7 ms·

That's the problem here. The presentation itself may have been tasteless and offensive to some and quite the opposite to others. That's not at issue here. The

That's the problem here. The presentation itself may have been tasteless and offensive to some and quite the opposite to others. That's not at issue here. The issue here is that people who lead by example in the community have completely turned a blind eye to those who were offended. A sincere apology and a few words saying that some attention will be paid towards these things in the future would have sufficed. The arrogance of the prominent members is what's spreading these flames. They have said publicly that there's no problem here and that those offended should have just left. As Mike pointed out, some more serious stuff was said privately. So, everyone, please understand. It's not the slides themselves, it's the reaction after the controversy.

plinkplonk 17y ago
"The issue here is that people who lead by example in the community have completely turned a blind eye to those who were offended. " It is probably just me, but I hate these kind of group think coercion efforts. Maybe (just as a thought experiment, bear with me before reaching for that downvote button) are there circumstances in which "turning a blind eye to those who were offended." is the right thing to do? Just think about it for a few seconds. I am not sure anyone has a right not to be offended. Let me repeat that. No one has the right to insist that other people live in such a manner as not to give them the slightest offense.. If some of the people involved genuinely felt that "there is no problem" and other people say that "no there is a problem", and there is no consensus, then the best that can be done is to say, ok folks, each of you act according to what you think is right (and suffer any consequences therefrom) and we'll see who prevails. "A sincere apology and a few words saying that some attention will be paid towards these things in the future would have sufficed." This assumes that the apology needs to be made at all. For the apology to be "sincere" the person who is supposed to apologize has to feel he has done something wrong, and more importantly care that other people got offended. DHH for one obviously doesn't care what other people think, and I respect the man for being consistent in his beliefs and not backing down before people trying to lay some pc guilt trip on him. I am just a little wary of the "no one should be offended in any manner" idea. In the end, this is open source software. "Shut up and write code" is probably more useful advice than all this political correctness laden hand wringing. If people who didn't like the talk had just walked out, no one would know or care if some guy somewhere made some off kilter presentation. The "people who lead by example in the community" are as or more intelligent than the whiners and are just as free to make up their minds on whether to give any credence to the complaints or not. Some of the "leaders by example" seem to have concluded that they don't accept the validity of the complaints. So what? Don't they have the right to do so? If someone doesn't like the way Rails framework or "community" is progressing, they can fork it. Stop submitting patches or features. Don't use it. Write an alternative framework, possibly in another language. Just don't whine for blog post after blog post on what other people should do to conform to your notions of what is right. You wouldn't like it if other people forced their notions of what was right on to you and forced you to apologize when you think there is no reason to do so. Ok Thought Experiment over. Back to normal programming (pun intended). I just thought examining both sides of the issue is important.
- batasrki 17y ago
  You're half-right. People should be able to express their ideas and thoughts in a manner that they feel most comfortable with, even if that included nudie pictures. However, you cannot say that there should be no outrage had the presenter used offensive terms towards other races. You must understand that women feel the same way as people of colour, especially when it comes to professional conduct. I'm not saying that no one should be offended and therefore the boundaries should never be pushed. However, there are right ways to do it and there are wrong ones. The reaction from DHH is in exact opposition to that of those who felt offended. Let me repeat that, exact opposition. He said on Twitter how there should be more porn in presentations and how images of semi-nude women are more acceptable than images of ninja cats. Would he have said the same if the presentation contained racially offensive terminology? Who knows? That's what is so disconcerting. EDIT: > DHH for one obviously doesn't care what other people think, and I respect the man for being consistent in his beliefs and not backing down before people trying to lay some pc guilt trip on him. Sorry, meant to say more here. His reaction, at least to me, wasn't one of "I don't care what people think" as much as it was a big "Fuck you and your beliefs" to those who didn't feel how he felt about the slides. And the people he said a virtual "Fuck you" are contributors to the community, be it knowledge contributors or, as in Mike's case, promoters of HIS framework. What reaction would you expect people to have?
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    @batarski, "you cannot say that there should be no outrage " That isn't what I said. Anyone can choose to be offended and base their actions on their outrage (including leaving Rails, forking Rails , whatever).. That doesn't mean (a) they are right and the "offender" is wrong (b) even if they are offended, the offender should "apologize sincerely". "The reaction from DHH is in exact opposition to that of those who felt offended. Let me repeat that, exact opposition. " Why is that wrong? It is just an opinion he (like all of us) has. If he genuinely feels that he is right it doesn't matter what the degree of opposition is. He should live by his notion of what is right and stick to his view point and suffer any consequences. He has done exactly that. Of course that forces the rest of the rails "community" to decide what to do. " Would he have said the same if the presentation contained racially offensive terminology?" This is a hypothetical situation. When it happens we can deal with it. Till then let us react to what did happen and give everyone the freedom to think how he wants to think . It is the blanket condemnation of an opinion for being politically incorrect that I oppose. EDIT : to respond to batarski's edit "His reaction, at least to me, wasn't one of "I don't care what people think" as much as it was a big "Fuck you and your beliefs" to those who didn't feel how he felt about the slides." Sure, that s one way to interpret his reaction and probably valid. My point is that DHH has always been like that. He does what he thinks is right and if a community forms around his code that is great but he couldn't care less if there weren't a community. He has always said that he writes Rails for himself. In other words DHH is consistent. You may not agree with his opinions (I don't always) but I am surprised at why people find his reaction so surprising? He has never played the political correctness game and has revelled in thinking for himself and acting on his convictions. So? Way are people so surprised and horrified now? I predicted his reaction the moment I saw the original post. And I am not sure it is wrong. As to what I expect other people to do, I listed those options above. Rails is Open Source code. MIT licensed I believe. you can do whatever you want with it, including forking it.
rimantas 17y ago
I might be offended by the word "bread". Is this my problem or anyone's using that word? One cannot please everyone, and there is no need to feel sorry _every_ time you fail at that.
- raganwald 17y ago
  This has got to be the most vacuous argument I've read on the subject. Attempting to equate a hypothetical aversion to the word "bread" with an ongoing discrimination in our society towards woman lacks new insight or intellectually challenging substance. What it really does is try to move the discussion away from real people with real feelings and real problems in our society and turn it into a game of semantics. Well, logically, what if you don't like the word "bread?" Well, logically, what if I decide to machine-gun the front row the next time I give a presentation? What right have they to life if I decide to be edgy with my art? Reductio Ad Absurdum is an absurd line of argument.
  - pbhj 17y ago
    I liked the way you challenged him for lacking rationale in this argument by an argument lacking rationale. Plus his argument was actually better. You can choose not to be offended, you can't choose not to die when someone kills you.
    - menloparkbum 17y ago
      I liked the way you challenged him for lacking rationale in this argument by an argument lacking rationale. That was the point. I know it's not cool to be snarky on HN but I can't resist: "WOOOOOSH!"
    - raganwald 17y ago
      You can choose not to be offended I have tried my whole life not to be offended, frightened, disturbed, or made uncomfortable by racism. I have failed for forty-six straight years.
      - 17y ago

plinkplonk 17y ago

"The issue here is that people who lead by example in the community have completely turned a blind eye to those who were offended. " It is probably just me, but I hate these kind of group think coercion efforts. Maybe (just as a thought experiment, bear with me before reaching for that downvote button) are there circumstances in which "turning a blind eye to those who were offended." is the right thing to do? Just think about it for a few seconds. I am not sure anyone has a right not to be offended. Let me repeat that. No one has the right to insist that other people live in such a manner as not to give them the slightest offense.. If some of the people involved genuinely felt that "there is no problem" and other people say that "no there is a problem", and there is no consensus, then the best that can be done is to say, ok folks, each of you act according to what you think is right (and suffer any consequences therefrom) and we'll see who prevails. "A sincere apology and a few words saying that some attention will be paid towards these things in the future would have sufficed." This assumes that the apology needs to be made at all. For the apology to be "sincere" the person who is supposed to apologize has to feel he has done something wrong, and more importantly care that other people got offended. DHH for one obviously doesn't care what other people think, and I respect the man for being consistent in his beliefs and not backing down before people trying to lay some pc guilt trip on him. I am just a little wary of the "no one should be offended in any manner" idea. In the end, this is open source software. "Shut up and write code" is probably more useful advice than all this political correctness laden hand wringing. If people who didn't like the talk had just walked out, no one would know or care if some guy somewhere made some off kilter presentation. The "people who lead by example in the community" are as or more intelligent than the whiners and are just as free to make up their minds on whether to give any credence to the complaints or not. Some of the "leaders by example" seem to have concluded that they don't accept the validity of the complaints. So what? Don't they have the right to do so? If someone doesn't like the way Rails framework or "community" is progressing, they can fork it. Stop submitting patches or features. Don't use it. Write an alternative framework, possibly in another language. Just don't whine for blog post after blog post on what other people should do to conform to your notions of what is right. You wouldn't like it if other people forced their notions of what was right on to you and forced you to apologize when you think there is no reason to do so. Ok Thought Experiment over. Back to normal programming (pun intended). I just thought examining both sides of the issue is important.

batasrki 17y ago
You're half-right. People should be able to express their ideas and thoughts in a manner that they feel most comfortable with, even if that included nudie pictures. However, you cannot say that there should be no outrage had the presenter used offensive terms towards other races. You must understand that women feel the same way as people of colour, especially when it comes to professional conduct. I'm not saying that no one should be offended and therefore the boundaries should never be pushed. However, there are right ways to do it and there are wrong ones. The reaction from DHH is in exact opposition to that of those who felt offended. Let me repeat that, exact opposition. He said on Twitter how there should be more porn in presentations and how images of semi-nude women are more acceptable than images of ninja cats. Would he have said the same if the presentation contained racially offensive terminology? Who knows? That's what is so disconcerting. EDIT: > DHH for one obviously doesn't care what other people think, and I respect the man for being consistent in his beliefs and not backing down before people trying to lay some pc guilt trip on him. Sorry, meant to say more here. His reaction, at least to me, wasn't one of "I don't care what people think" as much as it was a big "Fuck you and your beliefs" to those who didn't feel how he felt about the slides. And the people he said a virtual "Fuck you" are contributors to the community, be it knowledge contributors or, as in Mike's case, promoters of HIS framework. What reaction would you expect people to have?
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  @batarski, "you cannot say that there should be no outrage " That isn't what I said. Anyone can choose to be offended and base their actions on their outrage (including leaving Rails, forking Rails , whatever).. That doesn't mean (a) they are right and the "offender" is wrong (b) even if they are offended, the offender should "apologize sincerely". "The reaction from DHH is in exact opposition to that of those who felt offended. Let me repeat that, exact opposition. " Why is that wrong? It is just an opinion he (like all of us) has. If he genuinely feels that he is right it doesn't matter what the degree of opposition is. He should live by his notion of what is right and stick to his view point and suffer any consequences. He has done exactly that. Of course that forces the rest of the rails "community" to decide what to do. " Would he have said the same if the presentation contained racially offensive terminology?" This is a hypothetical situation. When it happens we can deal with it. Till then let us react to what did happen and give everyone the freedom to think how he wants to think . It is the blanket condemnation of an opinion for being politically incorrect that I oppose. EDIT : to respond to batarski's edit "His reaction, at least to me, wasn't one of "I don't care what people think" as much as it was a big "Fuck you and your beliefs" to those who didn't feel how he felt about the slides." Sure, that s one way to interpret his reaction and probably valid. My point is that DHH has always been like that. He does what he thinks is right and if a community forms around his code that is great but he couldn't care less if there weren't a community. He has always said that he writes Rails for himself. In other words DHH is consistent. You may not agree with his opinions (I don't always) but I am surprised at why people find his reaction so surprising? He has never played the political correctness game and has revelled in thinking for himself and acting on his convictions. So? Way are people so surprised and horrified now? I predicted his reaction the moment I saw the original post. And I am not sure it is wrong. As to what I expect other people to do, I listed those options above. Rails is Open Source code. MIT licensed I believe. you can do whatever you want with it, including forking it.

rimantas 17y ago

I might be offended by the word "bread". Is this my problem or anyone's using that word? One cannot please everyone, and there is no need to feel sorry _every_ time you fail at that.

raganwald 17y ago
This has got to be the most vacuous argument I've read on the subject. Attempting to equate a hypothetical aversion to the word "bread" with an ongoing discrimination in our society towards woman lacks new insight or intellectually challenging substance. What it really does is try to move the discussion away from real people with real feelings and real problems in our society and turn it into a game of semantics. Well, logically, what if you don't like the word "bread?" Well, logically, what if I decide to machine-gun the front row the next time I give a presentation? What right have they to life if I decide to be edgy with my art? Reductio Ad Absurdum is an absurd line of argument.
- pbhj 17y ago
  I liked the way you challenged him for lacking rationale in this argument by an argument lacking rationale. Plus his argument was actually better. You can choose not to be offended, you can't choose not to die when someone kills you.
  - menloparkbum 17y ago
    I liked the way you challenged him for lacking rationale in this argument by an argument lacking rationale. That was the point. I know it's not cool to be snarky on HN but I can't resist: "WOOOOOSH!"
  - raganwald 17y ago
    You can choose not to be offended I have tried my whole life not to be offended, frightened, disturbed, or made uncomfortable by racism. I have failed for forty-six straight years.
    - 17y ago