It's an article from one of the individuals involved in the catalyzing of Gamergate, how is that going to be balanced? Her agenda is the opposite of
Gamergates'.
I am constantly astonished at our human tendency to take what we damned well know are a biased sources and build that up into what we want to believe.
Best way to be: get sources from all angles. That includes moderate.
For me, FYI, "gamergate" and the "men's movement" crap is nothing more then a strange curiosity I have run across from time to time on more established technical forums.
Not something worth thinking about besides in terms of 'the weird things people will believe and become'.
One of the strangest cults out there.
It has has really bad results for the belongers. It guarantees disastrous relationships with women. And these are heterosexuals.
But, the reason why this has come up is obvious, as well: women are coming more and more into the tech workplace. I applaud that. Thankfully, most places I have worked had some female presence. The diversity is deeply welcomed.
I'm sorry if you think I'm part of the problem, but I don't see how those two points relate to my comment. Heck, I agree with pretty much everything shkyes said.
I didn't know labelling Randi Harper a harasser was a gamergate tactic. I know almost nothing about this whole gamergate business. I just visited the OAPI's site and recognized the name Randi Harper from my acquaintance's experience. He had a very rough time because of her emails, Facebook messages, and tweets. For that reason and that reason alone, I voiced my concern. I don't have any other motive.
Digging deeper, I see that Harper herself has been on the receiving end of some outright egregious behavior. I can only express my condolences for her and condemnation for her attackers.
Still, it seems to me that her organization will likely cause more harm than good in curbing online abuse. One can feel sympathy for another human being while also doubting their fit for a position.
But honestly, this whole topic is radioactive. No matter one's opinion or how delicately it is put, it gets misconstrued and pigeonholed. It's impossible to have an honest, nuanced conversation.
2. Unsubstantiated smears, and categorising her as "hostile". You're using an anonymous "throwaway" account, so there's no evidence whatsoever for your claims.
5. Downplaying the extreme harassment as "egregious behavior". Perhaps you (or anyone reading) might want to go look it up yourself, there's pages and pages of this sort of unbelievably obnoxious drivel: https://twitter.com/search?q=%40freebsdgirl%20%23gamergate&s...
The only reason that Randi created GGAutoblocker and the OAPI was because she was targeted by gamergate. And their tactics are, essentially, what you're doing right now - smear tactics.
Throwaway? My account is over 5 years years old. Please look at my comment history.[1] I'm not a troll or a single-issue commenter. I use a pseudonym because sometimes I want to say things that I believe to be true, but would cause me unnecessary grief if attached to my real name.
"Egregious" is downplaying? I used one of the strongest adjectives I could think of. Replace it with synonyms: their behavior is appalling, shocking, atrocious, abhorrent. I do not support them. I think they are terrible people. I cannot condemn them any more strongly than I already have. Please stop insinuating that I'm part of such a despicable group.
I'm glad Randi Harper created GGAutoblocker. I support the idea behind OAPI. I just don't think Harper is the right person for the job, as she has said some very not-nice things to someone I know, and it significantly impacted his quality of life.
I want the same thing as you: For people to converse without becoming targets of harassment, abuse, threats, or otherwise extremely unpleasant or dangerous communication. That's why I'm voicing my concern about the founder of OAPI. There is no other motive at work.
As I said before: No matter one's opinion or how delicately it is put, it gets misconstrued and pigeonholed. It's impossible to have an honest, nuanced conversation.
How can I disagree with you any more civilly than I already am? Yet despite such civility, I have to deal with implications that I'm part of an odious group of trolls and psychopaths.
Ok, fair enough, you want to keep HN and your personal life separate. And you may be otherwise sincere (at least, you seem to be based on your posts), but that separation makes anything that you post hearsay unless you can back it up externally. You should probably take that into account when trying to bring things from your personal life over into HN.
So perhaps rather than continuing the same pattern of "Randi bad, because I say so", perhaps you can point out somewhere where she's currently failing? I also note that OAPI is more than just Randi, there are several people involved: http://onlineabuseprevention.org/
I was curious, so I clicked on the Twitter search link you posted. This conversation took place between between Randi and a developer (Johannes Meixner a.k.a. xmj):
randi> xmj: kindly go fuck yourself.
randi> step the fuck back.
randi> jesus fuck, are you a gamergater?
randi> you are going on twitter and starting shit, and you just brought freebsd into it
randi> and now you're coming after me with bullshit on twitter that you won't even back up
randi> go. fuck. yourself.
randi> xmj: you're a fucking disservice to the project.
randi> and to open source in general.
randi> except you decided to get involved and talk shit to me and talk shit about code of condcuts
randi> i wouldn't have even known who you were had you not decided to be a dumbshit.
randi> you're giving the project a bad name
randi> and you should take it out of your bio on twitter.
randi> you grow up, you piece of shit.
randi> jesus
randi> another privileged dumbass
randi> whatever, dude. i'm emailing the foundation about you. they have a big push right now to try to get more women into the project, and your kind of public bullshit is the perfect example of why there isn't.
randi> go fuck yourself.
All I can say is, hopefully Randi learns something about her own behavior from the anti-abuse work she's undertaking.
You might not like the way he says it, but go back and read the article:
Kathy Connor, an executive at Kodak, told Roth the
company didn’t develop a better film for rendering
different gradations of brown until economic pressure
came from a very different source: Kodak’s professional
accounts. Two of their biggest clients were chocolate
confectioners, who were dissatisfied with the film’s
ability to render the difference between chocolates of
different darknesses. “Also,” Connor says, “furniture
manufacturers were complaining that stains and wood
grains in their advertisement photos were not true to life.”
How is that not racist? The film wasn't an issue when it was just people of colour coming out poorly, but when it's chocolate and furniture being badly exposed, then they develop a new film.
Only if you have never opened a dictionary or an actual textbook.
A textbook example of racism is: "These people are inferior/primitive/stupid/immoral because they are black" (from which the colloraries come, like: "Lets exploit these infrerior people for slave labor". Or "I don't want these inferior people in my restaurant.)
This case is, on the other hand: "Black people in the US don't have us much income (a fact), and are much fewer than white people (another fact). We should better optimize our film for the most common buyer, which would be white people".
This has nothing to do with racism, it's basic economics. In fact if blacks were the most affluent or populous group, the same companies would target THEM in a heartbeat.
Because those things are usually irrelevant, have been tried to no effect or will make the situation worse. Women get raped wearing tracksuit pants and a hoodie, and leaving a domestic violence situation is often the trigger for more violence (including murder) when the abuser catches up.
That's definitely a good point. My comment was a kneejerk reaction to assertions like "Hacker News is a cesspool." I agree that we should address anything that makes people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because of who they are.
And yet your original comment didn't say that, it just immediately went #notallmen. If you admit there's a problem, start with that. If you must start a tone fight, do it as an aside.
I don't think that's cherry picked; it looks like an outright fabrication to me. What are the odds that a line of regression on a graph like that would come out to exactly +0.00C?
Out of a sufficiently noisy continuous dataset, you can actually do that quite easily simply by moving the start position until you hit exactly +0.00C. Which is what I suspect he did. If you move it forwards a few months, you get negatives until you leave that one anomalous spike out, and if you move it backwards, you start to get positives very quickly.
Yes, the worst case is pretty bad, both for us and life on earth. We're currently in the middle of a large extinction event, so the biosphere is probably pretty fragile even without the ongoing global warming.
