8 ms·

It seems like most comments here (and in previous times this has been discussed) are avoiding the actual reason why Crockford was disinvited - it is because a n

by chippy 10y ago

It seems like most comments here (and in previous times this has been discussed) are avoiding the actual reason why Crockford was disinvited - it is because a number of speakers said they would be uncomfortable with him speaking and would not speak and attend the conference. The comments appear to be looking for facts, reasons, examples of past behaviour of Crockford to see if these facts can justify the decision. HN'ers are looking to understand the reasons why someone has an emotional response. That is the reason - from http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html : "that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak.". Instead of addressing this point, we generally are looking for concrete, binary, true and false examples. So it's harder for me to see how his past behaviour makes me uncomfortable. But I also can understand how it can possibly make other people uncomfortable. How should any conference deal with speakers being uncomfortable with things? How can comfort be increased for all? How can a small conference defend against accusations of uncomfortableness? What would the best way to do this be? Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response. So, working towards an answer to my own questions, instead of looking for logical reasons, and responding coldly, we should look towards emotion, and respond in kind: "Please be welcome here, we will have separate speaker lounges, multiple places to interact and speak with each other. Many people from a wide range of backgrounds will be attending. It will be our priority to ensure you, and everyone can feel safe and welcome and have an enjoyable time at the conference. We are a group of local friends putting on a great conference about a topic we all like, we arn't a soulless corporate conference. We are approachable and thanks for trusting us and feeling like you can approach us with your concerns." Respond with reassurance, comfort, trustworthiness, essentially more PR and less rationality (and I would suggest that if they did that, the speaker wouldn't need to have been removed)

Noseshine 10y ago
> Instead of addressing this point What point? Their only is this extremely vague statement. How do you deal with someone trying at all cost to avoid giving concrete information? We do know Crockford from many, many opportunities of seeing him as a speaker though, and from that uninviting him has no basis. As we can read in the statement he even spoke at the same conference last year without any problems. Read this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevember_organizers_steps_down_i_did_not_and/d7b9k7r https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevemb... which debunks that there were "many" people, and/or that those one or two who complained had any evidence at all.
josephcooney 10y ago
You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else? I guess regarding the search for facts/reasons/examples - I guess we're interested in trying to form a view as to whether that is an understandable position on the part of these 'other speakers'. No doubt there is a spectrum here. If it is just "person X doesn't like person Y because they hurt X's feelings once" that is quite a different thing to "persons X, Y and Z have been physically threatened by person A and fear for their lives".
- chippy 10y ago
  > You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else? "Some speakers" was from http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html and I used "a number of speakers" as being equivalent to that unknown but small number. I wouldn't say "many speakers" though (British English). I am also curious about the actual number - and also the number of supporters or allies not directly involved. It is quite different actual threats, experiences and imagined thoughts and emotions. And then (passive or active, online and offline) supporters to anothers emotions or experiences. I would argue that all these types of response can be addressed in a positive way. Emotions can be addressed in kind - and perhaps reducing the number of concerns is similar to increasing the level of comfort. For example, I might say "well my friend is concerned that the venue is far away from public transport stops and it's at night" but a good response from the organizers may say "don't worry, we have security on the venue, it's well lighted, there will be good taxi service, we're working with the venue and local police etc". This may well reduce my hypothetical concern, and increase my comfort. I couldn't speak for my friend though - but I'd imagine my, as an ally, reassurance would help.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Blacklists and Other Economic Sanctions: http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm Listen, the behavior at some past conferences and in the industry in general are unprofessional, unacceptable, and egregious. It's at the point that I want to disregard anyone who uses the term "social justice warrior" as an imbecile. Everyone should be as comfortable as possible in this community. Everyone should be welcome. But punishing people based on the words of an unknown person or persons, with no recourse or defense is not better.
sjwright 10y ago
Making another group of people uncomfortable is not a viable solution to a few people's claims of discomfort. Excluding someone is not a sensible response to claims of exclusion. Victimising someone is not a reasonable response to claims of victimisation.
gregjor 10y ago
The problem is people holding the idea that they are entitled to "feel comfortable" in social settings, with no specific definition of what or whom is or may cause discomfort. I might feel uncomfortable attending a conference where I may see too many men wearing utili-kilts (OSCON) but that doesn't mean my personal discomfort overrides everyone else's right to wear or say what they want. If there's a specific behavior, or history, to point at, sure, people should speak up. I would feel uncomfortable at a KKK meeting or a gun show. But I could describe the real offensive behavior in those cases.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  I don't understand lumping gun shows in with the klan meetings. Can you elaborate on what you believe to be offensive about gun shows?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Not the previous commenter but I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons. Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be. https://www.google.com/search?q=gunshow+accident https://www.google.com/search?q=gunshow+accident
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      Thank you for answering my question. I understand that many people are uncomfortable around guns. As someone who frequents gun shows you piqued my interest in determining how dangerous they really are. The numbers are hard to pin down. But I tried to be as conservative as possible using the available stats. So if these numbers are wrong, chances are they are incorrect in your favor. The ATF stats state that there are approx 5000 gun shows per year and they generally have 2,500 to 15,000 [1] attendees. We could use the low estimate (2,500 * 5000) and it gives us 12,500,000 attendees. (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows). Using the dailykos's stat stating that for three years there have been around 1 gun show accident per month gives us 12 per year. [2] The chance the average person will be struck by lightening is 1 in 960,0000. [3] The chance of dying in a fatal car accident in the US in a given year are 1 in 11,000 [4] So, the chance of a gun show attendee who attends one show once per year getting shot (at a gun show) is actually 1,091 times smaller than the chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year. It's also less likely than being struck by lightening. It's important to not let media crazes influence your perceived risk of an event happening. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Venues_and_attendance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States... [2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-show-accident-of-2014-continues-avg-1-per-month-streak-into-3rd-year-GunFAIL-LVII http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
DonHopkins 10y ago
No matter how far you go to make people comfortable, you're always going to have some grumpy old curmudgeon who refuses to confess their heresy and doesn't understand what they're accused of. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8
hasenj 10y ago
Who are these sensitive speakers and how important are they to justify removing someone as significant as Crockford for their sake?
- jpmoral 10y ago
  Relative community status is irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is whether the objection(s) to Mr. Crockford have any merit or not.
sjwright 10y ago
> It seems like most comments here (and in previous times this has been discussed) are avoiding the actual reason why Crockford was disinvited Au contraire, from what I can tell that's all everyone is talking about; everyone is trying to work out what the actual reason could be. We've looked at the official reasons given and seen that they are vague, disingenuous and unsupported. We've looked at the contextual reasons and surmised that it's likely nothing more than a petty personal vendetta. We've scoured around for historical reasons and found some incredibly unremarkable attempts at programmer humor which would barely raise an eyebrow. There's plenty of things in this world that make us uncomfortable at conferences. Some people sneeze and cough unhygienically. Extroverts can occasionally make introverts feel awkward or unwelcome. Speakers make terrible dad jokes. Bad coffee is very discomforting. And most of us are able to accept a bit of discomfort and get on with life. That's the solution: a modicum of tolerance.
totalcrepe 10y ago
> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response. In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races? If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event. My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them. I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience. (edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)
infodroid 10y ago
Because it is discriminatory to use comfort as a criteria to exclude people in the social sphere. It's like trying to ban your ex-partner from a local bar because bumping into them evokes strong feelings like anger or jealousy, and therefore makes you feel uncomfortable. This is not only wrong but it is an immature way of dealing with personal issues in real life.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I think you're half right. First the emotional part. I think you've nailed the emotional tone of whatever response the conference makes. We're friends here. We want you to feel safe and relaxed. Here are some things we've done to help you out if you don't feel that way. But the emotional part only works inside a logical context. It can not exist on its on. Otherwise we're just swaying wildly in the wind, responding to whatever discomfort anybody feels anywhere. That's not workable. So the question really becomes this: what is the minimal logical construct we can create in order to facilitate each of us being nice to others so that they can feel safe? Reading the comments here, surely there are a lot of folks pissed off that they disinvited Crockford. And there had to be some folks who were pissed off that he was invited in the first place. That leads us to our first rule: no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed off. Therefore, people being pissed off cannot be a motivating factor one way or the other. Otherwise conferences just become big battles of who can get more pissed off. How about this for a minimalist rule? If you are a conference speaker, and you are bothered by another speaker and are threatening to boycott the conference because of it, make your case in public. After all, if you're not going to show up, that's a public statement. So instead of putting all of this on the conference organizers and expecting them to sort it out, you get online and make the case yourself. You are the person who was invited to speak in public. You are the person threatening to make a public statement. You are the person causing this public furor. So go head and do that: make a public statement. Don't use somebody to do so in your behalf. That's not fair to the conference, the other speakers, or the attendees. (Or to rest of us, trying to sort through all of this to see if there's anything really there.)
aikah 10y ago
> it is because a number of speakers said they would be uncomfortable with him speaking and would not speak and attend the conference What are the facts? there are no facts, what did Doug do to make these people "inconfortable" ? we don't know. Some people are inconfortable with ,I quote, "white males around them", inconfortable doesn't mean anything, it's just a euphemism for bigotry these days. Just like "inclusivity".
PavlovsCat 10y ago
> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response. In response to this? -> > we became aware that based on private feedback - not simply the dialogue on Twitter - that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak. I find that not just acceptable, but fitting.. I mean, what more could you say in response to some unnamed person having unnamed concerns? > Conferences are about bringing people together. We hope the community can accept our apology and move forward This is just a bunch of doublespeak, directing it all into the memory hole after not addressing anything seriously. If I was part of that community, my response would be a resounding "No, that's neither thorough nor adult enough. What else other than this squishy foam do you have to offer?".

by chippy 10y ago

Noseshine 10y ago

> Instead of addressing this point What point? Their only is this extremely vague statement. How do you deal with someone trying at all cost to avoid giving concrete information? We do know Crockford from many, many opportunities of seeing him as a speaker though, and from that uninviting him has no basis. As we can read in the statement he even spoke at the same conference last year without any problems. Read this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevember_organizers_steps_down_i_did_not_and/d7b9k7r https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevemb... which debunks that there were "many" people, and/or that those one or two who complained had any evidence at all.

josephcooney 10y ago

You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else? I guess regarding the search for facts/reasons/examples - I guess we're interested in trying to form a view as to whether that is an understandable position on the part of these 'other speakers'. No doubt there is a spectrum here. If it is just "person X doesn't like person Y because they hurt X's feelings once" that is quite a different thing to "persons X, Y and Z have been physically threatened by person A and fear for their lives".

chippy 10y ago
> You say "some speakers" and "a number of speakers". I read the article by Mx Kas Perch. Is there anyone else? "Some speakers" was from http://nodevember.org/statement.html http://nodevember.org/statement.html and I used "a number of speakers" as being equivalent to that unknown but small number. I wouldn't say "many speakers" though (British English). I am also curious about the actual number - and also the number of supporters or allies not directly involved. It is quite different actual threats, experiences and imagined thoughts and emotions. And then (passive or active, online and offline) supporters to anothers emotions or experiences. I would argue that all these types of response can be addressed in a positive way. Emotions can be addressed in kind - and perhaps reducing the number of concerns is similar to increasing the level of comfort. For example, I might say "well my friend is concerned that the venue is far away from public transport stops and it's at night" but a good response from the organizers may say "don't worry, we have security on the venue, it's well lighted, there will be good taxi service, we're working with the venue and local police etc". This may well reduce my hypothetical concern, and increase my comfort. I couldn't speak for my friend though - but I'd imagine my, as an ally, reassurance would help.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Blacklists and Other Economic Sanctions: http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm Listen, the behavior at some past conferences and in the industry in general are unprofessional, unacceptable, and egregious. It's at the point that I want to disregard anyone who uses the term "social justice warrior" as an imbecile. Everyone should be as comfortable as possible in this community. Everyone should be welcome. But punishing people based on the words of an unknown person or persons, with no recourse or defense is not better.

sjwright 10y ago

Making another group of people uncomfortable is not a viable solution to a few people's claims of discomfort. Excluding someone is not a sensible response to claims of exclusion. Victimising someone is not a reasonable response to claims of victimisation.

gregjor 10y ago

The problem is people holding the idea that they are entitled to "feel comfortable" in social settings, with no specific definition of what or whom is or may cause discomfort. I might feel uncomfortable attending a conference where I may see too many men wearing utili-kilts (OSCON) but that doesn't mean my personal discomfort overrides everyone else's right to wear or say what they want. If there's a specific behavior, or history, to point at, sure, people should speak up. I would feel uncomfortable at a KKK meeting or a gun show. But I could describe the real offensive behavior in those cases.

gnarbarian 10y ago
I don't understand lumping gun shows in with the klan meetings. Can you elaborate on what you believe to be offensive about gun shows?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Not the previous commenter but I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons. Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be. https://www.google.com/search?q=gunshow+accident https://www.google.com/search?q=gunshow+accident
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    Thank you for answering my question. I understand that many people are uncomfortable around guns. As someone who frequents gun shows you piqued my interest in determining how dangerous they really are. The numbers are hard to pin down. But I tried to be as conservative as possible using the available stats. So if these numbers are wrong, chances are they are incorrect in your favor. The ATF stats state that there are approx 5000 gun shows per year and they generally have 2,500 to 15,000 [1] attendees. We could use the low estimate (2,500 * 5000) and it gives us 12,500,000 attendees. (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows). Using the dailykos's stat stating that for three years there have been around 1 gun show accident per month gives us 12 per year. [2] The chance the average person will be struck by lightening is 1 in 960,0000. [3] The chance of dying in a fatal car accident in the US in a given year are 1 in 11,000 [4] So, the chance of a gun show attendee who attends one show once per year getting shot (at a gun show) is actually 1,091 times smaller than the chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year. It's also less likely than being struck by lightening. It's important to not let media crazes influence your perceived risk of an event happening. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Venues_and_attendance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States... [2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-show-accident-of-2014-continues-avg-1-per-month-streak-into-3rd-year-GunFAIL-LVII http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

DonHopkins 10y ago

No matter how far you go to make people comfortable, you're always going to have some grumpy old curmudgeon who refuses to confess their heresy and doesn't understand what they're accused of. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8

hasenj 10y ago

Who are these sensitive speakers and how important are they to justify removing someone as significant as Crockford for their sake?

jpmoral 10y ago
Relative community status is irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is whether the objection(s) to Mr. Crockford have any merit or not.

sjwright 10y ago

> It seems like most comments here (and in previous times this has been discussed) are avoiding the actual reason why Crockford was disinvited Au contraire, from what I can tell that's all everyone is talking about; everyone is trying to work out what the actual reason could be. We've looked at the official reasons given and seen that they are vague, disingenuous and unsupported. We've looked at the contextual reasons and surmised that it's likely nothing more than a petty personal vendetta. We've scoured around for historical reasons and found some incredibly unremarkable attempts at programmer humor which would barely raise an eyebrow. There's plenty of things in this world that make us uncomfortable at conferences. Some people sneeze and cough unhygienically. Extroverts can occasionally make introverts feel awkward or unwelcome. Speakers make terrible dad jokes. Bad coffee is very discomforting. And most of us are able to accept a bit of discomfort and get on with life. That's the solution: a modicum of tolerance.

totalcrepe 10y ago

> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response. In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races? If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event. My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them. I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience. (edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)

infodroid 10y ago

Because it is discriminatory to use comfort as a criteria to exclude people in the social sphere. It's like trying to ban your ex-partner from a local bar because bumping into them evokes strong feelings like anger or jealousy, and therefore makes you feel uncomfortable. This is not only wrong but it is an immature way of dealing with personal issues in real life.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I think you're half right. First the emotional part. I think you've nailed the emotional tone of whatever response the conference makes. We're friends here. We want you to feel safe and relaxed. Here are some things we've done to help you out if you don't feel that way. But the emotional part only works inside a logical context. It can not exist on its on. Otherwise we're just swaying wildly in the wind, responding to whatever discomfort anybody feels anywhere. That's not workable. So the question really becomes this: what is the minimal logical construct we can create in order to facilitate each of us being nice to others so that they can feel safe? Reading the comments here, surely there are a lot of folks pissed off that they disinvited Crockford. And there had to be some folks who were pissed off that he was invited in the first place. That leads us to our first rule: no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed off. Therefore, people being pissed off cannot be a motivating factor one way or the other. Otherwise conferences just become big battles of who can get more pissed off. How about this for a minimalist rule? If you are a conference speaker, and you are bothered by another speaker and are threatening to boycott the conference because of it, make your case in public. After all, if you're not going to show up, that's a public statement. So instead of putting all of this on the conference organizers and expecting them to sort it out, you get online and make the case yourself. You are the person who was invited to speak in public. You are the person threatening to make a public statement. You are the person causing this public furor. So go head and do that: make a public statement. Don't use somebody to do so in your behalf. That's not fair to the conference, the other speakers, or the attendees. (Or to rest of us, trying to sort through all of this to see if there's anything really there.)

aikah 10y ago

> it is because a number of speakers said they would be uncomfortable with him speaking and would not speak and attend the conference What are the facts? there are no facts, what did Doug do to make these people "inconfortable" ? we don't know. Some people are inconfortable with ,I quote, "white males around them", inconfortable doesn't mean anything, it's just a euphemism for bigotry these days. Just like "inclusivity".

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response. In response to this? -> > we became aware that based on private feedback - not simply the dialogue on Twitter - that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak. I find that not just acceptable, but fitting.. I mean, what more could you say in response to some unnamed person having unnamed concerns? > Conferences are about bringing people together. We hope the community can accept our apology and move forward This is just a bunch of doublespeak, directing it all into the memory hole after not addressing anything seriously. If I was part of that community, my response would be a resounding "No, that's neither thorough nor adult enough. What else other than this squishy foam do you have to offer?".