6 ms·

The problem here isn't the culture. The problem is the individuals.

by tomp 12y ago

pc86 12y ago
It is absolutely the individuals, but it's also the culture that allows someone to write a blog post saying "this investor assaulted me while dangling $50k in front of me" and a sizable minority of the comments are some variation of "there is probably another side of the story" or "she didn't do enough [before|after]." Edit: To clarify, I agree there might be another side to this but until/unless the person the post's author is referring to makes a statement there is almost nothing to be gained by dismissing the author's account as some sort of half truth.
- tomp 12y ago
  Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement? There are many different reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.), it might be worth exploring such aspects (some stories fall apart under scrutiny, e.g. the UVA rape case). Also, I see nothing wrong with saying "she should loudly say 'did you just touch my boob?'", I think it would be beneficial if jerks were called out on shitty behavior more often.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement? About some things? Yes. A culture of 100% agreement about people of European descent not being superior to other races, for instance, is a good thing. There is such a thing as an unproductive disagreement, and even of toxic disagreements. An attempt to disagree about the role of Jewish people in international banking conspiracies, for instance, would be unwelcome.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      What happens if these ideas are actually correct? Is it your desire for us to never learn certain truths? It's interesting that you openly acknowledge this, as well as what I now realize was support for shaming people who ask naughty questions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857). Most folks refuse to openly admit to this sort of anti-intellectualism, I'm glad to see it out in the open.
      - pen2l 12y ago
        yummyfajitas, I just wanted to chime in and say that even though historically I've disagreed with you on most issues, I have actually as of late begun to appreciate your vehement defense of your viewpoints (which more often than not go against the HN herd mentality). You make exchanges on HN fun and mentally interesting. Please keep doing what you're doing.
        aaren 12y ago
        Personally I find his exchanges tedious and draining, but to each their own.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Thanks for your (public) support. Most people write such things to me privately, since they don't want the downvotes.
      - rmxt 12y ago
        It's nice to know that there will always be someone around to ask the question, "But what if [insert superficially homogeneous ethnic/religious/race/gender/etc. group here] actually are inferior?", because that's typically what "naughty questions" boil down to. Dumb ideas backed by questionable science.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        That's hardly the extent of them. Others relevant to this conversation: "By what moral principle do we condemn the actions of the VC in this story?" "Do we find the story told by the OP to be plausible and a fair description of what happened?" It's easier to call something a "dumb idea" and attack those discussing it than it is to actually refute it. Particularly when, as is the case here, there probably isn't much of a moral principle beyond "it makes me SOOO ANGRY".
        rmxt 12y ago
        It's a bit of a sleight of hand to conflate "other relevant" questions with the one that tptacek posed above re: Jewish people and banking (which is the one that you replied to). I agree that the relevant questions you add are ones worth exploring in this scenario; however, they shouldn't come at the expense of ignoring the experiences of she who actually experienced it. The author of the article stated that she felt uneasy about how business was going down, and that she amended her plans so as to better reflect her sensibilities. What is implausible about that? Seek the answers to your questions all you want, but overlooking the answers to them in the submitted article is willful obstinacy. Going back to the issue at hand, your so-called easy way out is exactly what tomp was doing upthread. To paraphrase both you and him, "It's easier to put forth reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.) and attack those discussing it that it is to actually refute it [the ongoing marginalization of the experiences of women in tech]." Underhandedly calling into question the veracity of the author's retelling overlooks the larger gender issues in the work world and sidesteps the issue at hand. It's much easier to throw out the idea that she has a mental issue, than to realize that many on-going social norms make a swath of the tech population feel unwelcome. EDIT: The moral principle that you seek is between the lines of her writing.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    Why should anyone ever be put in such a position where they even have to think of saying something like that? Your entire framing of the situation is exactly why it is a cultural issue. Why does sexual harassment have to devolve to physical interaction before it can be called out? Why is it "worth exploring" potentially discrediting aspects of the victim's stories, but not worth exploring the events that lead up to the story with good faith interpretations?
    - tomp 12y ago
      > Why should anyone ever be put in such a position where they even have to think of saying something like that? Your entire framing of the situation is exactly why it is a cultural issue. IMO, saying "it's a culture issue" is just wishful thinking, based on an assumption that there can ever exist a culture where all members are completely conformist and nobody is a "jerk". In reality, people will be selfish, and you will be put into positions where you need to stand your ground (in some way). The only thing that "culture" can do is exactly this - call out the jerks (in person or online), and other members of the "culture" agreeing that the behaviour is shitty. > Why is it "worth exploring" potentially discrediting aspects of the victim's stories, but not worth exploring the events that lead up to the story with good faith interpretations? I didn't say that. I just said that it's worth exploring both.

The problem here isn't the culture. The problem is the individuals.

by tomp 12y ago

The problem here isn't the culture. The problem is the individuals.

pc86 12y ago

It is absolutely the individuals, but it's also the culture that allows someone to write a blog post saying "this investor assaulted me while dangling $50k in front of me" and a sizable minority of the comments are some variation of "there is probably another side of the story" or "she didn't do enough [before|after]." Edit: To clarify, I agree there might be another side to this but until/unless the person the post's author is referring to makes a statement there is almost nothing to be gained by dismissing the author's account as some sort of half truth.

tomp 12y ago
Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement? There are many different reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.), it might be worth exploring such aspects (some stories fall apart under scrutiny, e.g. the UVA rape case). Also, I see nothing wrong with saying "she should loudly say 'did you just touch my boob?'", I think it would be beneficial if jerks were called out on shitty behavior more often.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement? About some things? Yes. A culture of 100% agreement about people of European descent not being superior to other races, for instance, is a good thing. There is such a thing as an unproductive disagreement, and even of toxic disagreements. An attempt to disagree about the role of Jewish people in international banking conspiracies, for instance, would be unwelcome.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    What happens if these ideas are actually correct? Is it your desire for us to never learn certain truths? It's interesting that you openly acknowledge this, as well as what I now realize was support for shaming people who ask naughty questions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057857). Most folks refuse to openly admit to this sort of anti-intellectualism, I'm glad to see it out in the open.
    - pen2l 12y ago
      yummyfajitas, I just wanted to chime in and say that even though historically I've disagreed with you on most issues, I have actually as of late begun to appreciate your vehement defense of your viewpoints (which more often than not go against the HN herd mentality). You make exchanges on HN fun and mentally interesting. Please keep doing what you're doing.
      - aaren 12y ago
        Personally I find his exchanges tedious and draining, but to each their own.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Thanks for your (public) support. Most people write such things to me privately, since they don't want the downvotes.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      It's nice to know that there will always be someone around to ask the question, "But what if [insert superficially homogeneous ethnic/religious/race/gender/etc. group here] actually are inferior?", because that's typically what "naughty questions" boil down to. Dumb ideas backed by questionable science.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        That's hardly the extent of them. Others relevant to this conversation: "By what moral principle do we condemn the actions of the VC in this story?" "Do we find the story told by the OP to be plausible and a fair description of what happened?" It's easier to call something a "dumb idea" and attack those discussing it than it is to actually refute it. Particularly when, as is the case here, there probably isn't much of a moral principle beyond "it makes me SOOO ANGRY".
        rmxt 12y ago
        It's a bit of a sleight of hand to conflate "other relevant" questions with the one that tptacek posed above re: Jewish people and banking (which is the one that you replied to). I agree that the relevant questions you add are ones worth exploring in this scenario; however, they shouldn't come at the expense of ignoring the experiences of she who actually experienced it. The author of the article stated that she felt uneasy about how business was going down, and that she amended her plans so as to better reflect her sensibilities. What is implausible about that? Seek the answers to your questions all you want, but overlooking the answers to them in the submitted article is willful obstinacy. Going back to the issue at hand, your so-called easy way out is exactly what tomp was doing upthread. To paraphrase both you and him, "It's easier to put forth reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.) and attack those discussing it that it is to actually refute it [the ongoing marginalization of the experiences of women in tech]." Underhandedly calling into question the veracity of the author's retelling overlooks the larger gender issues in the work world and sidesteps the issue at hand. It's much easier to throw out the idea that she has a mental issue, than to realize that many on-going social norms make a swath of the tech population feel unwelcome. EDIT: The moral principle that you seek is between the lines of her writing.
- rmxt 12y ago
  Why should anyone ever be put in such a position where they even have to think of saying something like that? Your entire framing of the situation is exactly why it is a cultural issue. Why does sexual harassment have to devolve to physical interaction before it can be called out? Why is it "worth exploring" potentially discrediting aspects of the victim's stories, but not worth exploring the events that lead up to the story with good faith interpretations?
  - tomp 12y ago
    > Why should anyone ever be put in such a position where they even have to think of saying something like that? Your entire framing of the situation is exactly why it is a cultural issue. IMO, saying "it's a culture issue" is just wishful thinking, based on an assumption that there can ever exist a culture where all members are completely conformist and nobody is a "jerk". In reality, people will be selfish, and you will be put into positions where you need to stand your ground (in some way). The only thing that "culture" can do is exactly this - call out the jerks (in person or online), and other members of the "culture" agreeing that the behaviour is shitty. > Why is it "worth exploring" potentially discrediting aspects of the victim's stories, but not worth exploring the events that lead up to the story with good faith interpretations? I didn't say that. I just said that it's worth exploring both.