Raganwald quits Hacker News | Hacker News Reader

Raganwald quits Hacker News

twitter.com

45 pointssteveklabnik32 comments

I don't care how prominent a person is, "I'm leaving and not coming back!" announcements have always been childish.

The conversation in question wasn't even uncivil. He's thrown a hissy fit over nothing.

It's probably the last straw that broke the camel's back.

"I don't care how prominent a person is"

I love the entire concept of calling a top commenter "prominent". As if what they say (because they have so much karma) is so valuable and not replaceable.

Unfortunately I didn't follow raganwald closely so I can't say much about the types of things he would get involved in.

As far as value and benefit I think a "grellas" is higher on the scale [1] of "prominence" because of the type of things he discusses (law) even though he is lower on the karma scale. Basically because of not only what I learn but the degree to which I can be safe in assuming it is correct (perhaps because the subject is not as subjective.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

Edit [1] Of course I will preempt the obvious rebuttal which is to say since I don't really know much about raganwald comments (I have read them but don't particularly remember anything or his slant and knowledge) how do I know he shouldn't rank higher in prominence?

> I love the entire concept of calling a top commenter "prominent".

"Prominent" in the sense of "highly visible" or "widely known". I don't see the argument against that label.

Maybe you're thinking of "preeminent"? That would be a higher bar.

Definition I come up with for prominent is "important and well-known".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prominent

And that is what the definition and typical usage for me (and observed by others) has always been. (Perhaps for a non american speaker it is different).

Sorry, got carried away with my recommendation of "preeminent" as a replacement with a stronger connotation of importance. The two are colloquially interchangeable, I agree.

Back to semantics: in Latin, prominere means "jutting out, standing out". I fall for the originalist definition sometimes, though certainly a thing's importance can be derived from its prominence. :)

I completely understand him. He talked a lot about gender issues, and that's one of a few topics that always leads to raging arguments here.

I've learned to mostly ignore this class of threads. HN is a great place to learn about obscure hacks or interesting technical tidbits, but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues.

but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues

Is an echo chamber really better, though?

In this case Raganwald twisted someone's disagreement with an idea into a purported attack on a person, inventing a victimhood that doesn't exist (finding an idea ridiculous isn't shaming an individual, and I would be humored to meet the delusional person who thinks they don't generate a constant stream of ridiculous ideas), which is a tactic of opinion suppression that is far too prevalent in gender discussions.

I think the question the parent is trying to raise is, is HN the right place for gender discussions in the first place? I have a dotjs script that filters out any political or social posts here because the conversations that occur are simply not constructive. That and the hate in those comments can be felt by anybody within a 10 foot radius who can see the expression on my face when I read them. I don't need that kind of poison derailing my day, so I stopped reading them.

However you feel about the original topic, you have to ask yourself: are those comment threads helping or hurting the community here?

>but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues.

IMO the fact that many find those types of discussions unsatisfactory makes HN a particularly good place to have them.

But would you be willing to hold your face into the furnace? Because those arguing for the, let's say, "progressive" stance towards (gender-)equality issues recieve a pretty rough deal here.

I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason. And the HN community is not even close to being one of the worst out there in that regard. It just seems that, in 2014, advocating online for measures to reduce the gender-imbalances in some parts of our society will inevitably stirr up pure, raw hate.

I think it is a very small minority of people who are opposed to gender-equality in principle. A lot of us are oblivious to the problems experienced by non-males.

>I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason.

But why? To preserve karma? You can't take it with you when you die.

>advocating online for measures to reduce the gender-imbalances in some parts of our society will inevitably stirr up pure, raw hate.

Some people can't comment on an issue which they feel strongly about without making a personal insult. That's a problem for them, not you.

I reckon I'm probably part of that minority because I argue against some of the shortsighted solutions people propose for bandaging over the problems and symptoms instead of treating the cause. For example, I know I've debated against raganwald at least once with respect to company cultures, some of which may have less then desirable traits with respect to how comfortable each gender may feel when immersed in those cultures (but ultimately is an effect, not cause of inequality).

The problem that some people have with a lot of these discussions isn't with the gender equality, but that many of those arguing for certain measures throw all logic and reason out the window when it comes to what the correct solution is. It's like they start with the "5 whys", stop after the first and propose a solution to that problem without getting to the root.

Gender inequality in STEM companies is result of problems that start far earlier in life and attempting to fix the problems at the company level is simply treating one of the myriad symptoms.

Want to actually fix the problem? Then acknowledge that it's a 20+ year solution you need and not a 1-2 year solution. Provide far more support at the elementary school level, but make sure whatever solution you come up with is gender neutral. If in the first year of offering such program for young children, the ratio of boys to girls still isn't desirable, then focus on improving over several years instead of band-aid solutions like making programs only for girls (which only teaches small boys the lesson that girls need special treatment, the absolute wrong lesson to learn.)

TBH, the only environment in which it is fair to provide STEM program support without teaching exclusion or communicating special treatment is the Girl Scouts, because at least with girl scouts (and boy scouts), the grouping is about being with your peers and does not transit the message that girls need any special treatment with regards to some activities like STEM.

For a bunch of nerds that are always discussing how to get traction and adoption of ideas, I'm constantly floored that we don't realize that getting traction/adoption that leads to gender equality can really only start at the elementary school level. Every other solution that tries to solve the problem at the adult level often just breeds resentment (from men feeling that they have some sort of original sin or male nerds burden and women being taught they need special treatment instead of succeeding on their own merit).

If there is one piece out there that is required reading to really understand this, it is this article by Susan Sons.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software

":( what was the last straw?" "Being told that people should be shamed for suggesting certain ideas."

While not surprising behavior for Hacker News, is there any more context to this?

I'm assuming it's related to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7242845

A quick search yields: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7250557

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=raganwald

That might be somewhere to start.

Without much context, the argument seems like a dishwasher argument - IE its not actually over the dirty dishes. I wonder what precipitated the rest?

Is this really so common that it's called a 'dishwasher argument' ?

No. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dishwasher+argument%22

Kind of an odd place to draw a line. "That's ridiculous" is pretty clearly simply a strong way of disagreeing with an idea, not literally an attempt to "shame" someone for suggesting it. But once you're already irritated with the style of discourse here, it's pretty easy to just say screw it, that's the end.

I usually enjoyed raganwald's posts, and agreed with him from time to time, but not always. But these "so and so is quitting HN" posts don't seem very valuable to me. It's arguably unfortunate that raganwald is leaving, but the site will go on. Eventually, HN may degrade into a modern version of Slashdot and maybe more and more of the old-timers will gradually drift away. There's no doubt that a number of them already have. But there's not much point getting all worked up over any one individual leaving.

I know pg has put a lot of thought into how to keep the level of discourse high, and into how to prevent the "Eternal September" effect. Maybe he'll succeed. Maybe not. In the meantime, let's talk about something interesting. :-)

So the tweet is gone. I will just leave this here: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/you-suck.html

"Thursday, September 20, 2007 - You suck.

There’s a childish thing bloggers do. They get angry about something that pisses them off, and they vent. They know, deep in their hearts, that whining about stuff when they could be out there making positive change is not constructive. And they especially know that lashing out in public is not constructive criticism, it’s just throwing a digital temper tantrum."

He will be sorely missed :(

"Being told that people should be shamed for suggesting certain ideas."

More context?

There are certain ideas that we should definitely shame people for suggesting.

Since this hit the front page of HN, an admin could send him/her a new password. That's ironic!

I see a lot of pople I'd expect to be more mature making a seeminlgy conscious effort to get bent out of shape about the gender thing.

I guess it's good to create awareness but I hope these people don't end up doing things with a net negative effect in the process.

ITT: perfect illustration of why he left, and why you should probably follow suit.

I'm tired of feminists (both men and women) hijacking the buzz around technology to post whiny repetitive linkbait about their trophy victimhood.

Tired of special interest groups that demean the achievements of women who made it on merit.

Tired of angry disaffected feminists like Laurie Penny, Caroline Criado-Perez and Shanley trying to make their misandry sound intellectual.

Tired of media companies manufacturing spurious concepts like "Women 2.0" in order to sell event tickets and column inches.

We've lost nothing of value with this "stomp my feet and slam the door" farce.

It's mostly faux outrage.

There are many fields and industries where women outnumber men, yet not a peep from the usual suspects.

Is it irony that Raganwald is trying to group shame someone(1) for stating their opinion?

1 - they have to know with certainty that people will dig into the cause of their rather childish blowout. If people want to quit something for internal reasons, they simply quit. If they want to apply some leverage they try a public blowout.

It wasn't childish. If he hadn't announced it, there would eventually be people asking "what happened to raganwald?" If it's worth anything, he didn't give the reason until asked.

Having a tantrum and trying to raise a mob because someone says something that you disagree with is, under the most charitable of interpretations, bully-like and absolutely childish. His original comment was fishing for a query, and such was guaranteed.

You could argue that he was fishing for the question. I'd rather not assume that when there's a perfectly reasonable charitable interpretation. But I see no evidence that he was "trying to raise a mob". His actions, as far as I can tell, are perfectly consistent with having good intentions: it would have been a bit rude, perhaps even cowardly, to just disappear, the question of why was inevitable (as you said), and he answered honestly. If a mob raises itself, that's really not his responsibility. Really, it's not. I can't see what he should have dinner differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com