6 ms·

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoi

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it is just under the surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs. I laughed when I read the quote above and thought it was a good comment.

Chronic26 13y ago
Why do people even care when the story isn't fully developed?
md224 13y ago
> Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it is just under the surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs. I'm not sure if you were framing this as a net negative or positive, but I actually do appreciate when these controversial debates occur. I like to see all the contrasting world-views brought out into the open and into conflict with each other. I agree that civility is a problem, though. Anyway, I mention this because I worry sometimes that HN's "flamewar detector" (or is it purely flagging?) seems to kill these kinds of threads, ones with a high comment-to-upvote ratio (though some notable recent threads have seemed to escape this). I often wonder if this mechanism is worth the trouble. I suppose if heated debate leads to polarization of opinion, that's an issue, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  It seems that the flamewar detector (although I think it actually used to be flagging mostly) has been adjusted somewhat, or at least given a manual override for worthy discussions. I can reassure you that this thread would have quickly been flagged off just a few months ago. I'm guessing it's due to the fair amount of criticism PG received (from myself included) over how the flamewar-filter censored sensitive, yet important, discussions just like the ones this story sparked.
  - mst 13y ago
    I would say that it's more likely that the team consistently monitors multiple factors and makes adjustments based on overall input. Or, the complaints including yours probably did have -some- influence, but I think you're overestimating how much because to you, your comments were a heartfelt effort to make a point, whereas to pg they were 'add one to number of complaints of type X'. It's still important, given said number will have been factored into the decision making process, but probably not that important.
    - mtrimpe 13y ago
      I'm curious as to what compelled you to state that my estimate of the impact complaints had on the situation, even though entirely unquantified, was probably still too high? Regardless; I can confirm that many people complained about it and roughly a week or two after the whole 'PG is a sexist' kerfluffle sexism related threads stopped being flagged off the frontpage... It seemed like relevant information for the OP.
- aragot 13y ago
  > I suppose if heated debate leads to polarization of opinion, that's an issue, but... It definitely leads to my polarization, along with other (seemingly unfair) events in my life. Plus, it is hard to express any other opinion than in favour of the women, which leads to unvoiced discomfort and is clearly not the situation you want in an industry. I wish women would speak up more often for men's cause. That's also what equality means.
nathell 13y ago
In an ideal world, this should really be a no-brainer. Gender-background abuse should be an abhorred practice, the way we normally abhor, say, killing people. It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.
- tomp 13y ago
  I think a more appropriate analogy is "abortion". Some see it as killing people, others see it as having control over their own lives. Same here - some see it as sexual discrimination, others see it as problems many people have to face at their workplace.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all. Yes - it tells use that it's a deeply emotional and often deeply subjective topic where situations can be interpreted very differently depending on your point of view and you do not necessarily have as clear a villain and victim as people like to have.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pron 13y ago
It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. Sexism, like racism, is a loaded word, and people often believe that malice is required for it to exist, but that is not the case. Whether sexism begins in kindergarten or in mens-club startups is, at this point, secondary. It is there and we must address it. In the case of GitHub specifically, the issue is even clearer. This is a company that for years had a blog with little else than their drinking escapades. Perhaps that's changed, but the burden of proof is on them. The only thing that is up for dispute is whether this particular case is an example of sexism in tech or not. We can't be 100% sure, but at this time it's safer to assume that the weaker party is right, if only because the stronger party can handle a quick-to-judge public much more easily than the weaker party. I'm not saying it's boycott time, but it's best to at least open the discussion with that assumption in mind. Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub.
- kilburn 13y ago
  > Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society. So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is. What we should do is (1) not judge any party until there are enough facts on the table (of which we don't have many right now); (2) strive for an impartial account of the events; (3) judge only on and after evidence has been collected. If you want to support a cause, pushing for people to follow this recipe would work much better than pushing for "the weaker party is right until the stronger party proves themselves".
  - pron 13y ago
    I am not in favor of judging them now, only assuming they're in the wrong for the purpose of discussion; if some people happen to jump to conclusions, I'm sure GitHub can take it more than Horvath can. Because sexism in tech is a fact, this occasion is an opportunity to discuss it. Debating whether Horvath is right or wrong is not only futile, but is also potentially harmful to her, and that harm is far greater than GitHub's. Presumption of innocence is only a principle in legal disputes, and this, currently, isn't one, nor are we the jury. There will be no great injustice done if the assumption turns out to be false, but there is a lot of harm being inflicted on Horvath right now by people equating her position with that of a rich company and suspending any form of judgment. This does not only harm her personally, but the entire industry by implying that sexism in tech is disputable and pending "further data", which it isn't. Given that sexism in tech is real and serious, that GitHub has a bit of a spotty background on that issue, and that GitHub does not deny any of the allegations, this is a perfectly good time to assume something bad has happened and discuss measures to correct the situation in the industry. If it turns out GitHub has fallen victim to the very real injustice of sexism in tech, I won't shed a tear for them, but will be excited to see them face the challenge and lead the way forward.

Chronic26 13y ago

Why do people even care when the story isn't fully developed?

md224 13y ago

> Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it is just under the surface of our thoughts, ready to explode when an appropriate trigger occurs. I'm not sure if you were framing this as a net negative or positive, but I actually do appreciate when these controversial debates occur. I like to see all the contrasting world-views brought out into the open and into conflict with each other. I agree that civility is a problem, though. Anyway, I mention this because I worry sometimes that HN's "flamewar detector" (or is it purely flagging?) seems to kill these kinds of threads, ones with a high comment-to-upvote ratio (though some notable recent threads have seemed to escape this). I often wonder if this mechanism is worth the trouble. I suppose if heated debate leads to polarization of opinion, that's an issue, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case.

mtrimpe 13y ago
It seems that the flamewar detector (although I think it actually used to be flagging mostly) has been adjusted somewhat, or at least given a manual override for worthy discussions. I can reassure you that this thread would have quickly been flagged off just a few months ago. I'm guessing it's due to the fair amount of criticism PG received (from myself included) over how the flamewar-filter censored sensitive, yet important, discussions just like the ones this story sparked.
- mst 13y ago
  I would say that it's more likely that the team consistently monitors multiple factors and makes adjustments based on overall input. Or, the complaints including yours probably did have -some- influence, but I think you're overestimating how much because to you, your comments were a heartfelt effort to make a point, whereas to pg they were 'add one to number of complaints of type X'. It's still important, given said number will have been factored into the decision making process, but probably not that important.
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    I'm curious as to what compelled you to state that my estimate of the impact complaints had on the situation, even though entirely unquantified, was probably still too high? Regardless; I can confirm that many people complained about it and roughly a week or two after the whole 'PG is a sexist' kerfluffle sexism related threads stopped being flagged off the frontpage... It seemed like relevant information for the OP.
aragot 13y ago
> I suppose if heated debate leads to polarization of opinion, that's an issue, but... It definitely leads to my polarization, along with other (seemingly unfair) events in my life. Plus, it is hard to express any other opinion than in favour of the women, which leads to unvoiced discomfort and is clearly not the situation you want in an industry. I wish women would speak up more often for men's cause. That's also what equality means.

nathell 13y ago

In an ideal world, this should really be a no-brainer. Gender-background abuse should be an abhorred practice, the way we normally abhor, say, killing people. It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.

tomp 13y ago
I think a more appropriate analogy is "abortion". Some see it as killing people, others see it as having control over their own lives. Same here - some see it as sexual discrimination, others see it as problems many people have to face at their workplace.
brazzy 13y ago
> It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all. Yes - it tells use that it's a deeply emotional and often deeply subjective topic where situations can be interpreted very differently depending on your point of view and you do not necessarily have as clear a villain and victim as people like to have.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

pron 13y ago

It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. Sexism, like racism, is a loaded word, and people often believe that malice is required for it to exist, but that is not the case. Whether sexism begins in kindergarten or in mens-club startups is, at this point, secondary. It is there and we must address it. In the case of GitHub specifically, the issue is even clearer. This is a company that for years had a blog with little else than their drinking escapades. Perhaps that's changed, but the burden of proof is on them. The only thing that is up for dispute is whether this particular case is an example of sexism in tech or not. We can't be 100% sure, but at this time it's safer to assume that the weaker party is right, if only because the stronger party can handle a quick-to-judge public much more easily than the weaker party. I'm not saying it's boycott time, but it's best to at least open the discussion with that assumption in mind. Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub.

kilburn 13y ago
> Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society. So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is. What we should do is (1) not judge any party until there are enough facts on the table (of which we don't have many right now); (2) strive for an impartial account of the events; (3) judge only on and after evidence has been collected. If you want to support a cause, pushing for people to follow this recipe would work much better than pushing for "the weaker party is right until the stronger party proves themselves".
- pron 13y ago
  I am not in favor of judging them now, only assuming they're in the wrong for the purpose of discussion; if some people happen to jump to conclusions, I'm sure GitHub can take it more than Horvath can. Because sexism in tech is a fact, this occasion is an opportunity to discuss it. Debating whether Horvath is right or wrong is not only futile, but is also potentially harmful to her, and that harm is far greater than GitHub's. Presumption of innocence is only a principle in legal disputes, and this, currently, isn't one, nor are we the jury. There will be no great injustice done if the assumption turns out to be false, but there is a lot of harm being inflicted on Horvath right now by people equating her position with that of a rich company and suspending any form of judgment. This does not only harm her personally, but the entire industry by implying that sexism in tech is disputable and pending "further data", which it isn't. Given that sexism in tech is real and serious, that GitHub has a bit of a spotty background on that issue, and that GitHub does not deny any of the allegations, this is a perfectly good time to assume something bad has happened and discuss measures to correct the situation in the industry. If it turns out GitHub has fallen victim to the very real injustice of sexism in tech, I won't shed a tear for them, but will be excited to see them face the challenge and lead the way forward.