4 ms·

Some people in the developer community need to get better at recognizing when a witch hunt is brewing. This blog post has essentially the same content as the on

Some people in the developer community need to get better at recognizing when a witch hunt is brewing. This blog post has essentially the same content as the one yesterday on the same subject[1]. Like the one yesterday, it attempts to provide its own explanation for why Crockford was disinvited as the keynote speaker. However, none of these details are mentioned in the actual statement given by Nodevember[2], and there are no sources given for how this explanation was arrived at. The Nodevember statement claims he was disinvited based on some public and private feedback from speakers who felt uncomfortable attending with him as the keynote speaker. Why should we take it on face value that the circumstances documented here are actual set of circumstances that lead to him being disinvited? Where is this information even coming from? One of the alleged sources is a blog post from Kas Perch[3]. The alleged slut shaming incident seems to be a minor note in a post otherwise focused on his negative and dismissive attitude towards some of the other speakers. Perhaps this is the more salient part of why this person felt uncomfortable attending with him? Perhaps there's more feedback being kept private to protect the witch hunt from targeting those coming forward? Notably I haven't even seen a statement from Crockford crying foul over this incident. It seems to be coming entirely from other Node developers upset about the fact that he was removed as the keynote speaker. It seems like this is an argument being played out as a proxy over political stances about diversity and inclusion tactics, without a lot of consideration for the actual circumstances. Furthermore I find it very disappointing that this poorly substantiated argument is being used to demonize inclusivity and diversity overall, which is something badly needed in developer communities. [1]: http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford [2]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html [3]: https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-conferences-with-douglas-crockford-anymore-61bc29f028c8#.b640mips1 https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-...

tobltobs 10y ago
> on some public and private feedback from speakers who felt uncomfortable attending with him as the keynote speaker. So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is. And you believe that this kind of closed door denunciation will result in a better, more inclusive world? And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  > So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is. No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation, and furthermore there are good reasons for not offering a public explanation. > And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt? No, I'm acknowledging that this is a lot of frenzy being whipped up when the party directly affected by the decision hasn't released a statement questioning their motivation. He may have been given an explanation and has chosen not to make an issue of it for all you know. The only people seemingly angered by this decision are people who aren't affected.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    I do not understand how banning people due to some unproved, anonym accusations will result in a more inclusive society. Actually it sounds like a surefire way to achieve the antipode.
  - ralusek 10y ago
    Almost everybody in the this community is affected by decisions like this.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    I am offended by your claim that I haven't been affected by this!
  - derefr 10y ago
    > No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation Conferences are for-profit things, yes? Companies don't owe their customers anything, but if they don't give their customers anything, then customers don't have any reason to give the company their money. Or, to put that another way: a conference about Javascript that kicks out Douglas Crockford is pretty much in a default state from the moment they decide to do so of "so why should anyone attend this?" until they provide an explanation that serves to ameliorate the bozo-bit they just seemingly flipped.
IsaacL 10y ago
I have learned not to jump to conclusions in these stories, even when I want to back my ideological "team". (I'm not a fan of SJWs, but many of the anti-SJWs make up for it by being even worse). The Nodevember statement seems reasonable on its face: "[...] his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak. We reacted to this feedback. Nothing else. Any other speculation around his past behavior was not taken into account. This conference was started by a group of friends to gather around the love of a shared language and community. We are in over our heads. The conference has grown to something we never anticipated. We aren't professional organizers or PR people. We are still learning, and will make mistakes. We don't do this as a full time job. We do this because we love the community." OK, they're just a group of friends doing their thing, and it's their club, their rules. On the other hand: they're charging $350 a ticket, so can hardly be complete amateurs. It sounds like they're trying to downplay any political angle, when excluding such a speaker would inevitably be seen as a political move in the current climate. (Conference for an extremely hip, progressive community (Node) excludes old-school elitist greybeard. Only reasons cited publicly are mildly condescending remarks in Crawford's public talks and unelaborated backchannel complaints). So, though I don't know enough and so withhold firm judgement, it does appear that the Nodevember organisers thought they could deliver a public slap to Crockford by ostracising him, proving some political point, and are now downplaying their own behaviour to avoid the PR backlash. Either way, it is their club, their rules. The real solution to this is for those closer to Crockford's philosophy of life to assert their right to free association, and host an elitist conference for Real Programmers where noobs are flamed, idiocy is excluded, truth and justice reigns supreme, etc. Edit: I've just seen this https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 which makes it look as though the Nodevember organisers were bullied into excluding Crockford to deflect a PR s...storm about their insufficiently diverse keynote speakers.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  Even the thread you cited claims there were other speakers who came forward. Unless there's some public acknowledgement over what the deciding factors are, this is a lot of speculation over what little public conversation (on twitter at that, so inherently lacking a lot of the full explanation) exists. Instead of inserting your own narrative into how and why this occurred and pouring gasoline on the fire, how about let cooler heads prevail. If Crockford feels wronged by this exchange, he's free to come forward with his side of things (and other parties with theirs) if a public debate needs to occur. Until then, this is a lot of people being roped into proxy battle of "SJWs" vs "un-PC enthusiasts" that frankly has little to do with an actual set of circumstances.

tobltobs 10y ago

> on some public and private feedback from speakers who felt uncomfortable attending with him as the keynote speaker. So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is. And you believe that this kind of closed door denunciation will result in a better, more inclusive world? And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?

knucklesandwich 10y ago
> So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is. No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation, and furthermore there are good reasons for not offering a public explanation. > And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt? No, I'm acknowledging that this is a lot of frenzy being whipped up when the party directly affected by the decision hasn't released a statement questioning their motivation. He may have been given an explanation and has chosen not to make an issue of it for all you know. The only people seemingly angered by this decision are people who aren't affected.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  I do not understand how banning people due to some unproved, anonym accusations will result in a more inclusive society. Actually it sounds like a surefire way to achieve the antipode.
- ralusek 10y ago
  Almost everybody in the this community is affected by decisions like this.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  I am offended by your claim that I haven't been affected by this!
- derefr 10y ago
  > No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation Conferences are for-profit things, yes? Companies don't owe their customers anything, but if they don't give their customers anything, then customers don't have any reason to give the company their money. Or, to put that another way: a conference about Javascript that kicks out Douglas Crockford is pretty much in a default state from the moment they decide to do so of "so why should anyone attend this?" until they provide an explanation that serves to ameliorate the bozo-bit they just seemingly flipped.

IsaacL 10y ago

I have learned not to jump to conclusions in these stories, even when I want to back my ideological "team". (I'm not a fan of SJWs, but many of the anti-SJWs make up for it by being even worse). The Nodevember statement seems reasonable on its face: "[...] his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak. We reacted to this feedback. Nothing else. Any other speculation around his past behavior was not taken into account. This conference was started by a group of friends to gather around the love of a shared language and community. We are in over our heads. The conference has grown to something we never anticipated. We aren't professional organizers or PR people. We are still learning, and will make mistakes. We don't do this as a full time job. We do this because we love the community." OK, they're just a group of friends doing their thing, and it's their club, their rules. On the other hand: they're charging $350 a ticket, so can hardly be complete amateurs. It sounds like they're trying to downplay any political angle, when excluding such a speaker would inevitably be seen as a political move in the current climate. (Conference for an extremely hip, progressive community (Node) excludes old-school elitist greybeard. Only reasons cited publicly are mildly condescending remarks in Crawford's public talks and unelaborated backchannel complaints). So, though I don't know enough and so withhold firm judgement, it does appear that the Nodevember organisers thought they could deliver a public slap to Crockford by ostracising him, proving some political point, and are now downplaying their own behaviour to avoid the PR backlash. Either way, it is their club, their rules. The real solution to this is for those closer to Crockford's philosophy of life to assert their right to free association, and host an elitist conference for Real Programmers where noobs are flamed, idiocy is excluded, truth and justice reigns supreme, etc. Edit: I've just seen this https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 which makes it look as though the Nodevember organisers were bullied into excluding Crockford to deflect a PR s...storm about their insufficiently diverse keynote speakers.

knucklesandwich 10y ago
Even the thread you cited claims there were other speakers who came forward. Unless there's some public acknowledgement over what the deciding factors are, this is a lot of speculation over what little public conversation (on twitter at that, so inherently lacking a lot of the full explanation) exists. Instead of inserting your own narrative into how and why this occurred and pouring gasoline on the fire, how about let cooler heads prevail. If Crockford feels wronged by this exchange, he's free to come forward with his side of things (and other parties with theirs) if a public debate needs to occur. Until then, this is a lot of people being roped into proxy battle of "SJWs" vs "un-PC enthusiasts" that frankly has little to do with an actual set of circumstances.