is because a number of speakers said they would be uncomfortable with him speaking and would not speak and attend the conference

What are the facts? there are no facts, what did Doug do to make these people "inconfortable" ? we don't know. Some people are inconfortable with ,I quote, "white males around them", inconfortable doesn't mean anything, it's just a euphemism for bigotry these days. Just like "inclusivity".

Making another group of people uncomfortable is not a viable solution to a few people's claims of discomfort.

Excluding someone is not a sensible response to claims of exclusion.

Victimising someone is not a reasonable response to claims of victimisation.

Who are these sensitive speakers and how important are they to justify removing someone as significant as Crockford for their sake?

Relative community status is irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is whether the objection(s) to Mr. Crockford have any merit or not.

No matter how far you go to make people comfortable, you're always going to have some grumpy old curmudgeon who refuses to confess their heresy and doesn't understand what they're accused of. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8