5 ms·

She's a data geek. How does that make her an expert about advertising?

by levesque 14y ago

Evbn 14y ago
She also had a blog and a Google Plus page. What more credentials does one need?
bootload 14y ago
"... She's a data geek ..." 'She' has a name, Hilary Mason or @hmason.
- cbsmith 14y ago
  Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive... because, you know, being a woman isn't some kind of insult. If it had read, "He's a data geek..." it would have only have been offensive because they got the gender wrong.
  - bootload 14y ago
    "... Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive. ..." I understand the line of reasoning, however the tone of the comments about the article are negative and not up to standard. [1] It is not a question of gender but how to discuss, acknowledge & discuss an authors work in a civil manner. [1] cf https://twitter.com/hmason/status/248262821924720640 https://twitter.com/hmason/status/248262821924720640
    - cbsmith 14y ago
      I agree the tone of many of the comments are not up to standard. I think both mine, and and the one you chose to go after were. Neither of us questioned her professional skills, talents, intelligence, awesomeness etc., just her domain expertise (in a domain which I'd think no one would expect expertise), which seems eminently reasonable given that the only indicators were a lack of said expertise. It seems even more reasonable because she acknowledged that she does not. You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. Try to focus on the jerks, there's an off chance they might get it.
      - bootload 14y ago
        "... You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. ... Try to focus on the jerks ..." Yes & no. I'm don't think I'm being that critical, 'why don't you refer to someone by name.' I take your point though. As for focusing on "Jerks", I ignore them. I'd rather point to measured responses like your own illustrating to "Jerks" how to respond.

She's a data geek. How does that make her an expert about advertising?

Evbn 14y ago

She also had a blog and a Google Plus page. What more credentials does one need?

bootload 14y ago

"... She's a data geek ..." 'She' has a name, Hilary Mason or @hmason.

cbsmith 14y ago
Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive... because, you know, being a woman isn't some kind of insult. If it had read, "He's a data geek..." it would have only have been offensive because they got the gender wrong.
- bootload 14y ago
  "... Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive. ..." I understand the line of reasoning, however the tone of the comments about the article are negative and not up to standard. [1] It is not a question of gender but how to discuss, acknowledge & discuss an authors work in a civil manner. [1] cf https://twitter.com/hmason/status/248262821924720640 https://twitter.com/hmason/status/248262821924720640
  - cbsmith 14y ago
    I agree the tone of many of the comments are not up to standard. I think both mine, and and the one you chose to go after were. Neither of us questioned her professional skills, talents, intelligence, awesomeness etc., just her domain expertise (in a domain which I'd think no one would expect expertise), which seems eminently reasonable given that the only indicators were a lack of said expertise. It seems even more reasonable because she acknowledged that she does not. You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. Try to focus on the jerks, there's an off chance they might get it.
    - bootload 14y ago
      "... You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. ... Try to focus on the jerks ..." Yes & no. I'm don't think I'm being that critical, 'why don't you refer to someone by name.' I take your point though. As for focusing on "Jerks", I ignore them. I'd rather point to measured responses like your own illustrating to "Jerks" how to respond.