As usual, another HN thread that perfectly exemplifies victim blaming and a collective burying of heads in the sand. There's a few people on here who seem to get it, but most don't. I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News.
We all understand fixing someone's computer and then being blamed for any problems it has from then on; or for making a software estimate and being held to it as a requirement. In short, hackers are used to being scapegoats, so the first conclusion we jump to when one of us is accused of something is that they're being scapegoated too.
This can look like "victim-blaming", but it's really more-than-anything a yearning for people to keep their standards of evidence high, and to avoid jumping to conclusions. Counterarguments and counterfactuals ("what else could have happened") aren't presented as "this is obviously what happened instead", but just to decrease confidence that the evidence presented thusfar is strong enough to prove anything much. If evidence A fits alleged narrative X, but also random equally-likely stories Y or Z, then X is no longer implied directly by A.
I don't buy it. The "hacker type" despite self-professing as a logical bunch falls prey to all of the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that any other opinionated group does. The evidence is already out there, this is one of many incidents following a trend of sexism in this industry that has been going on for decades.
Github does not exist in a vacuum and real life social interaction doesn't use variables beyond a distant abstract analysis.
That really depends, now, doesn't it, on what the subject is? :) HackerNews seems, in general, to have a very low standard of evidence for things like "the NSA is doing something evil", and tends to be quite credulous on such things. It seems to have a very, very, _very_ high standard of evidence for "bigotry exists" though.
> HackerNews seems, in general, to have a very low standard of evidence for "[large organizational structure] is doing something evil", and tends to be quite credulous on such things. It seems to have a very, very, _very_ high standard of evidence for "[individual] is doing something evil" though.
I think this succinctly predicts more of HN's behavior, personally. HN is just generally afraid to condemn individuals for much at all.
That doesn't exclude your conclusion from also being true, though: HN can be both resistant to condemning individuals, while also being biased against believing that bigotry is a thing that exists. But assuming that either one is the "whole cause" of any particular effect, will cause effects to seem weirdly large, because of the confounding effect of the other.
Anyone who throws their hands up and says "well I guess X, Y, and Z are equally probable" to me clearly has not actually spent time understanding the problem.
In an actual trial, for a conviction to take place, evidence would have to be presented that leaves no room for reasonable doubt--which is to say, the evidence would have to effectively take Y/Z/etc. out of consideration.
We chose this standard because we, as a society, decided that there was something more important than making sure "justice is served" in all cases: making sure nobody has the power to condemn innocents at a whim by making up an "extremely probable" accusation.
But the court of public opinion has no such strict standard, even though the punishments it hands out can be far worse.
I know this is going to come across as unfriendly, but I'm always bemused when people make these little plays for attention. It's a massive site, you're not one of the notable commenters, if HN isn't delivering value why not just stop reading it quietly rather than announcing it to the world?
Your attitude is the same as a lot of the socially inept that roam the valley and this message board. If This Isn't The Most Efficient Logical Course Of Action (according my perspective) Then It Bemuses Me.
Well, half of them, anyway.
Good to see we're staying classy. Next time you might like to work in a zinger about autism, neckbeards and/or fedora ownership.
Of course, there's a feedback loop in that people won't comment where the majority seem to disagree heavily with their morals, so that doesn't help with what threads like these look like. The sheer amount of personal attacks against people who disagree with victim-blaming views of this in this thread serve as a warning not to speak up.
I read these type of threads on HN constantly and every time I walk away absolutely disgusted with what I see said in them. I don't have the will to comment myself because it just would not change anyones opinion and they would instantly go into attack mode.
To be fair, just a few comments up you said
"I think you'll like this:" and then posted a link to a comic making fun of 'socially awkward', 'atheist', 'fedora wearers'.
It seems somewhat dramatic to me too, but I also have found the comments on the stories around this issue somewhat disappointing. That was their way of communicating it, this comment is mine.
Can't you understand that at many times both parties are at fault for escalation? This is one actually useful thing that police manage to understand and accomplish, they understand that "Victims" often play a role. This is why screaming "self-defense" at every violence case does not work.
You will probably jump to rape as your first defense of victim blaming and examples, because that is the one to garner most backing off quickly.
To see what you're pissed off at, let's survey your comment history. I don't see anything particular to this case except getting pissed off, so i'll take your comment towards the website, calm. Hmm, A website towards meditation. Seems peaceful .
Let's not forget the website that was made to be only nice to people and to send encouragement only very recently. Seems like this community is trying. But one occasion with 2 sides to a story, and it's all said and done it your book? See you later.
I think we tend to overestimate the level of idiocy because it resonates much more strongly (in a negative way) in our heads.
As long as sexism persists in the tech industry, it's going to drive women out and keep others away.
While this is all true (on the information we had in that thread, it was possible that the woman was the one at fault, and it's good to reserve judgement until more information arrives), it was really weird how many people felt the need to point these things out.
I do agree that this thread seems more balanced, although even in this thread people are surprisingly quick to point out that these problems are not 'sexism' (despite the fact that the situations described would have been an order of magnitude less likely to arise if she were a man).
How and why is this a fact? Could really none of this happen to a male employee?
Crazy boss? Check. Workplace relationship? Check. "Enemies" reverting your code? Check. Management non-reactive to complaints? Check. I think a lot of this goes on regularly on many companies, an concerns many employees. In particular, what seems sexist here is trying to make this a women's problem, not an employee's problem.
lol wtf
Perhaps you are only sick of the burden of your own unexamined piety and belief the universe must obey your whims.
we're getting existential now
>suffer >irrelevant anecdotes to contrast against OP's "battle"
Why do you think he cares about children dying? Is it really so hard to grasp the notion that we are emotionally compelled by things relevant to our own lives at any given time?
This may be his battle, or maybe it's not a battle at all. Maybe you should stop this hyperbolic nonsense, because you're the one making it a battle.
>suffer
cringe