Hacker News Reader

I want to help other groups in this industry; however, there is no speaking to them.

I think I partially know how it feels to be gay, because I didn't choose my situation yet there is an extremely vocal group that wants me to believe I am doing something wrong.

I humbly submit that you have no idea how it feels to be gay, and that the best way to find out is to actually talk to us. aphyr@aphyr.com.

> I humbly submit that you have no idea how it feels to be gay

It was a bad example, which is why I included partially, and I apologize for my poor thought there. I was only identifying with having no choice in a situation and then having vocal groups attempt to vilify that situation.

I am certainly not claiming that I experience any hardship that gay folks do beyond that one. Please don't assume I'm in a bubble, either; I married into a Mormon family and experienced that intolerance firsthand as I fought against it.

E-mailed as requested.

I'm gay and I feel exactly the same way about this whole farce. The idea that no straight person can truly sympathize is bullshit... and when it comes from those who complain about a lack of empathy in others, I just scratch my head.

The irony is of course, they are themselves the most privileged around: white, educated tech employees in Silicon Valley.

On the contrary, I believe strongly in the importance of allies.

"Ally" is just another in the long line of useless SJW concepts. How about just not being homophobic or sexist? But no, that's not deemed sufficient. Privilege is basically the SJW take on Original Sin, and declaring yourself to be an ally is like self-flaggelating yourself into repentance.

You don't need to ally yourself with every gay person to not be a homophobe, and you don't need to ally yourself with every woman to not be a sexist.

The people who want "allies" tend to be surrounded by unquestioning fans and tend to get their panties in a bunch when faced with actual criticism, deserved or not. If you believe that any criticism you receive happens because you are gay or because you are a woman, then "allies" are the only people who won't upset your delicate sensibilities.

It's telling that we only know him as "the guy from PlayHaven" while we all know Adria Richards by name. In that picture Adria took at PyCon, I'm not even sure which guy got fired.

Okay, so the PlayHaven guy got fired. Adria had death threats made against her, was the subject of a beheading picture, had her home address and phone number publicized, her employer was DDOSed, and she was ultimately fired, like the PlayHaven guy.

That's misogyny in action. That's what needs to end.

On one side, it's a few people using their real names and identities to be harshly and specifically critical on Twitter. On the other side, it's an avalanche of anonymous death threats. I know which one bothers me more.

I think both sides are assholes, and should collectively shut up and let calm, reasonable people handle these problems like adults.

This is my feeling as well. I get that anonymous death threats are an issue, but the counterweight is not made any more palatable by that fact. I also agree with grandparent about anonymous misogyny, but not that one group is less troubling than the other.

Okay, so the PlayHaven guy got fired. Adria had death threats made against her, was the subject of a beheading picture, had her home address and phone number publicized, her employer was DDOSed, and she was ultimately fired, like the PlayHaven guy.

Neither one is acceptable. The mob action is obviously worse, but both punishments were wrong.

What should have happened (wishful thinking I know) is that AR could have told the guys to knock it off, or gone to staff without tweeting a picture to make a complaint if she was not comfortable with a one-on-one disagreement.

In that case the very competent PyCon staff would have mediated the complaint, and no one would have heard about it beyond a small circle of a few dozen people.

This kind of thinking is anathema to SJW ideology. Example: https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/416999484581625856

Interesting.

Jumping to the worst possible conclusion / interpretation of someone's words seems to be a hallmark of this style of 'activism'. Which leads to especially aggressive debates and misunderstandings, especially when people are on Twitter and constrained to <140 characters.

The one tweet in there about private conversations enabling power dynamics is interesting. jdunck told me via email that he refuses to even discuss this stuff privately because I have to own up to my comment publicly, which really confused the hell out of me. But now it makes more sense.

I was also ready to just accept it as SJWs wanting help in a group from someone who calls them on their bullshit. Probably a little of column A, little of column B.

private conversations enabling power dynamics

Public conversations also enable power dynamics.

They just enable power dynamics of a different sort - mobbing, pile-ons, and other forms of collective shaming.

What disappoints me most is that I actually sympathize with feminism. I just wish they were less McCarthyist about it. Which is an apt analogy as I also sympathize with anti-communists.

> What disappoints me most is that I actually sympathize with feminism.

Ready for this? Me too. If you notice, I didn't use that word at all in my comment, because I take issue with only the method of delivery, not the message.

> On top of that, I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry.

It's really hard to read that and not think of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/vote-no-on-...

"I'm a white male and I am evil to them"

Name one person who has said this.

No one says it literally. It's embedded in the implications.

The industry is "too white, too male".

White men don't understand the implications or the need for diversity.

White men are dinosaurs, they need to adapt to the new world.

There's a ton of dog-whistle racism and sexism against white men. Unfortunately, that's the 'acceptable' kind of racism and sexism, because many white men are in positions of power and authority (and therefore 'white men' are considered acceptable to criticize as a group - and even those who lack power are lumped in with the tiny elite at the top).

The criticisms that are levied, without proof, against white men in the tech industry, would be treated as evidence of terrible racism and/or sexism if they were levied at other groups.

Unlike other groups white men are just expected to smile and nod and agree with the 'feminists' or 'anti-racists' ... arguing back is taken as proof of guilt.

Louis CK has many smart and funny things to say on this topic (race, here, not gender for the most part):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

When the jester mocks the king it's funny. When the king mocks the jester it's just cruel.

Agreed. I think, however, that addressing "white men" as a group misses the specific target of criticism. The 23 year old entry-level "SWE-I" - who happens to be a white male - is not the 'king' and not a threat to anybody. Lumping him in with men of great power, wealth, and influence because of his race / sex / cultural background is problematic. It's more likely to alienate him and lose him as a potential ally, than to get him on board.

On the other hand, informing VCs or other gatekeepers about the desire for diversity in the profession, and holding the thought leaders to a high standard, does make sense.

You, by quoting it. Next?

> Communist hunters? Because I could have sworn we were smart folks trying to make the world a better place.

No, more like misogynist-racist-capitalist hunters. We HN types are trying to profit. At best grabbing so much money with uninspiring "tech" that some will assume their rightful place as benevolent plutocrats playing SimEarth.

> Shanley never misses a chance to go after Sarah Lacy

Anyone can see for themselves that Sarah Lacy is happy to dish out more than she gets, even using a gender slur against women just trying to talk (scroll down to the video): (http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/09/28/techcrunch-women-in-tech...)

> That's the modus operandae of these people: all it takes is one mistake

And evidence accumulated over time. And HN posters like you making wild accusations without one single cite to back up your claims... which turn out flimsy when you actually research it.

> It's not my fault I'm a white male

But it's your fault that you act this way. When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay. Your hurt feelings are far more important to you. At least you "get that anonymous death threats are an issue". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983085)

Like the kind that attacked Kathy Sierra and her children. Because she dared speak her mind. (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...)

Yeah, people like you make the world a better place.

> But it's your fault that you act this way.

And which way is that? I just shared an opinion. Am I not supposed to have opinions? Are there correct opinions?

> When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay.

Careful with that "you" there, pal. I have never done, and would never, ever do this. Jesse Noller will remember when I e-mailed him to offer him support when he was receiving death threats over the PyCon affair. Being stalked and threatened by the Internet is no laughing matter and I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone. In 2005-2006, a younger me was fairly involved in 4chan (your guess is as good as mine) and I know firsthand the depths of anonymity. I'd hold the same opinion of someone and react to that person the same way if they threatened to kill either Shanley Kane, myself, or any member of my family.

So, you had a pretty good point going there and then did exactly what you are accusing me of doing, painting a caricature of me which is easy for you to whack on.

And when guys in tech mention to Shanley that they too have pet trolls who send them nasty things, she ignores them.

[Citation Needed]

That applies to every single blog post about "white men" she's every written. Her first. Besides, don't want to draw the ire of the twitter harpies... again.

Watching you clutch your pearls is fucking hilarious, so I've set up a weekly donation of a fair chunk of change to Shanley's Gittip account.

Keep up the good work.

+1, adding some money to Shanley's account

Unlike most folks, I know who you are (I am not far removed from your social circle from prior employment) and you'll have to try that on someone else. I would encourage you to formulate a substantive point, for once, and seek a rational discussion on this with me but I know from experience that's not Coda Hale Style.

Last year I donated more than your annual contribution to Shanley's Gittip on causes for hunger and urban outreach, too. Since 2010 I have done a 50/50 split between my own 401(k) and hand-selected charities, and my 401(k) contribution is currently 3%. You can do the math. So, you can't hurt my feelings by tossing your big bad salary at another salaried worker in the industry in SF instead of, you know, helping people that need it.

Finally, between you and Michael Church I just can't use Scala any more for fear of remembering that you exist.

I'm happy to hear you're donating to charity, but you're missing out on a great opportunity to reduce your taxable income and save for retirement. The 2013 contribution limit is $17,500, and most financial planners would be aghast at a well-paid professional like yourself not taking such an easy step to lower your tax liability. The good news is that if you max out your contribution either today or tomorrow, you'll still make the 2013 contribution deadline.

Say hey to the folks we both know for me when you see them.

This is what I believe you call derailing. Like the other person, I'm also still waiting for substantive points to be made rather than shaming and cherry picking.

I'm not here for debate club, Johnonymous. Like I said before, I'm here for the pearl-clutching.

No indeed, that would mean not being a self righteous prick. You know what the effect of people like Kane was in the skeptic community? Female conference attendance dropped from 40% to 10% in a single year.

Enjoy your self defeating efforts.

Yes, it's so great for women in open source that the only 2 women in the Gittip top 12 are there because they whine and bitch a lot, rather than produce something useful. Keep white knighting.

Both are known for pulling facts out of their ass that are either unsupported or contradicted by evidence.

I would just like to point out, per pg's observations, that this is an eloquent way of saying "ur a fag".

That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here... Do you realize how ridiculous you are?

If you would like to know what racism is and why criticism of a dominant group on the basis of race isn't in, here's one take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

But you'd have to listen to get it, and you'd definitely have to give up your bullshit self-serving circular "logic".

> That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here...

...is indicative of the fact that mentioned people have tweeted a link to it, bringing a predominantly sympathetic crowd to attempt to kick my ass in the comments. Including you. I can read Twitter, you know.

I can't understand the rest of your comment. Can you rephrase your disagreement and point out what you take issue with? It would also help if you didn't refer to my opinion as bullshit, or at least provide some specificity on what you find to be bullshit about what I've said.

Where does the parent comment even mention racism? This is just a drive-by snipe attacking something that the parent didn't even say.

> several of her circle started Gittip accounts and they are cleaning house

459usd/week*52weeks/year = 23k/year - taxes = ~10k

They will be rich soon.

I take your point, but if you earn $23k/year you aren't paying over 50% in tax. Particularly post eitc.

He's quoting Coda Hale without doing the math himself. It's fairly trivial to deduce who was sent here from the link that went around on Twitter. I see at least six people that saw the link on Twitter, giggled about it, then decided to show up on HN to make me feel bad. Because me calling it a group is totally wrong when they brigade a thread, right?

https://twitter.com/coda/status/417500281291550721

Regardless, my point was those Gittip accounts do well versus other Gittip accounts, which by and large represent people who contribute a lot of free software to the community.

>I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry

And that is what pisses me off about this kind of nonsense. If it was just idiots being idiots I wouldn't care, but this shit actually affects people. My wife doesn't to go to conferences or involve herself in the programming world outside of directly doing her job any more because she feels like everyone is afraid to talk near her much less to her, for fear of losing their job over something they said.

I agree with your wife, also avoid tech conf and women tech meetups because I am afraid. Most of us are trying to be do our job well, improve how we code etc, build something useful perhaps BUT this back and forth makes it very difficult.