As I read this, I found myself trying to pinpoint the bits of text that would inevitably be cherry-picked by others for the sake of argument (or simply to make Steven Wittens look bad for having written this piece).
And, while there are certainly quotes that could be misconstrued, I had a hard time seeing how anyone could take away part of this without at least acknowledging the rest. Yes, the author touches on some uncomfortable topics. Yes, I can see how someone might find certain arguments upsetting, or even offensive. At the very least, not everyone will agree with every point Wittens makes.
But the take-away, at least for me, was how vast the grey area is between the "sides" of these topics, and also how much of what we perceive (about people, sexism, and the tech industry as a whole) happens within a bubble. That there are a ton of related and important issues in the wider context, which fail to get addressed when the discussions are so narrow in scope.
There are plenty of other take-aways too, and perhaps I'm missing something that someone else will point out, but overall I found this piece really refreshing, especially after a the other discussions I've read lately, on HN and elsewhere.
------------
Note: I originally responded on this link, which is now dead:
Judging a book by its cover is the new tolerance. We throw people into the stocks based on feelings while ignoring intent and assuming victimhood. This is why I fundamentally disagree with equating offense with harassment: it provides unlimited ammo and shuts down discussion rather than giving people the benefit of doubt. It elevates the exception to the norm, by presuming the worst.
Very well written. However, I believe he takes the conclusion one step too far. As he says, the issue is complex. The problem can be _both_ sexism and narcissism. The issues can co-exist. Clearly, a lot of women have to deal with a plenty of vile crap. One can be active against rape threats and also _at the same time_ speak out against those that misuse important issues to brew stormy cups of tea.
The best analysis on the subject I have seen so far. The fact that "the most reasonable people are now afraid to speak their mind" is a strong indicator that we're heading the wrong way.
I believe this is true, and I have a theory that these public spectacles are fuelled and perpetuated primarily by the simple fact that anyone with well reasoned, rational responses tend to keep quiet in fear of being drawn into an ugly discourse - leaving the metaphorical inmates to run the prison.
Ever since then, I treat the internet like I would a lovable-but-backwards grandparent, who makes racist comments over Christmas dinner. Yes Grandma, it's all the damn commie jews and faggots' fault, now, who wants dessert?
This is key. I can't be responsible for the feelings of every person who overhears anything I say. If I say something offensive, call me an ass and move on because I'm not worth giving any attention to.
I am the author of the neckbeardrepublic.com that he linked to and I went to great length not to let the name of the site take away from the content and the community I am trying to build.
5% of my subscribers are women, which hopefully goes to show that they too seem to understand lighthearted poke at ourselves.
They weren't talking about me, they were talking about themselves.
Often, when people (myself included) write comments we're making an instant, gut reaction. We might have only read the title, the tl;dr, or heard second-hand. But it ignites our insecurity and we lash out. We're no longer wrestling with the author's thesis, we're focused entirely on ourselves.
"If you're ready for a build server so pretty you could take it to the prom.."
The issue I have with this tweet is that it implies one would not take ugly people, regardless of gender, to prom and comes off as shallow. I also don't think it's a stretch to come to this conclusion as any other generally excepted positive attribute could have been substituted for "pretty" such as "awesome", "fun", etc which wouldn't have the same implications. No, I wouldn't take someone un-fun to prom, just like I wouldn't use an un-fun build server (or at least I wouldn't buy one).
Is there some context or interpretation I'm missing that implies otherwise?
Allegedly. I see plenty of people speaking their minds, on either side of the issue, and many of them are reasonable. I'm left to wonder how one can be so certain that 'the most reasonable people' (by what metric? In whose judgement?) are 'afraid to speak their mind'.
Because the most reasonable people will have well thought out and reasoned arguments and will have tried pretty hard to understand the problem from all sides that it has. And you rarely see that in anything on the internet that is difficult to talk about, you see a lot of quick fire, purely emotional responses.
And, while there are certainly quotes that could be misconstrued, I had a hard time seeing how anyone could take away part of this without at least acknowledging the rest. Yes, the author touches on some uncomfortable topics. Yes, I can see how someone might find certain arguments upsetting, or even offensive. At the very least, not everyone will agree with every point Wittens makes.
But the take-away, at least for me, was how vast the grey area is between the "sides" of these topics, and also how much of what we perceive (about people, sexism, and the tech industry as a whole) happens within a bubble. That there are a ton of related and important issues in the wider context, which fail to get addressed when the discussions are so narrow in scope.
There are plenty of other take-aways too, and perhaps I'm missing something that someone else will point out, but overall I found this piece really refreshing, especially after a the other discussions I've read lately, on HN and elsewhere.
------------
Note: I originally responded on this link, which is now dead:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5434142