Hacker News Reader

Comment by antirez | Hacker News Reader

I totally agree with the article and I think that the great short-circuit here is that the same people that will mis-interpret this and say "it is terrible to see her silenced" (which is not what she says) are for the most part the people that over-react when certain topics are taken, that is ultimately why Jessica does not feel like to share certain things.

View on HN

I also agree with her and have had similar instances in my life where I chose to be silent.

My interpretation of this silence is an evaluation of opportunity cost. I choose to be silent even though I might have something to say because I value the time saved avoiding a pissing match by forgoing any benefit of speaking my mind.

I might be totally missing the mark on her intended meaning. Regardless of my interpretation, it is pretty disheartening that advancements in various areas can be stalled due to people reacting (read wanting to be offended) rather than listening, processing and engaging.

> which is not what she says

It's not? Are you using some overly-strict definition of 'silenced' here?

She is clearly saying she is not speaking because it's not worth it, not because she could not or is afraid of speaking.

"Silence" is in the title, and she is put into that state because of how other people react. There's nothing wrong with using the verb form of the word. Doing so does not imply fear.

I don't understand why you made that post after, in another thread, saying jmduke shouldn't have interpreted "silenced" that way.

> "Silence" is in the title

Silence as a noun and silence as a verb are very different things. I'm sitting silent right now, but it's not because I've been bound and gagged.

If I understand you correctly, you interpret her post as saying: a powerful person is not afraid of others silencing them, but the cost/benefit analysis of sharing ideas out in the open tends towards the negative. For ideas she feels strongly about, she is not afraid to speak up; but for useful information shared in the spirit of openness, why invite the hassle?

I've seen this sentiment expressed often by prominent maintainers of open source projects, where they feel that their effort often leads to too much stress and negativity. Why bother with that, if you can just as well find a regular job that doesn't impact your personal life in a negative way? At some point, the passion of conviction gives way to the banality of everyday comfort.

If she is not speaking because of an external factor, she has been silenced.

I think the distinction here is framing it as a specific, individual injustice to be fought against, rather than an unfortunate symptom of certain complex dynamics in our society.

It seems to me that the former is the less useful mode of analysis for long-term problem solving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com