Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by invadedby | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

invadedby

>why have women been almost intentionally excluded from IT until relatively recently?

I have never excluded women. Also IT, tech, hackers are not interchangeable terms.

>Do you mean "good" for people in general, or "good" for you?

I meant good for hackers. People with a certain world view, goals and sense of humor.

>When you say "we are being invaded," who is "we"?

Again, hackers. We never cared for race nor sexuality.

>who is doing the invading?

Control freaks.

>They're not trying to control your thoughts, they're trying to get you to be less of an asshole.

If anything, this rules make it easier to be an asshole.

View on HN

You say you've never excluded women, but you are aggressively dismissing an attempt -- it seems, mostly from women -- at improving what they perceive as sexist undertones in the workplace.

If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," that seems pretty stinking sexist, doesn't it? Dismissing someone's concerns by saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give a shit about.

If some group has evolved office slang that includes saying "Quit being a ginger" to people who make dumb mistakes, and then that group hires some redheaded dude, wouldn't it be within his rights to say "hey guys, it's kind of weird to use 'ginger' as a euphemism for 'dumbass'"? Yeah, maybe he's "invading" and stepping on the group's ability to insult people at the expense of other groups, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.

Dismissing someone's concerns by saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give a shit about.

Conveniently, you've also accurately described what happens when someone expresses concern about negative side effects of new social rules.

> If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," that seems pretty stinking sexist, doesn't it?

No.

Replace sexism with unicorns and reread your premise.

That's silly -- a unicorn's presence is, for the most part, a measurable binary, it's either there or it isn't. Sexism is subjective, or at least more up for debate than "is the unicorn in the room or is it not."

If somebody says, "hey, this is some bad sexism," that's a lousy argument, because it's a vague statement that can't be proven either way. You could respond with "no it isn't, shhh" and it would be just as reasonable a rebuttal as any other.

But if someone says "these are things I think contribute to an unnecessarily exclusionary environment, here's why it should change," then I think it's disingenuous to just say "meh, no" without addressing the concerns. It's basically someone saying, "I think my opinions are being written off without being properly discussed," and responding with "That's not true, discussion over, it's written off." There's got to at least be a discussion, no?

> Sexism is subjective,

No, it isn't.

If you believe you have an actionable claim, bring it to court.

If you don't (and you know that you don't) you have no right to shame and defame people, while hiding behind some bullshit policy that prevents them from defending themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com