5 ms·

No. what Merritt said that if you don't say something right there and then you should never be allowed to say anything. He's an asshole and a bully. If a vic

by hbags 13y ago

No. what Merritt said that if you don't say something right there and then you should never be allowed to say anything. He's an asshole and a bully. If a victim doesn't protest withim his designated free-speech zone he doesn't want them to protest at all.

pstack 13y ago
Hbags, you are full of shit. Merritt said the behavior was unacceptable and the way to fix it is to address it when it occurs. Followed by the comment: --- "Running off to write yet another gender-division-in-the-tech-world blog which will be read, primarily, by the sort of folk who already agree with you isn't going to make nearly as much of a difference as taking care of issues promptly". --- Then said that a story about a bad situation where the person spoke up about it would be a great story that would spread "like wildfire". At absolutely NO point in Merritt's short post was it said that if you don't speak up when you are uncomfortable or accosted, you should never be allowed to say anything about it. You owe Merritt an apology for straight out lying about the content and intent of their comment and repeatedly attacking their character based solely on the things you invented (then repeated) in this thread.
- hbags 13y ago
  You owe Merritt an apology No way. Meritt clearly attempted to shame her for writing about something that, for whatever reason, she didn't confront immediately. He's a censor. He's shaming her for protesting outside his designated free-speech zone. Fuck him.
  - pstack 13y ago
    Repeating your accusations doesn't make them true. Knock your vile rhetoric and bullying off for five seconds and quote, for all of us, the specific sentence or more from Merritt's comment where he shamed the author, implied or supported censoring her, or said that she should not be able to post about her experience. It is a simple request. I'm not asking you to irrefutably prove your ability to bend spoons with your mind. Merritt's comment was quite short. Just copy and paste the precise part of his or her message where what you keep attacking them for is actually stated or even implied. Don't worry, we'll all wait. Go ahead.
    - pstack 13y ago
      So. Nothing. Exactly as I thought.
  - Crito 13y ago
    [OT] > about: hell-banned by bigoted assholes I don't see any evidence of you being hellbanned^. Furthermore, hellbanning is (typically, at least) an automated process. It is done by an algorithm that evaluates the quality of your posts using their score as the metric of quality. At the time that I am writing this, this seems to be your only post in this thread that has been voted into the negatives. ^ I have showdead turned on, so unless you deleted the comments that you have made since being hellbanned, I would see them in your comment history.
    - gbags 13y ago
      You're right. I wasn't hell-banned. I was straight-up banned from commenting. So yeah.... no dead posts. Or any posts at all. And you're correct, only one comment went down at all (only down by one) and the rest were up voted, often substantially. It's this dynamic (lots of up votes on controversial content) that made me think it was likely human intervention. Not that it matters. HN is an absolute cesspool when it comes to bigotry, so it's not like it really matters. The most vocal HNers think it's fine to make stupid generalizations about women and their interest, and they think it's a woman's fault if she gets groped. (or they just assume she's lying, because she's a woman). But whatever. Thanks for your failed detective-work.
    - gbags 13y ago
      p.s. it's really funny that the bigot brigade is full of people who are such assholes that they'll even attempt to discredit the idea that a ban happened. You really, really need to get a life. Really.
vacri 13y ago
No, he never said or even intimated "don't write about it". He said that writing this article this way would only be read by people who already agree. He said it would be more effective to be proactive at the time. I disagree with him about such a thing spreading like wildfire, but there is nothing in what he said that meant "don't write at all". That's your projection. He said "if you do A, it won't be as effective as B". The person who is being an arsehole and a bully is you, naming, shaming, strawmanning, abusing, and being generally vituperative.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > He said it would be more effective to be proactive at the time. I disagree with him about such a thing spreading like wildfire He didn't say that being proactive at the time would spread like wildfire, he said that being proactive at the time and writing about that experience afterward would.
  - DorintheFlora 13y ago
    Would it? I personally doubt that. Do you have an example of something like that working? Or is that just speculation?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Would it? I think it would draw more attention and useful discussion from people interested in doing more than emoting sympathy, complaining about discussions of women's negative experiences, or discussing abstractly whether addressing the situation in the moment would be more productive. Whether it would actually spread any more is another question, and one on which I don't have a strong feeling about.
      - DorintheFlora 13y ago
        In other words: It is just speculation. You (apparently) do not have a real world example to cite. I am female. I have blogged before about some of my struggles with the glass ceiling, etc. It got no attention. Perhaps I was doing something wrong. But, as someone who has firsthand experience which contradicts your suggestion, I would be genuinely interested in seeing actual evidence. If I can find an example that works, I would love to follow that. I can't find it. Thanks.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> No. what Merritt said that if you don't say something right there and then you should never be allowed to say anything. No, he says, explicitly, that not saying anything there and then but blogging about it later won't be as effective in producing the desired change. He does not say that people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it after the fact without addressing it immediately, he says that doing so is not the ideal choice if the goal is to actually deal with the problem. There's a universe of difference between what he said and your characterization.

by hbags 13y ago

pstack 13y ago

Hbags, you are full of shit. Merritt said the behavior was unacceptable and the way to fix it is to address it when it occurs. Followed by the comment: --- "Running off to write yet another gender-division-in-the-tech-world blog which will be read, primarily, by the sort of folk who already agree with you isn't going to make nearly as much of a difference as taking care of issues promptly". --- Then said that a story about a bad situation where the person spoke up about it would be a great story that would spread "like wildfire". At absolutely NO point in Merritt's short post was it said that if you don't speak up when you are uncomfortable or accosted, you should never be allowed to say anything about it. You owe Merritt an apology for straight out lying about the content and intent of their comment and repeatedly attacking their character based solely on the things you invented (then repeated) in this thread.

hbags 13y ago
You owe Merritt an apology No way. Meritt clearly attempted to shame her for writing about something that, for whatever reason, she didn't confront immediately. He's a censor. He's shaming her for protesting outside his designated free-speech zone. Fuck him.
- pstack 13y ago
  Repeating your accusations doesn't make them true. Knock your vile rhetoric and bullying off for five seconds and quote, for all of us, the specific sentence or more from Merritt's comment where he shamed the author, implied or supported censoring her, or said that she should not be able to post about her experience. It is a simple request. I'm not asking you to irrefutably prove your ability to bend spoons with your mind. Merritt's comment was quite short. Just copy and paste the precise part of his or her message where what you keep attacking them for is actually stated or even implied. Don't worry, we'll all wait. Go ahead.
  - pstack 13y ago
    So. Nothing. Exactly as I thought.
- Crito 13y ago
  [OT] > about: hell-banned by bigoted assholes I don't see any evidence of you being hellbanned^. Furthermore, hellbanning is (typically, at least) an automated process. It is done by an algorithm that evaluates the quality of your posts using their score as the metric of quality. At the time that I am writing this, this seems to be your only post in this thread that has been voted into the negatives. ^ I have showdead turned on, so unless you deleted the comments that you have made since being hellbanned, I would see them in your comment history.
  - gbags 13y ago
    You're right. I wasn't hell-banned. I was straight-up banned from commenting. So yeah.... no dead posts. Or any posts at all. And you're correct, only one comment went down at all (only down by one) and the rest were up voted, often substantially. It's this dynamic (lots of up votes on controversial content) that made me think it was likely human intervention. Not that it matters. HN is an absolute cesspool when it comes to bigotry, so it's not like it really matters. The most vocal HNers think it's fine to make stupid generalizations about women and their interest, and they think it's a woman's fault if she gets groped. (or they just assume she's lying, because she's a woman). But whatever. Thanks for your failed detective-work.
  - gbags 13y ago
    p.s. it's really funny that the bigot brigade is full of people who are such assholes that they'll even attempt to discredit the idea that a ban happened. You really, really need to get a life. Really.

vacri 13y ago

No, he never said or even intimated "don't write about it". He said that writing this article this way would only be read by people who already agree. He said it would be more effective to be proactive at the time. I disagree with him about such a thing spreading like wildfire, but there is nothing in what he said that meant "don't write at all". That's your projection. He said "if you do A, it won't be as effective as B". The person who is being an arsehole and a bully is you, naming, shaming, strawmanning, abusing, and being generally vituperative.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> He said it would be more effective to be proactive at the time. I disagree with him about such a thing spreading like wildfire He didn't say that being proactive at the time would spread like wildfire, he said that being proactive at the time and writing about that experience afterward would.
- DorintheFlora 13y ago
  Would it? I personally doubt that. Do you have an example of something like that working? Or is that just speculation?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Would it? I think it would draw more attention and useful discussion from people interested in doing more than emoting sympathy, complaining about discussions of women's negative experiences, or discussing abstractly whether addressing the situation in the moment would be more productive. Whether it would actually spread any more is another question, and one on which I don't have a strong feeling about.
    - DorintheFlora 13y ago
      In other words: It is just speculation. You (apparently) do not have a real world example to cite. I am female. I have blogged before about some of my struggles with the glass ceiling, etc. It got no attention. Perhaps I was doing something wrong. But, as someone who has firsthand experience which contradicts your suggestion, I would be genuinely interested in seeing actual evidence. If I can find an example that works, I would love to follow that. I can't find it. Thanks.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> No. what Merritt said that if you don't say something right there and then you should never be allowed to say anything. No, he says, explicitly, that not saying anything there and then but blogging about it later won't be as effective in producing the desired change. He does not say that people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it after the fact without addressing it immediately, he says that doing so is not the ideal choice if the goal is to actually deal with the problem. There's a universe of difference between what he said and your characterization.