My Apology to Naomi Wu and the Make Community
makezine.com
makezine.com
But more then that, if you watch videos where she is being interviewed talking about being a Maker (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcnChnrHwXg) she talks just like a real hacker. She uses the exact terminology and process you'd expect, knowing you're not an expert in something, but just scraping a whole bunch of different other projects that other people contributed and made tutorials on, and tweaking them and combining them to make it your own.
It's like this CEO didn't spend even 10 minutes watching her videos and just decided to believe a conspiracy theory.
Since they are using "maker" to describe persons that are engineering electronics related work,why not just call themselves "electronics engineer"?
Edit: seems I stepped on toes with my comment,I don't know how else to react to a term like "maker". Could have been less sarcastic but I'll eat up the downvotes and maintain what small amount of common sense I have.
Everyone is a maker. The point of a language is to communicate information,not to obscure it. Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"? After all he is writing. "programmer" or "software developer" is used to distinguish what type of writing he/she works with for a living.
Sorry if that offended you,but from my perspective,it just does not communicate the nature of their work efficiently.
Lack of specificity is a much better one.
Sure language is made up,but isn't an obstacle to clear communication bad language?
I find it hard to accept unreasonable logic(even the popular and trendy kind).
> Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"?
No, because that would be confusing; no one uses "writer" in that way without extra explanation. In contrast, "maker" is used to describe a tinkerer who builds designs and/or builds projects, often reusing ideas from other makers. It's "proper use of language" not because it makes sense, but because that's how people use it.
So, yeah, "DIY dinner" does sound a bit silly. But, as someone who has done amateur shoe modification - I would never call myself a cobbler. A maker? Sure.
I sympathize a bit with your criticism of the term, because I've thought long and hard about whether or not some new terminology is coined or supported by men when they get into a hobby which is traditionally practiced by women.
eg, "crafting" is a well established word, but seems avoided by men, and DIY is an easy substitute, eg "DIY foam halloween costume"
I first noticed this when I got a sewing machine, and started to frequent DIY camping gear/hammock forums. There's an obnoxious habit around those parts to not even call a sewing machine a sewing machine - it's a "thread injector." It drives me up the wall, it seems so blatantly sexist.
In short: sexism.
For further reading, see criticism of the "fake geek girl" meme.
> the negative impact of my tweets was amplified by the fact that I, a white, Western, male CEO of a key company in the Maker community
This guy was not low status by any definition.
The fact that he maintained a sustained slander campaign when he ostensibly had other priorities implies he felt that ‘exposing’ her became important to him, again a trait of insecure, low status individuals.
Isn't this what the Internet is all about?
I would have exactly the same reaction if we were talking about a guy going around town in tight fitting speedo's doing technology projects and interviews. Ridiculous. Stupid. Demeaning.
I suspect that because she is a woman I am not allowed to object to her walking around nearly naked, nipples showing through nearly see-through clothing, nearly all of her ass out there to behold, etc. I, personally, find it disgusting and as far from role model behavior as one can get. I am not a prude by any measure.
She does nothing for women other than to propose that to be accepted in technology you have to walk around showing your tits and ass in a ridiculous outfit that paints you as a sex toy and, yes, know your shit too. I find that repugnant. Just as I would for a man who might behave behaving similarly.
Raise your hand if this is what you want to teach your little girls. Exactly.
Not everyone has to be a role model for your little kid.
I don't want my kid to hear people swearing, but I'm not going to slander Linus Torvalds for doing so. I'm not stupid enough to believe that just because someone is crass they can't possibly be a good maker/developer/engineer/etc.
I am not trying to pass judgement for all of humanity here. If you are OK watching videos of a nearly naked woman playing with tech and think that's great for women and humanity, so be it. I happen to thing it's disgusting.
All I can speak for is myself. I see this person as a clown who demeans every single female engineer I have every worked with or hired. She might as well be doing soft porn videos and make more money, she ain't too far from that.
Because of that I can't respect what she is doing.
Do we really want to portray women in tech this way? Really?
At one end of the spectrum people are up in arms about politicians objectifying women (and worst) and meanwhile, on the tech side of things we are OK with a woman walking around with tits and ass hanging out there?
Is the tech community OK with women being portrayed this way? I am not. Definitely not. If you defend her you are defending the objectification of women. Which is shameful.
Sorry, this is disgusting to me.
Conformity in a way increases opportunity. On the other hand, she's a transhumanist, so she probably believes all of these rules and customs are pretty primitive and totally changeable. I mean, who says you ever have to wear clothes if you're in a warm climate? Who says our genitals shouldn't be seen? These are all developed customs and specific to each society. She's deliberately breaking the mold and refusing to be shamed.
I'm ok with people portraying themselves however they want to portray themselves. I can make a rational argument for "playing it safe" and being conservative, then again, when you're 70 years old and lived a life of conformity, maybe you'll regret you didn't live life openly and flamboyantly like she does.
She is not yours - nor even other women's - servant.
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/932363497647751168
There's no inappropriate body parts on display. I'd feel safe to show this to my boss, though my boss's mother would probably disaprove.
Honestly, doing so could plausibly and understandably make many women and some men uncomfortable.
I'm ok with some things being uncomfortable. We got past the idea that women can wear trousers to work. We can get past this as well. Some progress can be uncomfortable.
Visiting a Twitter page for a few seconds in your browser and the background happens to show the woman in a bikini, is absolutely not the same as your choice of calendar. There is no nudity anyway, it's 100% legal and we see similar images in the street, shop windows, billboards, TV, everywhere.
On the one hand, men in the tech community have been told it's never OK to use/share/endorse images of attractive women with "lots of skin", in any work or tech-community context, because it objectifies women, makes them uncomfortable, and pushes them away from the tech industry.
On the other hand, men should respect how women present themselves, and welcome them into the tech community. Still, this doesn't save you if a moral busybody walks behind you when you're looking at this twitter profile - it's very conceivable that a guy could get in trouble or ostracized for "ogling scantily-clad women".
Hell, surely you remember the two guys at pycon 4 years ago, some woman behind them heard one tell a (rather tame) "dongle" joke to the other, generated outrage on twitter, got them fired, etc.
In this modern era where moral outrage is more in fashion than ever (in recent memory anyway), the only winning move is not to play.
Edit: ironically this comment was being ignored as long as I had the disclaimer in it that I am routinely accused of victim blaming for trying to empower women. I removed it because I also get constantly accused of making things about me. The second it was removed, a personal attack in violation of the guidelines was posted as a reply and now my comment has been downvoted.
Here is the blogpost in question in case anyone wants to read it instead of knee-jerk assuming I am just some sexually uptight prude:
http://michelerebooted.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-i-try-to-dir...
My reading of awesomepantsm's comment is that it conveys the idea that it doesn't matter what any of us think about what someone is wearing, we should be concerned with the thoughts they are expressing.
I never saw your post in the original form, only in the shortest version and then with the most recent edit. I found your blog post on my own, and I see it's much more nuanced than your comment here (I suppose that's to be expected).
Your blog post seems to indicate that you wouldn't dress like that. Fair enough, the rationale you describe is illuminating. But how does that extend to a normative expectation on the behavior of another? That's what I think is problematic.
But the main point of my post is this: years of trying to get meaty engagement on HN has taught me that men will tend to see me through the lens of sex first and foremost. It has proven to be counterproductive to either expect men to never think of me that way, or to actively encourage that focus or cooperate with other people framing me as primarily or solely a sex object.
It was written in hopes of helping women think about how to effectively navigate a man's world. It has nothing to do with suggesting a normative anything.
I am saying that a woman's sexuality is hers to do with as she pleases. In my experience, that is an extremely radical position. Lots of men would like women to be more free to say yes to them. That doesn't mean they like it when someone like me says "They are free to use it any damn way they so choose, your agenda to fuck them be damned."
It is a position of "I can dress any damn way I want for my own pleasure, no I am not your whore."
It is her body. Some pictures currently frame it as a toy for any internet stranger. I would stop doing that one thing. That's it.
My initial comment here was really more to express sympathy for people saying "I am male and it is inherently problematic for me to look at her work or share her work because of the images of her that are associated with it." I think that is a completely valid concern and it is one of the reasons I work at trying to make sure I do my best to present myself in a fashion that doesn't raise such questions.
I am sure I don't always get it right, but I try to be mindful of the fact that if I want to be taken seriously and do business with men, it is easier for them to talk to me, make introductions and share my work if they don't have to explain that, no, I am not a hooker, not their illicit lover, and they aren't interested in my writing for its salacious nature. Men in positions of power often need to meet a test of no appearance of impropriety. Some men simply are not going to open doors for me if they have any reason to feel that it will lead to talk. That is the reality I am dealing with. Getting on a soap box about how it shouldn't matter how I look does not strike me as an effective approach to the problem in question.
People are often talking about abstract ideals when they talk about sexism. I am usually speaking of a pragmatic approach that has some hope of actually working in the real word. I am not holding my breath waiting for some ideal world to arrive. I need to eat in the here and now.
Make Magazine is dated, anyway. It's a print publication. Instructables is the go-to site for how to make things. That's now run by Autodesk, which encourages hobbyist use of Autodesk software in hopes that some amateurs will become pros and buy more Autodesk software.
Naomi Wu's videos are often funny. She has a wry sense of humor. She converted a 3D printer into a wearable device worn on her back. It runs off batteries and prints as she rides the subway and walks through malls. The manufacturer for which she did that can now show that their unusual device is really robust.
When it doesn't work, she's honest about it. She did an evaluation of a 3D printer / CNC mill / laser printer combo. The thing is an X-Y-Z platform with changeable tool heads. It wouldn't home consistently, and Wu gave it a very negative review.
She has some nice techniques. At one point, she needed to punch a hole through a nylon covered foam pad, so she could put a bolt through. She heated up a screwdriver with a butane torch and pushed it through the pad, leaving a clean hole.
Possibly unrelated, but I'm looking at Wu's Twitter (https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg), and this is something I struggle with. People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that. But when a person or product deliberately cultivates a hypersexualized image in a field and setting that has nothing to do with sex, that's weird and off-putting to me. To swap the genders, I'd have no problem with a male engineer who does his best work half-naked at his desk at home and likes to do sexy cosplay sometimes, but it would be weird if that engineer's professional Twitter was topped with a dozen pics of him shirtless in leather pants--not "fake" or "inauthentic," just weird.
I realize I know nothing about Wu except a glance at her Twitter, so I apologize if I'm missing something.
> People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that.
That's it. Full stop. There's nothing to add after that. You don't need to add "but..." and then state the exact opposite of that sentiment.
You find something weird about someone? Guess what -- we're all weird. Somebody out there probably finds something about you weird. But who gives a shit! Life's a lot better once you just get over it and accept people despite their weirdness. Or even better, because of their weirdness.
I'd add that what she's doing is not the healthiest role model for young girls growing up, given the issues with sexism in tech/professional industries.
Tech achievements aside, the flaunting of her breast implants is sad. In the unlikely case she has not had plastic surgery, she still seems to be asking people first to "check out my body" and then "btw, I make things too".
I would have the same problem with a man who got 6-pack implants and flaunted his abs with his tech profile. It's short-term shallowness, and undoes the achievements in her field. And so I won't be following what she does, and will now leave this discussion for others.
The "camera review" videos on her channel where she walks around with selfie stick pointing at her boobs. That's just poor taste click bait, not "expressing femininity". View count jumps above 1 million the less she wears, but at what cost?
I've no idea about the main story of apology, I just found this today and commenting on her channel and choice of brand promotion. This to me would easily cause lack of trust with whatever she does, simply because of her willingness to self-exploit for view count.
Here's a counterpoint: https://twitter.com/aphyr
I can't speak for all the harassment he may or may not have endured, but it's not on the same level as Wu. He makes fun of his weird pairing of interests in his featured photo. He doesn't have the CEO of a company and de facto leader of his professional association questioning his competence on Twitter. Whatever he's dealt with, it probably hasn't been "this is so offputting that I'm going to question the fact that you even exist."
Honestly, I had the same reaction as you. I don't think it's OK to question people like Naomi in this way, because I'm pretty sure I'm doing it unevenly. It's something I'm trying to figure out if I do elsewhere, and how to improve. This stuff is hard.
You're absolutely right, which is why I'm so conflicted about this. And in any case going from "your Twitter is kinda fetish-y" to "therefore you're a fake engineer" makes zero sense, yeah.
It is strange logic that shining a light on something supposedly reprehensible actually helps it. This 'I won't show you the thing I am criticizing but trust my description of it' shouldn't be accepted. It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
This is about a pattern I have seen, rather than any one specific thing. People criticizing something without giving a name or a link because it might give it exposure. If someone is criticizing something legitimately, then giving it exposure is precisely what they would want. The 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' should be called out when it happens.
I’m not asking anyone to trust my description. If anyone wants to read it for themselves, they should have little trouble finding it. I’m just not going to help them.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
Yet you do not show it. As I mentioned before It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
I didn't really want it to be about our comments. But this is where you have directed it. You talked about a specific think and didn't want to show it saying 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help', this is the logic I was specifically replying to. That is the logic people should reject, the other context has nothing to do with why I replied. Yet you are asking that talking about a generality or pattern I have noticed needs a link. They way you are arguing any statement that I make without a link makes me 'not practicing what I preach'. Your expectations of my post are massively higher than what I was criticizing, which I will repeat was the 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help' statement and the logic that comes from it. Your criticism also expected way more from my post than yours. The holding of ridiculous expectations someone with a different opinion to you is another pattern that should be criticized by the way.
But I did have something in mind actually when I mentioned the pattern. It may be slightly embarrassing that I came across this video while using the internet, but I will link to it.
'Propaganda Games - Ethical Game Design - Extra Credits' https://youtu.be/UP4_bMhZ4gA?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BpAzGdNmfiwlBx...
They specifically didn't name the games they were describing used as far as I remember, using the 'I don't want to give them more exposure' line, and maybe not wanting to expose people to them (but hypocritically they can). Surely people can make up their own minds about things. The video also has a tone of voice to sound 'caring' and cute graphics to try and sucker people believe what they say and that they are 'good'. You bet I didn't like it.
I have been completely honest in my previous comment when I mentioned a pattern. I have been completely honest in this comment. You saying 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?' was completely unwarranted, I wasn't hiding anything or being dishonest, unlike your allusions.
I'm not hiding anything and I'm not being dishonest. The only difference between your comment and mine that I can see, as far as linking to sources, is the motivation behind it. And I don't see why my motivation of not wanting to provide further exposure to an unpleasant personal attack should be so much worse than your motivation of... well, I have no idea.
This is more misrepresentation. When I posted the first comment, I didn't want it to be about our comments. The reason I gave the reply was the utter misrepresentation of my comment. Your reply was clearly meant to deceive people. Especially when you said 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here?' and then pretty much asking to provide a link for each sentence I said. While I was just warning people about people saying that linking to something helps it. Surely it is just more evidence that people take into consideration.
Also you hyped up the harm that an article could cause, yet you had no trouble trying to discredit me, quite hypocritical really. Are you saying the article could cause harm because you believe it is convincing?
My motivation was very plain and transparent. It was to have have people notice the 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' logic be criticized for the harmful garbage it is.
Anyway if someone misrepresents what I said, I will sometimes reply.
At least people can see what was written instead of relying on hearsay.
Sure, it’s unusual, but not, I think, particularly suspicious. There are a lot of unusual people in tech.
Edit: I notice someone already gave the same example as me; oops.
I'd never really thought about this, but I have a feeling that once I start looking for it I'm going to notice it everywhere. Great article.
I am glad Dale has apologised as it was long overdue IMHO. I'm not sure I could be so forgiving as Naomi is though. For 2 weeks her reputation has been trashed.
He gets no credit from me for a 2 week late apology that's helpfully published with an accompanying Chinese translation. There's no sense of personal acknowledgement of wrongdoing here, just a corporate response to a paying-customer backlash.
his first one was just a generic, "i'm sorry if i offended anyone" after he publicized a conspiracy theory about naomi.
then it was revealed that andrew huang (who worked a lot on reverse engineering the original xbox), was asked in private by dale if naomi was real, and andrew vouched for her. yet he chose to go with the conspiracy theory story instead.
this is a, "i better do this or my ass will be fired" deal. the original story was never posted on hackernews (that i recall) but if she didn't continue to fight for her reputation this dale would have just let this blow over.
English original: I specifically apologize for the tactless use of quotes around “her” in a tweet of mine that was offensive to Naomi and all women.
Chinese translation: 我还要特别为我那句不得体的在“her”加双引号的暗示她是变性人言论抱歉，这不仅冒犯到Naomi而且对其他女性来说也是不公平的。
Chinese translated back to English: I am especially sorry for my tactless use of quotes around "her", alluding to that she is transsexual, which is not only offensive to Naomi but also unfair to other women.
Cofounded O'Reilly Media, too: http://radar.oreilly.com/dale
> "...the negative impact of my tweets was amplified by the fact that I, a white, Western, male CEO of a key company in the Maker community, publicly questioned a young, female, self-employed Chinese maker."
When a member of the group looks at a situation like this they need to reflect on if they are guilty at all and (regardless of if they are) how they can help change the culture. Your comment on "shifting responsibility" is not productive in that regard and only comes off as defensive. Not trying to say you're a white western dude possibly guilty of abusing power dynamics over marginalized groups, but something to keep in mind.
Also read this[0] blog, much more eloquent and detailed than my response here.
>my response reflected my unconscious biases; and the negative impact of my tweets was amplified by the fact that I, a white, Western, male CEO of a key company in the Maker community, publicly questioned a young, female, self-employed Chinese maker.
Fair point about unconscious bias. It's difficult as we are creatures of habit and purposely always look for patterns, mostly to our advantage but sometimes to our disadvantage. It's tough. I have seen countless times though that gender based unconscious bias is present in reality, more times than not against males - although rarely reported (schools, Universities and work places).
The next point about how being a CEO for a company in a large engineering community and then publicly discrediting another person is massively impacting on the person being attacked. In general it seems to be that the more powerful your voice, the more you should think about what you say. Even then, powerless individuals can quickly be amplified for the purpose of being attacked or held up as a leader of some opinion.
The next part grates. What has the combination of "white", "Western" and "male" got to do with the apology? Would the CEO's voice be any less effective if it was from an equally positioned black, African female? I would hope not. I think this could equally have been any other person of this power apologizing for doing little to no research. How did we get into the position where people are apologizing for features they are unable to control, somehow meaning they can or can't take part in some opinion/discussion? I bet the answer to that can't be made without discriminating.
And looking at the actions being taken in response, it doesn't make much sense:
>* With permission from Naomi, we will feature Naomi and her work on the cover of the next issue of Make: along with a full-length story about her work.
>* We will invite her and help her obtain a VISA to a USA Maker Faire in 2018, covering her travel and expenses.
>* We will be publishing a diversity audit of Make: as a company and our properties, and will be setting goals to drive progress on these issues.
>* We will be assembling advisory boards to work with our Maker Faire organizers to ensure our events are representative of our entire community. We will invite Naomi to be part of any advisory board for events in China.
Why is there now going to be a diversity audit of Make? What happened to question the diversity of Make and how does that prevent this public discrediting from occurring again? Surely a way more effective preventative measure would be to just turn off the CEO's Twitter account and stop any one person representative of Make from having unfiltered access to large audiences.
On the other hand, featuring her work is a good gesture to counteract the incorrect public statement made. The advisory board position is over the top and again, seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the Make community when it was the actions of the CEO.
Edit: Bad newline formatting for bullet points.
Which, as I wrote that, I realised is probably also what the "western white male CEO" bit is probably about - you can't criticise them - they'll retaliate just like they used to in 4chan and junior school... Kalanik will hire PIs to gather dirt on you if you criticise him, Dougherty will destroy your maker reputation and career.
Assuming you mean exactly what you say and I'm not being overly pedantic, I think token representation is not a great concept in itself. Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, if either is unequal for any reason then only one is achievable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people access resources they otherwise wouldn't have access to. But later down the time line, when they go to apply for a position, it should be done without race or sex.
>Naomi criticised Make for not having even token local or female representation at Makerfaire Shenzhen, criticism which immediately preceded Dales dummy spit retaliation.
I wasn't aware of the back story, but a lack of female representation does not equate to lack representation in general. I'm not defending Dale though, regardless it was a bad move on his part.
>you can't criticise them
On the contrary, I think white, rich males are easier to criticize than ever given the current social stirrings (in the West at least). I think all of them try to get dirt on their attacker, it's just these guys were caught and called out for it.
I think it’s him trying to give context; “I’m the majority sort of person in this industry, so I have unexamined biases which came into play here”, that sort of thing.
As I understand it, him posting his little conspiracy theory came hot on the heels of Wu criticising his organisation, which helps explain the rest of it. He’s essentially admitting that they have a problem, and saying that they’ll try to fix it.
Seems like discrimination in itself. "I am white and male therefore I am biased". Besides, he can own his own problems.
>As I understand it, him posting his little conspiracy theory came hot on the heels of Wu criticising his organisation, which helps explain the rest of it.
Yeah, the other comment said - I wasn't aware of that at the time. Dale was in the wrong anyway, CEOs shouldn't be shit-posting.
>He’s essentially admitting that they have a problem, and saying that they’ll try to fix it.
It's not clear to me it's that "they" have a problem from what I've read so far, just a claim that they have a problem.
Besides, the "problem" as I understand it is supposedly about representation? Representation of physical makeup doesn't equal representation of ideas. I would want to see proof that this has lead to a bias past the idiocy of the CEO.
In China (probably elsewhere too, but China is the relevant place here), apparently yes. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5046 touches on some of the dynamic there; the "Western" bit is definitely key.
The part about China listening more to foreign voices with the "Guanxi Bias" - very much on the edge about that. I've noticed a trend towards nationalism in China (and worryingly all over the world), so the fact that they chose the voice of a foreign person over that of "one of their own" might point to the Reddit thread being convincing, even if only a minor investigation is required to debunk it.
Unless there's inherent racism in China, a black, African female of the same position should have had the same power, fulfilling the role of "foreign person".
But the main point was really about attributing these unwanted characteristics specifically to white, Western men as opposed to Dale taking that responsibility on himself. Regardless of background, he is in a position of power (however you want to attribute that to him) and he made a mistake.
> I've noticed a trend towards nationalism in China
Sure. That sort of thing is not incompatible with perceiving other countries as "systematically better". In fact, one common form nationalism has taken (not just in China) is "those other people are currently ahead of us, but we will overtake them and then we will be ahead".
> Unless there's inherent racism in China
Oh, boy, is there. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/beyond-the-pale-chinas-c... has some discussion in article form, and in general searching for "racism in china" in your favorite search engine will find lots of discussion about the issue.
As far as I can tell, racism is just not something the ruling party cares about much, and they spend all their thought-and-speech-policing efforts on the things they _do_ care about (like their own survival). For similar reasons, racism was rampant in the Soviet Union and is rampant in Russia now.
Add to that that most Chinese have no personal experience with someone who looks "black", so all they have to go on are stereotypes, and it would be pretty surprising to _not_ have racism be prevalent in the culture.
He did say that "the negative impact of my tweets was amplified" by his social position, including being a white, western, male. I guess you disagree that this amplified the negative impact of those tweets? And this disagreement about assessment of negative impact bothers you for some reason?
He also, I agree, suggests, by the 'actions' they are taking that this social position probably made it more likely for him to have made this mistake. I guess you disagree? And are inflamed by this disagreement for some reason? Except you did write "fair point" about unconscious bias going on here.
I'm not quite sure what is irritating you so.
>He did say that "the negative impact of my tweets was amplified" by his social position, including being a white, western, male. I guess you disagree that this amplified the negative impact of those tweets? And this disagreement about assessment of negative impact bothers you for some reason?
Being white, Western and male is an attribute, not a social position. There's not a single social thing Dale can do that changes those attributes, unlike being rich and a CEO. Saying those seems to imply (from my perspective) that those attributes are in some way connected to his behaviour or his power. Put another way, there wouldn't be a scenario where if Dale was a black and female I would be saying "well, this could have been a whole lot worse if she was white and male".
The reason this bothers me is because the next time something bad happens in Silicon Valley and they happen to be white and male (which is likely given the overall demographic), they get grouped together and raise this general feeling that white men are an evil group of people.
>Except you did write "fair point" about unconscious bias going on here.
Everybody has unconscious bias, or at least everybody with a functioning brain. If I say "banana", almost guaranteed you think of something yellow, because we make assumptions to reduce the amount of information that needs to be interpreted about an idea. It's often difficult to work against. It's also not a property of just white, Western males either. It's shared throughout the world as an evolutionary advantage.
>I'm not quite sure what is irritating you so.
I know it's only a small thing, but it adds up over time towards this negativity that's building up in various media channels for or against different demographics.
Still not something you can do individually to change them, not something to apologize for being, not something to feel guilty about it. But something to be aware of? For sure.
Disagreeing that being white, western (when talking to/about China) and male amplified the negative impact of the tweets is to pretend society is different than it is. It's not one's _fault_ one is in that social position, but it _is_ a social position, and it matters.
This may be a stretch, but being an SF reader, it's helpful to imagine an SF story about, say, aliens that take over the earth and set things up so they're in charge. Remember the 80s show 'V'? That's pretty much what's really going on, except not with aliens. Doesn't mean the aliens in V had to feel guilty for being aliens, and they couldn't change being aliens. But some of the acted against the other aliens plans to steal all the earths water and eat the humans, others for them, and others just went along with it. But pretending things weren't set up to give aliens power over humans wouldn't have helped anyone (well, except power-hungry aliens).