Comment by nielsabel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nielsabel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

“Science has been done without women for centuries, and it obviously worked.” – Luboš Motl

Can we please just stop all this PC bullshit. Robo Pike obviously doesn't realize that the reason these women attending that meeting are so excellent is because there are so few of them. I.e. only those survived/came so far who have actual skills.

The same goes for computer science. The women who are really skilled and who really want to work in this field WILL work in this field. Which, of course, means there will be less of them. I mean, we already got enough incompetent men in sotware engineering/computer science. Do we really need to flood the field with incompetent women? And on top of that, celebrate their non-achievement of being a woman?

Regarding role models: why can't women simply choose a male role model? Is the gender of their role models really that much more important than their achievements? Shouldn't you look up to someone because, let's say, they are especially skilled in their field instead of their genitals? (Same goes for men choosing a female role model)

Look at it from the other way around: has any man in fashion ever complained about there not being enough male role models in fashion (a field clearly dominated by women)?

And the only ones who ever complained about impoliteness are women and effeminates. If you judge people by hurt feelings instead of actual skills, then you end up with shit like being banned from the golang community for pointing out that someone's English is incomprehensible!

If women have something to contribute to the respective field, then they are more than welcome. If not, then they can simply fuck off (just as all those incompetent men).

This aggressive rant crosses the line on HN. If you can't contain your anger enough to post substantively and with respect for opposing views, you're not welcome to post here. It's not in your interest to do this anyhow, since it undercuts everything you're saying.

> This aggressive rant crosses the line on HN. If you can't contain your anger

I'm not angry at all, really. Merely stating my perspective.

> enough to post substantively and with respect for opposing views, you're not welcome to post here.

It seems to me that my view is the opposing one. Balancing the different views, in my opinion, is the job of the (critical) reader. How is the reader supposed to do this if all opposing views are “not welcome” (and my guess is ultimately banned). Again, I am merely stating my perspective.

And why the hell do I have to respect anyone('s opinion)? I don't go around randomly respecting people. Respect has to be earned.

> It's not in your interest to do this anyhow, since it undercuts everything you're saying.

I think I'll decide what's in my interest. And, really, that's the whole point here: you should judge what I say, not how I say it.

This is like peeing in a swimming pool and concluding people don't like your butterfly stroke.

So far, I only heard complaints about me being not polite enough and not about the actual content of what I said. Why do we always have to put our words into sugar coated ass kissery? Just so that nobody's feelings get hurt? I mean, what I'm trying to point out here is that shouldn't matter how I say what I say.

And, really, what is so vile and offensive about my post? Please, tell me, because I don't see it (really, I'm not being sarcastic here). Was anyone seriously hurt just by reading my post? I find that hard to believe.

> have to put our words into sugar coated ass kissery

If you frame it this way then sure, it's cowardly to do that and it becomes a matter of principle not to. But you know the phrase 'all models are wrong, some are useful'? On HN, this is not a useful model.

There are some systems in which no-holds-barred aggression actually works, i.e. leads to interesting outcomes. Examples include rugby teams that beat the crap out of each other on the pitch and then go out drinking together, literary circles where the game is to be as poisonously witty as possible, or the mathematical world, where the only thing that matters is whether you can prove what you say (though people tend to exaggerate that aspect and ignore the social one). These systems have in common that they're small, well-defined, and strongly cohesive. Such communities can withstand violence because other forces hold them together.

HN is not like that. The community is large, ill-defined and weakly cohesive, and there are no forces other than civility holding it together. What happens here if people start throwing their elbows around (as you did in your comment above) is that we get massive flareups, all the interesting animals leave the forest, only the people with grievances and flamethrowers remain and then ('hey, where did everybody go?') even they leave. Then we have scorched earth, or heat death—not an interesting outcome. For this not to happen, HN needs protecting. HN users need to understand that participating here means optimizing for curiosity, which requires a sustainably interesting community.

You complain that people aren't judging your content, but actually everything you post is content—there's nothing else there. You don't get to decide how that content gets classified. If you put turds in the punch bowl and expect people to consider your punch on its merits, that's another unhelpful model.

>you should judge what I say, not how I say it.

That seems obviously inaccurate in any moderated forum. Or we'd all be published New Yorker writers.

You're confusing being a good writer with being polite.

No.

Oh, I guess you must be right then …

The HN community strongly values civil—even polite—discourse. If that's something you don't feel is necessary and choose to ignore, please refrain from commenting on HN.

Again, what was so horribly offensive and insulting about my post? I don't see it. Sure, I wasn't sugar coating. But all I'm getting here is: “You're not polite, because <insert inapt analogy>”.

You've got a new account. Several people are trying to tell you that your posting style is not appropriate for HN.

People are giving you this information by flagging your posts, by downvoting your posts, and by replying to your posts. One of the people replying to your posts is a mod.

You can ignore those people, but that tends to mean your account will end up banned.

> Sure, I wasn't sugar coating.

This is a mistake people often make. You're not being asked to sugar coat anything. You're being asked to stop being rude and to reign in the ranting.

But still, nobody has told me yet what was so rude about my post. How do you expect me to fix my behavior if you don't explain me what was wrong about it? “You're rude.” “well, how exactly?”

> nobody has told me yet what was so rude

You haven't made it clear that you sincerely want to know. It takes a lot of time and energy to respond to a question like that—I'd guess a couple orders of magnitude more than it costs to post the question.

The risk/reward of giving you a sincere answer is very different if your goal is to become a good HN contributor vs. merely continue an argument which interests no one. If you want people to answer, you need to show that it won't be a waste of their investment to do so.

I also find the whole "women in tech" problem very ignorant and kind of a first world problem, possibly invented by VCs PR companies for whatever reason (larger hiring pools?). It cannot possibly be a priority for someone who is even a little bit aware of what's going on in the world. And that's not even considering what states expect from women and how much propaganda and incentives are in place to make sure they do not pursue a career, but raise children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com