flaviusb

Okay. Fair enough. I usually wouldn't notice things like the HN slowdown features, as it usually takes me a while to compose a reply - but I don't post here much, so it is possible that this forum's set-up just hasn't had time to annoy me yet. I'll email you my response to your previous post when it is composed.

Would you mind if we continued this here? One of the useful things about it is that it preserves (at least for some period of time) an internet accessible log of the conversation in tree form, which people can (at least in theory) interject into or browse through later.

I wasn't born a feminist, the culture around me isn't predominantly feminist, and no one slipped me some kind of feminist pill or magical feminist indoctrination. I got to my current ideological position by questioning things when the evidence of my senses persistently failed to match up with what 'the majority' or 'received wisdom' said. So yes, I have questioned this stuff - it would have made my life much easier were it not true.

Next, 'Sexual harassment' isn't a side, nor is it an agent. The 'sides' are 'the sexists' vs 'the non-sexists', or if you want a more 'fighting words' formulation, 'the misogynists' vs 'the decent human beings' (with, in both cases, 'the neutrals' and 'the not-actually-involved's' as well).

The structural power imbalance is really really easy to observe. Look at the reactions to posts like the OP's, both here on HN and in terms of the comments (if their blog has comments enabled) or email they receive.

(As an aside, for this kind of thing Ashe Dryden's blog posts (for example) are better than the OP's at cataloguing responses and providing links.)

There are replies after incident reports like this kind of thing saying that the woman deserved it, or "can't you guys take a joke", or that it doesn't actually happen, or "it doesn't count as sexism, the real sexism is that sexist acts get called sexism" etc etc etc. The people who respond that way seem to honestly feel like they are in the majority - and, as incident reports seem to indicate, many conference organisers act like they agree with that assessment. If there is a mechanism that protects people who perform sexist actions, and protects the protectors, and so on, and no counterbalancing mechanism, then that there is evidence of a structural imbalance.

As for "it happening more than other socially unacceptable behaviour" - we actually have papers that measure the effects of this kind of thing, and their conclusions were uniformly that sexism and misogyny were serious problems with large negative effects in computer science and programming fields. The problem with racism is probably comparable, but fortunately many of the things that have proven effective at reducing sexism related problems also reduce racism related problems, and the two things do not work at cross purposes, so it isn't an either-or problem. The problem with magical thinking and a lack of education might be comparable, but efforts to fix general rationality deficits are often hampered by having entrenched specific rationality deficits, and basic exercises in testing reality and accepting conclusions if pointed at dissolving the various edifices that protect racism and sexism in the industry would advance both causes, so this also isn't an either-or. If you were a marxist or anarchist I could see you thinking that the wage-labour situation was more pressing than any of the above, but again modern marxist and anarchist thought seems to be going in the direction that microfascisms that are allowed to fester will result in macrofascism, plus the whole ideas of perpetual revolution and solidarity, so dealing with racism and sexism are pretty important in order for the revolution to actually be able to win at all.

Does this answer your points?

It isn't popular because of 'some kind of siege mentality'. It is popular because there is an observed structural power imbalance, which means that 'not joining a side' does not have 'no effect', as the 'silent' are assumed (by all involved, not just some actors acting in bad faith) to agree with 'the majority'.

Okay, think of it like this: you are not the only 'neutral' person out there. There are four sides. Side A, side B, side neutral, and side not-actually-involved. Side A will clearly win against side B, but clearly lose against side B plus some large (but not total) percentage of side neutral. Side not-actually-involved can have some influence on the outcome, but generally not much.

That is the kind of situation which I would claim things like the 'evil patriarchy' vs 'the not evil not patriarchy' are. So, there are several possibilities; if you are already a part of side a or side b, then you have already chosen a side. Whether you are part of side neutral or side not-actually-involved is pretty easy to determine: are you in the industry at all? If yes, then you are involved.

So, even assuming that you are involved, your unique help is in fact not necessary to the victory of the not evil side. Merely the help of many of the people in your reference class. In which case, if you choose not to help side b, you have indicated that you prefer side a winning over helping side b; this is not quite the same as preferring that side a win, but it is enough that 'neutrality' is usually taken by everyone involved (including other neutrals, except for you for some reason) as 'weak support for the structurally powerful/status quo/clear majority position'.

Does that clear things up at all?

No, it is about power. The reasoning goes as follows:

1) When there are two sides, and one side will clearly win by default, choosing to stay neutral becomes de facto support for the 'default' winner. 2) In this case, the 'default' winner is evil. 3) So, in this case neutrality is evil.

Does that make more sense?

For style, there are points of style that no automated tool that currently exists can enforce, such as 'good naming'. At the moment that looks like an AI-hard problem.

For your point about sharing knowledge, your argument works against all forms of sharing knowledge. You may as well say that wikis are unnecessary, because standups, code, comments, and code reviews share knowledge. What you have missed is that these different modes of knowledge sharing work better at sharing different kinds of knowledge, which is why you (should) want all of them.

Also, good developers are not really fungible. Developer X may be really good at making code flow, so that what it is trying to do is not obscured by how it is doing it, and developer Y might have a really good knowledge of algorithms and an eye for optimisation. In that case, having them review each other's code will always result both in better code and in (eventually) better developers.

As far as it goes, I have seen plenty of badly done, useless code reviews. I have also had really well done code reviews, where someone would email me an annotated diff of one of my commits, or where I would pair for a few hours with someone going over some thorny code I or they had committed and making it less thorny, or where we would go back and forth refactoring some piece of code while talking over the whys and wherefores. If I had only had bad code reviews I would be much more sympathetic to the point you are making, but as it is I just think that you have never been involved with a competently done code review.

I think of it like Sturgeon's Law applied to humans. Most humans just are not very good at most stuff.

Look at the percentage of programmers that are basically not any good at programming all and yet are able to continue being called programmers; if we apply standards of expectation uniformly, then you would expect to see even people in technical fields be able to be useless at math and have everyone basically just shrug and accept it.