9 ms·

The fact that we even have a collective shared-ideal of "we judge you by your work" is an achievement worth celebrating and continuing, even if we individually

The fact that we even have a collective shared-ideal of "we judge you by your work" is an achievement worth celebrating and continuing, even if we individually fail at it, or even fail at it a lot. And that's the problem I've got with a bunch of the attacks I'll commonly see that are based on privilege: the entire idea is that "well, no, that cool hack doesn't count somehow, because you're a member of $MALIGNED_GROUP". We've finally found a group of people that will actually base how awesome we are based on our code, and suddenly these newcomers want to butt in and tell us that isn't a valid idea? It's like these folks never read The Conscience of a Hacker. You know why Sandi Metz is awesome? It's because she writes awesome code. You know why Alan Turing was awesome? It's because he wrote awesome code. You know why James Mickens is awesome? It's because he has amazing satire of hard problems in computer science. The fact that we don't celebrate those people because of their biological traits or social status, and instead do so because of their accomplishments, is a feature, not a bug. I think that that's kind of the key issue a lot of these folks are running into, and because they tend to come from very communication-privileged backgrounds (e.g., dedicated social-media mouthpieces, very organized mass-media representation, etc.) hackers tend to fare poorly when they misinterpret why they aren't welcomed. They easily get to portray us as creeps and bigots because they get to choose from patterns of representation that (taken out of context) look very much like bigotry and because they get to pick from people whose social skills and identity are not always attuned or even aware of the prevailing social conventions. No reasonable hacker, I believe, wants there to be fewer people of $MINORITY in developer positions--at the same time, you'll never get that hacker to suggest we censor the existing culture or forcibly inject more $MINORITY into the space. "They should make their bones, same as we did", the hacker will hold. They'll then be decried as $MINORITY_PERSECUTOR. It's a problem, but only insofar as we're willing to let them continue framing the discussion. Maybe if we can make them understand that we aren't against diversity, but that we are against cultural manipulation, we can get somewhere.

modfodder 12y ago
"we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. The problem is, we as humans prefer to surround ourselves with people just like us, sometimes that means same race, sometimes same religion, or gender, or political views, and often it happens subconsciously, choosing the person closer to our ideal without us even realizing we're penalising the "other" in ways that we don't penalise those like us. This is what diversity is (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds".
- Kalium 12y ago
  > "we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. It could... if you choose to cast it that way. It could also come from any self-selecting group where the selection process is part of the group identity. Group identity isn't just a matter of waking up one day, declaring yourself a member of $GROUP, and $GROUP being obliged to accept you.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    It's less "we aren't against diversity" and more "diversity is orthogonal to what we care about", I think.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I think this is exactly it. Thank you.
  - modfodder 12y ago
    I don't disagree, but quite often $GROUP lies to itself about who and how it accepts those into the $GROUP. And let's be honest, this isn't a problem if the $GROUP is a bunch of people hanging out in their living room or grabbing a beer once a week, but it does become a problem when the $GROUP is making hiring decisions or when $GROUP decides to harass someone online. Then it is those subconscious selectors that define the group and its members more than the how the $GROUP thinks it defines itself.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I think that's an effective commentary on how those outside the group see it defined, rather than one on how the group defines membership. It's also a commentary on the limits of certain political lenses.
- pekk 12y ago
  I can't convince you, and it doesn't matter whether you believe me, when I say that it doesn't matter to me about your race or sex or whatever, I am still going to think your cool hack is a cool hack. That's just how it is. I know not everyone does work this way. But I think it's counterproductive to try to tear down and erase this entire value system. In the worst case it's an imperfectly met ideal, but that's no reason to abandon it.
tajen 12y ago
I'm surprised there is so little controversy in this thread of HN. After all, most comments here confirm that we're a group and we like us as-is, or with very minimal changes, which is already a reluctance to diversity. On the one hand maybe the title didn't appeal for a pageview by the controversial types of feminigeeks [vocabulary from this article], and the other hand this is the kind of place where our culture gets shaped. Edit: I can't resist positing this quote. It makes me feel understood. It would make me feel safer if it were acknowledged by the other party during debates: "The voices clamouring for change offer us no money, a social role reversal back to “disempowered outsider,” and a status demotion to “likely sexual predator.”" Edit 2: If anyone here has data, it seems like a lot of communication about feminism in IT started circa 2013 (e.g. the controversy on Paul Graham [1], which probably provoked the Female Founders Conference in 2015). It would be nice if someone made a blogpost about that and explained what that year changed in the geek culture. [1] http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revives-sexism-tech-talk/356541/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revive...
- chralieboy 12y ago
  I was equally surprised. The controversy is overwhelming and I loved her point about being against either brogrammers or feminigeeks does not make you the other. I feel like any conversation where everyone doesn't completely agree turns into accusations of privilege or sexism.
- pjc50 12y ago
  It's been going on for a lot longer than 2013. I was listening to a friend of mine complain about not being taken seriously and attracting a trail of irritating admirers when we were both undergraduates 15 years ago.
- throwaway9324 12y ago
  It's not controversial because it's largely confirms the view of nerds that "outsiders" agree with. Like a lot of these essays it long winding, full of generalizations and in-group cultural references which makes it hard work to disassemble and disagree with. And most of those that disagree passionately enough with this to do it wouldn't be regulars at HN. One of the few concrete things in this article is how "we won the cryptowars". Which isn't very convincing these days.
bluedino 12y ago
>> You know why Alan Turing was awesome? It's because he wrote awesome code. Alan Turing is awesome, now. But he wasn't universally thought highly of at the time, was forcefully subjected to medical treatment for his 'condition', and was harassed and basically blacklisted in his professional and personal lives.
- cableshaft 12y ago
  Yes, he was harassed and blacklisted by the insiders, the mainstream. Not by the hacker culture, which didn't really exist back then anyway.
- angersock 12y ago
  We disagree on verb tenses of to be. :) Anyways, all that other stuff doesn't matter, because he did great things. The reason it's so important to us that we base our respect on his work and not his suffering is that, frankly, you can't argue with his work. Time may pass, and it may be fashionable/scientifically proven/theologically required to hate gays again and so we'll lose sight of his other issues--but the man's contributions will survive on their own merit. That is far better.
Terr_ 12y ago
> the attacks I'll commonly see that are based on privilege I'm going to make a small U-turn here (or if you prefer, be a devils-advocate) in favor of the privilege-focused-view, because when I owe allegiance to "good code", by extension I have to support good arguments that are "rhetorical code". The version without obvious bugs goes something like this: "Yes, those people created awesome works, but they also had better access to resources, development tools, and teams of similar people."
mcguire 12y ago
Have you written awesome code? More specifically, are you known for having written awesome code? If not, are you a part of hacker culture? If you are, why are you an "us" and not a "they"?

modfodder 12y ago

"we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. The problem is, we as humans prefer to surround ourselves with people just like us, sometimes that means same race, sometimes same religion, or gender, or political views, and often it happens subconsciously, choosing the person closer to our ideal without us even realizing we're penalising the "other" in ways that we don't penalise those like us. This is what diversity is (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds".

Kalium 12y ago
> "we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. It could... if you choose to cast it that way. It could also come from any self-selecting group where the selection process is part of the group identity. Group identity isn't just a matter of waking up one day, declaring yourself a member of $GROUP, and $GROUP being obliged to accept you.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  It's less "we aren't against diversity" and more "diversity is orthogonal to what we care about", I think.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I think this is exactly it. Thank you.
- modfodder 12y ago
  I don't disagree, but quite often $GROUP lies to itself about who and how it accepts those into the $GROUP. And let's be honest, this isn't a problem if the $GROUP is a bunch of people hanging out in their living room or grabbing a beer once a week, but it does become a problem when the $GROUP is making hiring decisions or when $GROUP decides to harass someone online. Then it is those subconscious selectors that define the group and its members more than the how the $GROUP thinks it defines itself.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I think that's an effective commentary on how those outside the group see it defined, rather than one on how the group defines membership. It's also a commentary on the limits of certain political lenses.
pekk 12y ago
I can't convince you, and it doesn't matter whether you believe me, when I say that it doesn't matter to me about your race or sex or whatever, I am still going to think your cool hack is a cool hack. That's just how it is. I know not everyone does work this way. But I think it's counterproductive to try to tear down and erase this entire value system. In the worst case it's an imperfectly met ideal, but that's no reason to abandon it.

tajen 12y ago

I'm surprised there is so little controversy in this thread of HN. After all, most comments here confirm that we're a group and we like us as-is, or with very minimal changes, which is already a reluctance to diversity. On the one hand maybe the title didn't appeal for a pageview by the controversial types of feminigeeks [vocabulary from this article], and the other hand this is the kind of place where our culture gets shaped. Edit: I can't resist positing this quote. It makes me feel understood. It would make me feel safer if it were acknowledged by the other party during debates: "The voices clamouring for change offer us no money, a social role reversal back to “disempowered outsider,” and a status demotion to “likely sexual predator.”" Edit 2: If anyone here has data, it seems like a lot of communication about feminism in IT started circa 2013 (e.g. the controversy on Paul Graham [1], which probably provoked the Female Founders Conference in 2015). It would be nice if someone made a blogpost about that and explained what that year changed in the geek culture. [1] http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revives-sexism-tech-talk/356541/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revive...

chralieboy 12y ago
I was equally surprised. The controversy is overwhelming and I loved her point about being against either brogrammers or feminigeeks does not make you the other. I feel like any conversation where everyone doesn't completely agree turns into accusations of privilege or sexism.
pjc50 12y ago
It's been going on for a lot longer than 2013. I was listening to a friend of mine complain about not being taken seriously and attracting a trail of irritating admirers when we were both undergraduates 15 years ago.
throwaway9324 12y ago
It's not controversial because it's largely confirms the view of nerds that "outsiders" agree with. Like a lot of these essays it long winding, full of generalizations and in-group cultural references which makes it hard work to disassemble and disagree with. And most of those that disagree passionately enough with this to do it wouldn't be regulars at HN. One of the few concrete things in this article is how "we won the cryptowars". Which isn't very convincing these days.

bluedino 12y ago

>> You know why Alan Turing was awesome? It's because he wrote awesome code. Alan Turing is awesome, now. But he wasn't universally thought highly of at the time, was forcefully subjected to medical treatment for his 'condition', and was harassed and basically blacklisted in his professional and personal lives.

cableshaft 12y ago
Yes, he was harassed and blacklisted by the insiders, the mainstream. Not by the hacker culture, which didn't really exist back then anyway.
angersock 12y ago
We disagree on verb tenses of to be. :) Anyways, all that other stuff doesn't matter, because he did great things. The reason it's so important to us that we base our respect on his work and not his suffering is that, frankly, you can't argue with his work. Time may pass, and it may be fashionable/scientifically proven/theologically required to hate gays again and so we'll lose sight of his other issues--but the man's contributions will survive on their own merit. That is far better.

Terr_ 12y ago

> the attacks I'll commonly see that are based on privilege I'm going to make a small U-turn here (or if you prefer, be a devils-advocate) in favor of the privilege-focused-view, because when I owe allegiance to "good code", by extension I have to support good arguments that are "rhetorical code". The version without obvious bugs goes something like this: "Yes, those people created awesome works, but they also had better access to resources, development tools, and teams of similar people."

mcguire 12y ago

Have you written awesome code? More specifically, are you known for having written awesome code? If not, are you a part of hacker culture? If you are, why are you an "us" and not a "they"?