11 ms·
These HN comments are some of the most disconcerting that I've seen in a long time. The amount of ignorance displayed in some of them makes me--a white male--qu
by anonymous3821 14y ago
These HN comments are some of the most disconcerting that I've seen in a long time. The amount of ignorance displayed in some of them makes me--a white male--question this community. I could only imagine what message they would send to a minority.
Here's my take on a few comments in this thread. (I don't mean to single anyone out.)
>>Imagine if people were criticizing a lineup because there were too many women.
If our society treated males and females equally, then this hypothetical would make sense. But in a society where females face discrimination their entire lives and barriers can often prevent from reaching their potential, I think such a hypothetical is silly to bring up.
It is everyone's responsibility to try to adjust for this inequality in society. That might include going out of your way as a conference organizer to encourage more qualified minorities to apply as speakers. As some HN'ers have brought up, quality will not be jeopardized in the process.
>>To pick out a single conference in our industry with this property is textbook selection bias [1] and doesn't demonstrate any kind of discrimination at all.
If you notice, no one (as far as I can tell) explicitly called this discrimination. There will always be people who question the validity of things like these, and why shouldn't there be? Conferences, if they did their share of work, should be able to hold up against arguments like these (if they're invalid).
Yes, statistically some conferences might have gone out of their way to find minorities and failed to do so. Looking at any single case, though, such a scenario is unlikely. One should not just say, "Oh, statistics show that this might happen by chance, and therefore no one should question the validity of the selection process."
>>The problem is statistics. If there are only a few women who are applicable - simply due to the sad fact that there are so few women in the field - then there will be a lot of conference where random selection will mean there are no women in the lineup.
Like before, the problem cannot be blamed on statistics. I don't believe that there will be a lot of conferences where no qualified women could present at. If they couldn't be found, I'm guessing that--most of the times--the organizers didn't look hard enough. This is just a guess, but I'm not going to assume the utopian society that others on this page have and say that everyone tries their hardest to attain diversity.
>> Dear God! As if it wasn't hard enough to arrange a conference, apparently you have to make sure to invite every minority as a speaker at that conference too.
Misunderstanding the issue at hand and making outrageous claims like these does not improve my opinion of HN.
>> I really hope the responsible trolls... [emphasis added]
Enough said. Calling people who raise valid concerns trolls (or muppets, like someone else did) is not respectful. The fact that such an ad-hominem attack on HN got upvoted to the top is shocking.
>>Why should that have been their goal? This isn't a conference about racial issues or gender issues.
Taken from the BritRuby's website:
Our mission statement was to encourage Ruby developers to unite and
create a community, which would allow such to network, exchange ideas
and provoke innovation for the future of Ruby.
Britain has 51% women. Women are underrepresented in the Ruby community, but there is no reason why it should stay like that. Is not anyone's job to increase the percentage of female coders. It is everyone's.
HN user luigi says it better than I ever could:
The act of organizing a conference makes one a leader for their
technical community. We all know we have a diversity problem.
And conference organizers are responsible for helping address
that problem. Leaders should lead.
===========
If I were pg, I would close this thread before we make a fool of ourselves even further. People are seriously questioning this community and its views on gender imbalance in technology, minorities, etc. This is not an isolated case.
- anonymous3821 14y agoDon't get me wrong, I love HN. I never thought I would have to write something like this. However, HN is indeed a bubble. Any criticism of the community (like this one) will get voted to the bottom and never be seen. However, a quick look outside HN (e.g. on Twitter) will reveal that HN threads can often be nothing short of ruthless. Maybe it's just me, but I've seen a rising number of these recently (this one included).
- bromang 14y agoYou don't explain why equality in representation is desirable.
- smegel 14y ago> If I were pg, I would close this thread Why is it that those who scream discrimination and the like are also first off the rank when it comes to shutting down free speech?
- ahelwer 14y agoWhy is the converse also true? I hear people spout off the most racist and sexist crap imaginable then complain their "free speech" rights are being trampled when others call them out on it (also see any administrative policy ever implemented by Reddit). It's so embarrassingly prevalent it's become a meme within the social justice community. Here in Canada we have the hate speech restriction. It works out well. No slippery slopes has been slid down, and also no Westboro Baptist Church. I for one happily take that tradeoff, if you can even call it that.
- smegel 14y ago> Why is the converse also true? That those people who don't scream about discrimination don't rail against free speech? I dunno, maybe because they don't feel the need to deprive others of the right to voice their opinions in order to advance their own cause. > I hear people spout off the most racist and sexist crap imaginable Then stop listening! > then complain their "free speech" rights are being trampled when others call them out on it I don't think they complain when others "call them out" - that is just called debate. I think their complain when they are censored, persecuted, jailed, or killed by the state for the crime of expressing their views. > It's so embarrassingly prevalent it's become a meme within the social justice community. By "meme" I assume you are talking about the lampooning and ridiculing of - and gasp even inciting hatred - towards those who stand up for free speech. I think you will find this is a fairly standard modus operandi of these insular, circle-jerking, agitating communities, but the fact these "memes" don't really escape to the wider world says a lot about the general palatability of these views... > Here in Canada we have the hate speech restriction. Good for you, although it would probably be more accurate to call it a free speech restriction... > No slippery slopes has been slid down In Britain police are rounding up people who say mean things on Twitter. In Australia, being a bit too flippant when commenting on certain racial issues will earn you a day in court. Maybe you Canadians are a bit more open-minded, or gulp, American, than you realize. > and also no Westboro Baptist Church And after you eliminate all the people who espouse views you disagree with, what do you have left? Some kind of super Canadian master race? > I for one happily take that tradeoff And I for one hope your own views do not one day become categorized as illegal by your state and subject you to censure and punishment.