I’m sure that immortality was meant to be immorality, but the idea of British law prohibiting some Faustian bargain struck with eternal life on the line if the wager works in your favor gave me a good chuckle.
That’s not a comparison to another person. That’s his job title. It is not uncommon for universities to have distinguished chairs within departments named after a notable person—in this case, the founder of NYU’s Department of Computer Science.
Had the same thought. I don’t show up on this leaderboard, but I’m #42 on the “more complete” leaderboard. I’m #8 when sorting by max in a single comment—which makes even me think I may have overdone it. Finally—HN top 50 and top 10 in something I love!
> * Speaking and listening are related skills yet speaking is much harder than listening, and both are much harder than reading (for the vast majority of languages).*
I’ve always found speaking and reading to be far easier than listening—especially keeping up with native speakers of a foreign language.
It’s starting to feel like everyone is jumping on the write-an-article-about-reviving-RSS bandwagon.
Not disagreeing with the premise, but I think I’ve seen at least a half-dozen articles saying the same thing in the last few weeks. Can’t help but wonder if it’s getting click-baity (or perhaps click-hungry) every time I see yet-another-RSS-is-back-baby.
Well, I would certainly expect the 'attempt at informal logic is ... laughable'. I wrote it to be ridiculous.
I guess I shouldn't have bothered with the reply, as it appears to have triggered a pissing contest over Logic technicalities. Or perhaps you think a dispute on mechanics is going to erase the problems inherent in the idea that selective power assignments to individual agents based on uncontrolled genetic factors is required to determine whether or not an act of sexism is verifiable sexism.
The efforts to redefine sexism/racism/etc as power-dependent are philosophically problematic. I'm rather uncertain we'd get anywhere on the issue.
You're rather egregiously conflating distinct issues here. You're also committing petitio principii--i.e., begging the question. You assume your premise(s) is/are true and, therefore, your conclusion is true.
Laying out your initial logic, in order:
p1: A has power
p2: B has !power
p3: A exerts power
p4: B exerts !power
c: if p1 and p2, given p3 and p4: asymmetrical situation
Of course it is! And yet nothing is proven.
It sounds an awful lot like you're either intentionally or unwittingly advancing the logically and philosophically weak argument that [undesiredThing]ism = Prejudice + Power--formulated by Bidol, spread by Katz, cornerstone of Bell's Critical Race Theory, and subsumed by Crenshaw's middle-class-feminism+CRT intersectionality fusion--as if it is inherently true and proven. There are myriad problems with that equation.
This maxim has seen a surge in the last couple years as online blogging has massively repeated it ad infinitum. People encounter it and walk away, impressed that they just reduced [undesiredThing]ism to a neat equation proving racism/sexism/Xism only exists at the intersection of prejudice X and [some kind of problematically defined] power.
And yet this has been repeatedly and adequately contested, while the CRT/intersectionality adherents keep moving the goal posts from one form of power to another over the last few decades (they appear to have, for the time being, settled on institutional power).
Again, your logic, as offered (filling in the latent assumptions):
x: ethnic+sexual group
y: involuntary genetic membership in x
z: x historically exerted most institutional/structural power
p1: power is y + z
p2: if p1, sexism is prejudice/bigotry/discrimination against a person based on sex + offender possessing p1
p3: A committed action X against B because of B's gender
p4: B committed action X against A because of A's gender
c1: given p3 and p4, instance-level act is same
p5: if p1, and A has y + z, A has power
p6: if p1, and B has y + !z, B has !power
p7: 'structural level' sexism is caused/reinforced by p2
c2: if p2 and p5, given p3, A is guilty of p2
c3: if p2 and p6, given p4, B is not guilty of p2
c4: if p7, given c2, A causes/proves p7
Does that make things clearer? There are only about a half-dozen premises there that need actual proving.
Oh, also, fwiw, and I'm being pedantic here: saying sexism is sexism--especially after the lengths to which I've gone to actually define sexism--is in no way an equivocation. I do not use ambiguous language; nor do I prevaricate.
TL;DR:
You and I don't disagree at all in substance. Excellent points. We are on the same page.
I just don't think we need a men's rights movement to further draw gendered lines across the social fabric. I'd rather see a federated organization that fights to improve humanity and its social institutions, obliterating inequalities and disparities. This, while making no claim (and vigilantly remaining blind) to sexual, gender, ethnic, or other material identities.
---
I, too, consider myself to be an egalitarian where the material conditions and social relations of people are at stake. I've made a number of attempts at clarifications, all the while making it explicitly clear that I'm supportive of and advocating for completely eliminating gender inequalities. I'm either doing a poor job of explaining that, or others are doing a poor job of reading my many clarifications.
To put it bluntly, there's no way I could respond to every men's rights comment with a clear and considered explanation of the positives and negatives, as well as an accounting of the pitfalls and errors made. The topic itself is tangential, distracting, and derailing from the issues raised by the event at Pycon, specifically in relation to how the offending men's actions are being erroneously and unfairly contextualized and framed as 'sexist' by the wider tech community.
I did not want to just sweep gender inequalities under the rug where male-identifying persons are concerned, as if it doesn't exist. I wanted to focus attention, instead, on the nuances of properly identifying sexism apart from inappropriate comments in a given situation, and the ways in which it leads to gender disparities in social relations in general.[1]
At first, I ignored the men's rights issues out of a desire to not deviate from the issues I raised, and interest in engaging with those who were replying to the points I brought up. I did not want to kick off a side-thread on men's rights. I wanted to avoid seeing the conversation turn into an us vs them argument. I hoped we could actually discuss the need to correct the reactionary labeling of impolite and inappropriate comments and behaviors as automatically sexist, when so many times it is simply impolite and inappropriate. Even at the worst end of the non-sexist spectrum, someone might deal with an asshole, and I think it's far more productive to the tech community and society at large if everyone could actually tell (and advocate) the difference between someone being an asshole and someone being a sexist asshole.
[I'm not saying my reaction was right; I'm trying to contextualize it within my personal quirks and goals so it's understood.]
By the time a couple hours passed, the men's rights derailment was already well underway, with quite a few reactionary posts following the first that were increasingly divisive, and substantially less constructive to the actual thread. More notably, the discussion consistently conveyed a less erudite, misinformed, and poorly rendered assessment and presentation of incredibly disconnected, questionable, exaggerated, and falsely attributed or incomplete evidence--all conflated to advance a flimsy premise that 'men have it as bad as (and often worse than) women'. Much of what was argued at the time I decided to comment (specifically the one to which you've responded) could not be taken seriously as presented.
So, I had choices. I could dig in, evaluate the evidence & reasoning presented, explain why much of it had to be disregarded as non-causal/incomplete/misattributed/exaggerated/etc., do the philosophically correct and helpful thing by improving their arguments for them so I wasn't just responding to the weakest, most hastily cobbled together rant ... or I could just not engage, and try to bring the focus back to where it should be. I could give in slightly and add some clarifications that would elucidate my intentions and meaning, while making it plain I was not interested in seeing the conversation devolve into a circular exchange of pointless tu quoque; indulging countless iterations of "if a man did x, women would sell their mothers into slavery to claw his eyes out and publicly shame him"; 20 more comments brow-beating people about male-victimizing sexual assault endemic to the US's deplorable prison system; etc. Those are three of the choices I recall considering at the time.
Fundamentally, my goal was to protect the conversation from becoming a cesspool of what was already starting to increase in vitriol and volume on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and other endpoints--preserving and encouraging a space where the tech community, male/female/trans, could constructively grapple with a problem we need to make right for everyone so we don't keep fucking each other up every time we get in the same damn room (to enjoy and participate in the same damn event/hobby/pasttime/passion/etc., no less!).
[1]: A sometimes less-helpful feature of my personality, made habit by philosophical study and debate, I maintain a very strong aversion to changing the subject, lest one damage one's own argument, lose one's audience, or make it impossible to logically conclude a line of thought. It's a quirk that is not well suited to internet threads, I think.
And please, for your own sake and everyone else's, do not assume to have the slightest capability to say what I "immediately assumed" when I "heard men's rights". You haven't the faintest idea.
The comments made by the original commenter who incorrectly thought my comments leaned his way injected more unnecessary division into an already sensitive subject.
It was overtly apparent that the thread was about to get hijacked by tangential bullshit that would derail the actual issue(s) under discussion--which did not include men's rights advocacy or its adherents and there varied motivations.
When I decided to reply, I was responding to the content posted at the time--content that made it perfectly clear 'the reactionary label' fit like a glove.
He used sexual/anatomical imagery in his comment. That you are not offended is irrelevant to the issue, because Adria was offended. That's all that matters as far as that portion of the issue is concerned.
I'm perfectly comfortable with sex jokes made by any gendered person. But it was asked not to happen at this conference, and everyone who attended agreed to the CoC.
Grading the subjective offensiveness of the comment is beside the point.
I think the the differentiation between 'sexual' and 'sexist' is the entire point here--and it's exactly why I even bothered to post on the subject, despite normally remaining quiet. Sadly, it's been lost in all the vitriol and trolls, and has really made me wish I hadn't posted at all.
The reason I opened with a philosophical disclaimer was to make it plain where I was coming from, and that my comments were actually meant to tackle the nuances of the subtler problems with this situation. I wanted people to know my angle and be able to respond, disagree, etc. directly to the philosophical implications. I see it was too much to hope for, but that's what I get for bringing philosophical-historical criticism to a hate fight. It doesn't lessen the importance of actually discussing the point for the wider tech community and society at large.
Being aware of what you're doing in public, particularly at a tech conference that asked you to do otherwise, is an inescapable personal responsibility. What the guys did was wrong--not in an ultimately social or moral sense, but specifically at this venue because of the Code of Conduct.
If we are going to be able to do anything about improving gender disparities in social relations, we must actually understand what that is on a fundamental level.
> A lot of people still associate sexuality with a male/female power imbalance...
When a lot of people make an inaccurate association, it is a signal that a wider discussion needs to be had to educate people on correcting their false associations and improving rationality and understanding. There is a great body of literature both within and outside of philosophy that digs into human relations and power imbalances/struggles. It is a material issue. But the manifestations of interpersonal power struggles in human sexuality are but a symptom, and cannot be viewed through the simplistic and exclusionary lens of being male v. female, because it completely leaves out the parts where sexuality reflects power imbalances like this: male->male, male->female, male->transgender, female->male, female->female, female->transgender, transgender->male, transgender->female, transgender->transgender.
> ...to force your joke on them -- which is exactly what you're doing when you say it loudly -- echoes that imbalance.
You really have to be careful here, because this is just far too wide a net to cast. Overhearing other people's conversations is a part of every day life. When I overhear someone telling a racist joke in the Southeast US, I experience an emotional response somewhere between annoyed and really pissed off. I find it ignorant, bigoted, assholish, and unnecessary, at least. The problem is they are entitled to speak as they please. My reaction is my responsibility. I don't possess a fundamental right to not hear things I don't like. If I did, I'd be constantly telling people not to discuss religion in public.
Let's take that as a nice touchy enough subject that people can get upset over. I'm not religious, and really hate it when I overhear people in a public place--say, a café, bar, or somewhere like that where I'm actually spending a long enough period of time in proximity, trying to do my own thing, while overhearing the content of their conversation. The religion discussion is not being forced on me by virtue of it being loud enough for me to hear. It's only forced on me when, despite my attempts to halt it or escape or whatever, a person is literally talking directly to me about religion as if I wasn't objecting, not allowing me to escape the conversation or physical space.
The same is true for any sort of speech with sexual content. I hear couples, men, women, and transgendered persons discuss sexual matters in public on the regular. It's not forced on me until the point that someone is literally in my space, talking to me about the subject, and ignoring my obvious signals and vocal appeals to stop.
> If you give yourself permission, as a man, to behave in a manner that is insensitive and disrespectful to women, that reflects a certain sense of male privilege -- and that's sexist.
No, that is not sexism, and this is the crux of the issue. Being insensitive and disrespectful to anyone is just being an asshole. Now, it's possible that one's colossal assholery is a product of one actually being sexist, but being an asshole to a woman or a man or a transgendered person is not automagically sexism.
Even 'reflecting a certain sense of male privilege' is not automatic sexism, and primarily because there is not much of a way to objectively determine if an action is indeed a reflection of a sense of male privilege. That is simply a far too amorphous classifier and will just spiral into a series of subjective attacks and defenses.
Sexism is action and speech that inculcates bigotry and discriminatory behaviors, based on a person's gender, seeking to increase gender disparities in social relations. A sexual joke can be insensitive, inappropriate, assholish, or just stupid--but it is not sexism.
The reason this is so important is because we must be able to, as a tech community and society at large, differentiate between the assholes and the sexists. The assholes can and should be ignored. The sexists should not--be they male, female, or transgendered.
More importantly, as I've seen in the whole explosion of vitriol across the internet in the last couple of days, it seems that nobody even knows how to tell the difference. We cannot improve the plight of everyone in tech, including women and transgendered persons, if we cannot tell the difference between an inappropriate sexual comment, and a person perpetrating sexism, misogyny, hate speech, etc. I've read so many tweets and comments from both men and women I would otherwise respect who have essentially participated in a Twitter-based version of that old 'telephone' game, where now this whole debacle is believed by some to be caused by Adria 'speaking up against misogynistic comments at a tech conference'. Why is this a big deal? Because if we can't appropriately communicate what's really at issue, we're never going to solve gender inequalities. We're going to make the workplace a shitty place for all genders, creating a culture of fear, reprisal, and retribution--instead of one that is built on uniting in opposition to bigotry and discrimination when it occurs, and the marginalization of assholes when it does not.
As it is, this is madness. We have a tech community that is now split between a camp who are blindly associating Adria to be a persecuted Joan of Arc, and others who no doubt are very supportive of preventing sexism, misogyny, etc.--but are being vilified as such because they dared to call Adria out for the way she handled the situation, and the way she has improperly contextualized it as a sexism issue. The issue has now been swallowed by a bunch of fucking trolls who are making threats, harrassing people, and should have never gotten involved.
We just lost an excellent opportunity to have a constructive and civil, even if heated, discourse.
No sane person, including myself, who vehemently disagrees with Adria's actions is engaging in or supporting threatening Adria at all, calling her obscene names, etc.
Please do not lump us in with the 'extreme and vicious misogyny', for which I am not the only one who has zero tolerance of it and offers it no support at all.
Adria's overreaction and characterization of this event as sexism is very relevant. I understand that she may have 'to deal with sexist bullshit day in and day out in a male dominated' world, and I specifically go to bat for that. But this situation was not sexism, and it is relevant and important to make that clear.
Because a bunch of assholes are using this as a platform to spout misogynistic bullshit and threats does not mean others cannot or should not speak out.
And the fact that I spoke out, along with plenty of others, without being even obliquely misogynist means the response has not been '100% vicious and violent misogyny.'
I don't support that shit in any way, and I won't even hesitate to say that kind of reaction is fucked up. It is exactly why I am a philosophical Marxist who takes the subjugation of women to the material power of men very seriously.
Also, it's not for the conference organizers to say she was wrong. You don't deal with people being uncomfortable about a situation, as an organizer, by saying, "Hey, sorry, but that's not a big deal. Why don't you just go sit down and not worry about it?" You are obligated to deal with it, and the PyCon staff did exactly what they should have done.
The men's comments were inappropriate and wrong for the place and time. Adria's response was even more inappropriate and wrong for the situation.
Threatening Adria's person, calling her names, pillorying her with misogynistic hate speech is completely unacceptable and fucking wrong.