5 ms·

The primary driver for him stepping down seems to have been the controversy surrounding him defending someone engaged in sex with a minor provided by Epstein wi

The primary driver for him stepping down seems to have been the controversy surrounding him defending someone engaged in sex with a minor provided by Epstein with arguments like “she likely presented herself as willing” and arguing that wether she was above or below the age of content made no difference.

anm89 6y ago
Right, I guess like everyone else I've got my own opinions on that but it was pretty clear to me that that was the impetus for all of this. I have not heard a single person attacking him for "not being neurotypical"
- sildur 6y ago
  Of course they don't. The people who bullied me didn't argument that either, but the end result was the same. We are attacked because we are weird. Which is sad. Software development was a safe haven for all the weird people who wouldn't fit elsewhere. But then the neurotypical arrived, and they didn't like our weirdness. So we are being bullied out of software development.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Software development was a safe haven for all the weird people who wouldn't fit elsewhere. But then the neurotypical arrived, and they didn't like our weirdness. Interestingly, it being actively promoted that socially maladjusted males were ideal for the field—from, IIRC, about the 1970s—was a key part of driving women and others not fitting that constructed stereotype out of the field.
    - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
      Contrary to your claims during the 70s and 80s the number of women in computer science increased to a local maximum, after the "atomic family" of the fifties changed the gender dynamic and decreased it. It only started to decline again in the mid 90s and 2000s, which i believe is because video games were almost exclusively marketed as toys for men and boys. Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp For me it seems unsurprising that people who like to sit inside, read books, play with electronics and have used keyboards from a young age are labeled an ideal fit for the field of computer science, because they are, compared to kids that played mostly barbie or sportsball. That you call them "socially maladjusted" is related. Hint for parents: if your kid never wants to play with classmates and prefers to read, it is not a little geek, it is getting harassed at school. And now take a guess why the field is full of boys with physical disabilities or neuroatypicalness. Especially the early internet allowed these marginalized people to connect to others based on interests over vast distances, removing the need to "fit with the local group". On the net no one knows you are a dog. As such there is a resonance effect that increased fitting between weird boys and computer science. I do not need to imply any active intention by an unspecified entity to explain that.
      - sildur 6y ago
        > Hint for parents: if your kid never wants to play with classmates and prefers to read, it is not a little geek, it is getting harassed at school. This is the first time I see the connection presented that way... But I'm not sure if it is really correct. I always thought that geek kids became bullied, because they look different, and people love to make fun of different people (you can see examples all around the media). Not that bullied people became geeks. Do you have more info on that relation? Anyways, something I can extract for sure is, if my kid is a geek I better make sure he is not being bullied, because it's a possibility.
        Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
        I very rarely have more info on things i write that start with "For me it seems" ;-) Sorry. By the way the relationship between weirdness and bullying is not my core point, even if i am implying that bullying is a common cause of "social maladjustment" as dragonwriter calls it and warn parents to not idealise and make cute ("little geek") signs of serious social problems. Please do not set that as equal with geekiness in general. My core point is that i consider the implication that there is some entity that intentionally constructs stereotypes, actively promotes their fitness towards fields of research and thereby drives women and normies out a completely ridiculous conspiracy theory. Instead it seems likely to me that weird boys took a very over-proportional interest in computer science because it matches a lot of the other things they had going on in life. I am sorry that i can not cite any studies that measure the resonance effects between weirdness, bullying, social maladjustment, neuroatypicalities, geekness, disabilities, preferred selection of toys, especially electronics and video games, friends and interests at child age, gender and the later chosen field of study.
  - anm89 6y ago
    This is unconvincing to me. Sure you can always guess what people "were really thinking" but you have no evidence one way or the other. It certainly does not give credence to some coordinated effort to attack him because "he is wierd".

anm89 6y ago

Right, I guess like everyone else I've got my own opinions on that but it was pretty clear to me that that was the impetus for all of this. I have not heard a single person attacking him for "not being neurotypical"

sildur 6y ago
Of course they don't. The people who bullied me didn't argument that either, but the end result was the same. We are attacked because we are weird. Which is sad. Software development was a safe haven for all the weird people who wouldn't fit elsewhere. But then the neurotypical arrived, and they didn't like our weirdness. So we are being bullied out of software development.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Software development was a safe haven for all the weird people who wouldn't fit elsewhere. But then the neurotypical arrived, and they didn't like our weirdness. Interestingly, it being actively promoted that socially maladjusted males were ideal for the field—from, IIRC, about the 1970s—was a key part of driving women and others not fitting that constructed stereotype out of the field.
  - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
    Contrary to your claims during the 70s and 80s the number of women in computer science increased to a local maximum, after the "atomic family" of the fifties changed the gender dynamic and decreased it. It only started to decline again in the mid 90s and 2000s, which i believe is because video games were almost exclusively marketed as toys for men and boys. Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp For me it seems unsurprising that people who like to sit inside, read books, play with electronics and have used keyboards from a young age are labeled an ideal fit for the field of computer science, because they are, compared to kids that played mostly barbie or sportsball. That you call them "socially maladjusted" is related. Hint for parents: if your kid never wants to play with classmates and prefers to read, it is not a little geek, it is getting harassed at school. And now take a guess why the field is full of boys with physical disabilities or neuroatypicalness. Especially the early internet allowed these marginalized people to connect to others based on interests over vast distances, removing the need to "fit with the local group". On the net no one knows you are a dog. As such there is a resonance effect that increased fitting between weird boys and computer science. I do not need to imply any active intention by an unspecified entity to explain that.
    - sildur 6y ago
      > Hint for parents: if your kid never wants to play with classmates and prefers to read, it is not a little geek, it is getting harassed at school. This is the first time I see the connection presented that way... But I'm not sure if it is really correct. I always thought that geek kids became bullied, because they look different, and people love to make fun of different people (you can see examples all around the media). Not that bullied people became geeks. Do you have more info on that relation? Anyways, something I can extract for sure is, if my kid is a geek I better make sure he is not being bullied, because it's a possibility.
      - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
        I very rarely have more info on things i write that start with "For me it seems" ;-) Sorry. By the way the relationship between weirdness and bullying is not my core point, even if i am implying that bullying is a common cause of "social maladjustment" as dragonwriter calls it and warn parents to not idealise and make cute ("little geek") signs of serious social problems. Please do not set that as equal with geekiness in general. My core point is that i consider the implication that there is some entity that intentionally constructs stereotypes, actively promotes their fitness towards fields of research and thereby drives women and normies out a completely ridiculous conspiracy theory. Instead it seems likely to me that weird boys took a very over-proportional interest in computer science because it matches a lot of the other things they had going on in life. I am sorry that i can not cite any studies that measure the resonance effects between weirdness, bullying, social maladjustment, neuroatypicalities, geekness, disabilities, preferred selection of toys, especially electronics and video games, friends and interests at child age, gender and the later chosen field of study.
- anm89 6y ago
  This is unconvincing to me. Sure you can always guess what people "were really thinking" but you have no evidence one way or the other. It certainly does not give credence to some coordinated effort to attack him because "he is wierd".