Inclusivity Is a Joke

https://medium.com/@hasharray/inclusivity-is-a-joke-32d0e10c65cb

by brakmic • 10 years ago

320 214 10 years ago

hubert123• 10 years ago

Inclusivity is an attempt to ban certain kind of speech. I have found that these people are downright religious in their zeal. Example: https://github.com/nodejs/inclusivity/issues/9

I'm not even going to comment further on this, I have found that arguments, sanity and reason do nothing here.

wyager4• 10 years ago

This is a gold mine.

problematic language
[a word] is very difficult for many others to stumble across in the codebase
a word choice can be problematic/distracting/triggering/offensive

This isn't even something that might reasonably be considered "triggering" material, like a story that might plausibly give someone a PTSD flashback. If someone is so mentally unstable that just seeing a word in an API screws with their head, their problem is sufficiently serious that they ought to seek immediate psychological help.

mdadm6• 10 years ago

If someone is so mentally unstable that just seeing a word in an API screws with their head, their problem is sufficiently serious that they ought to seek immediate psychological help.

It almost seems like child-like behavior. "I don't like this, so everyone has to change to fit my whims." Of course, there's almost certainly valid reasons for wanting change - it's probably not a good idea to make rape jokes or similar in your code[0] - but this seems over the top. Things in the world are going to be offensive, and if seeing a word causes that much trauma for someone, then they probably have bigger issues than just a symbol name or something.

[0] Not saying that anyone has done this

lukev5• 10 years ago

No, inclusivity is not about banning speech, it is about making sure that people can feel comfortable in an environment.

Sometimes that means enforcing certain standards of speech and behavior. Which you already agree with, if you are at all functional in society.

The question in this case is not whether inclusivity is a good thing, it's whether Crockford's speech/actions were "bad enough" in the context of a conference. I don't know (and don't care to know) about that, but it's vitally important not to throw the inclusivity baby out with the bathwater.

Thriptic• 10 years ago

While in principle I agree with you, I think at a certain level people need to just learn how to deal with stuff that offends them. I hear things that offend me on a regular basis, including inflammatory (and absurd) remarks about people I care about and groups I am a part of. At the end of the day, I just brush these speakers off as assholes who don't know what they are talking about and go about my day.

mzw_mzw8• 10 years ago

Just because people claim to have good principles doesn't make them good people or mean that their tactics will accomplish the principle. These systems of public shaming, mobbing, and self-interested entryism clearly aren't creating inclusivity; rather, they are dramatically counterproductive in that regard. If you truly support inclusion, you should be opposing these tactics and the people who use them.

trjordan3• 10 years ago

Who are "these people"?

The person who opened the bug report asked about a process that's relevant to the purpose of the group (flagging inappropriate language early in places that can be hard to change later, like APIs). There was a previous case with a flag named "suicide", which was removed because it was deemed to be in bad taste. The flag was a honeypot for arguing about the tastemaking question, so once the process question was answered, the thread was closed and locked.

Seems reasonable to me. There's certainly distraction around politics-style questions of taste and language, but it's not a bad thing to address the concerns of the community in a formal and standardized way, which is what that thread was nominally about.

generic_user5• 10 years ago

"these people"

Refers to a long list of attempts by social justice warriors to join projects and organisations with the intent to subvert the organisation into a platform for there social activism. Which includes introducing extremely vague codes of conduct and then trying to use these vague guidelines to purge the organization of whomever they see as an obstacle of consolidating power and subverting resources. I am not going to drag in a bunch of links because anyone who has been observing this for the past few years has seen these people attempt this trojan horse tactic multiple times in multiple communities.

One of the most awful episodes was when the gnome foundation was essentially bankrupted by having there entire budget for developer outreach subverted to 'Outreach Program for Women' which essentially entailed giving checks for 5,000 to any women to wanted the money regardless of there qualifications talent or history in open source. Needless to say the director was forced to resign.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/gnome-bled-dry-by-outreach-prog...

DanielBMarkham4• 10 years ago

I'm going to try to go meta. Wish me luck.

PG had an essay a while back about things you can't talk about.

I've found lately that there are many topics where you just can't mention them at all online. I will not list these topics. To do so would just invite the kinds of conversations that end in a death spiral.

I'm reminded of the old joke of accusing somebody that they are in denial. Once you do that? There's no way they can reply without agreeing with you. It's a semantic trap.

There are scads of topics like that today. People have taught themselves the appropriate kinds of wordplay such that they are able to declare certain areas off-limits.

Our society, world, and species depends on open and sometimes offensive civil dialogue. I find it depressing that so many people have paid so much money for an education and are not aware of this basic prerequisite for a modern world.

beachstartup• 10 years ago

"stop being so defensive" is another one.

ZoF3• 10 years ago

I think it's because we seriously aren't made for this environment.

Consider that 100 years ago a picture was a novelty, there was no such thing as perfect recollection.

Today we have a perfect/accurate record of exactly what was said/done on social media; it's led to a culture of virtue signalling and often dishonest but politically correct dialogue.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology and the amazing things it's let us do, but I don't think this aspect is discussed enough.

Our day to day existence as a human being has completely/foundationally/fundamentally changed within the span of a couple generations.

fennecfoxen2• 10 years ago

Inclusivity groups risk harnessing the energy of both marginalized groups decent, good people and marginalized groups willing ... in order to empower amoral power-hungry sociopaths (if not outright bigots) who wish to enforce their will on the world and demonize certain enemies.

In other words, it's politics as usual - just in this case, "left-leaning San Francisco" politics in the "technology" space. A pity, as when this happens, it becomes a groupthink exercise and critical thinking is most unwelcome (hampering the realization of real diversity and inclusivity). Instead we're left with the Vocabulary Police game and pluralism is dead.

(To say nothing the "this guy supports a political party I don't like; let's conspire to destroy his livelihood" witch hunts, which are rarer but even more vicious.)

oldmanjay4• 10 years ago

Inclusivity is a attempt to be included in the exercise of power, dressed up in language to make it seem less like a power grab and more like a moral imperative. The goal itself is laudable and the usual tactics "toward" that goal are lamentable.

narrator• 10 years ago

A old, but good piece on the culture war from 16 years ago is John Fonte's "Why There is a Culture War" (http://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war). First published in Policy Review, put out by that often marginalized bastion of Silicon Valley conservative thought, Stanford's Hoover Institute.

I didn't get the whole PC crowd until I read this article. The obvious contradictions in the PC movement can't really be ascribed to any other reasoning then Antonio Gramsci's counter-hegemonic culture war strategy that Fonte chronicles the history of in this article. The strategy seeks to join together all coalitions of those who oppose "hegemonic" values such as meritocracy and other "common sense" in order to seek its overthrow and to pave the way for a utopian revolution.

Edit: I left out any examples of PC contradictions because anyone with critical thinking skills can identify many easily and I wanted to be kind and not inflict hurtful cognitive dissonance on those who are still PC true believers.

tangent1284• 10 years ago

Whether "Meritocracy" is an egalitarian or hegemonic value depends heavily on who is allowed to define the Merit function.

tootie• 10 years ago

I'll go ahead and jump down your throat for saying something really stupid. For one thing, no speech is banned. Wild hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Crockford can say whatever the fuck he wants. He has no inalienable right to be invited to private conferences. Secondly, this was just a poor attempt at placating people against some seemingly misplaced umbrage. This was a mistake. If you think this somehow sinks the entire mission of treating people fairly, you are simply wrong. Inclusivity and diversity are great. Treating people with respect is great. Respecting complaints of abusive behavior is great. Placating whiners is not. Striking the balance is not easy and some attempts will miss the mark. That doesn't mean you give up.

coldtea5• 10 years ago

I'll go ahead and jump down your throat for saying something really stupid. For one thing, no speech is banned.

Perhaps you mean "no speech is totally banned". Because it sure as hell it IS banned from being part of the conference.

Crockford can say whatever the fuck he wants.

Nobody said they established their own dictatorship across the country and prevented him from speaking everywhere, so this "correction" is beside the point.

He is totally not allowed to say what he wants as part of his presentation, because it was cancelled. And that was because some people couldn't accept him saying some things elsewhere either.

What if someone takes offence of your "whatever the fuck he wants" line as sexist? Should you be thrown our from HN?

You'd still be able to say "whatever you want" elsewhere, so no harm, right?

mzw_mzw8• 10 years ago

"For one thing, no speech is banned"

For the million, billionth time, this not about speech being banned. It has never been about speech being banned. Stop talking as if people are claiming his speech was banned.

Flow• 10 years ago

Of course there's a subreddit for these GitHub issues written by SJWs. https://www.reddit.com/r/GitInaction/

I think it's striking how these people seem to be on a crusade, often they don't even seem to be users of the code in question and often barely developers at all.

generic_user5• 10 years ago

The intention is to take over and subvert the organisation into a platform for there activism. The goals and tactics including codes of conduct are premeditated. Its a trojan horse technique called entryism used by radical leftist political groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

Bahamut• 10 years ago

I don't really see much of a problem here in the example linked, except that some people sometimes move a little too fast towards loaded exclusionary tactics with talk of sanctions against some poor attitudes - an easy thing to do when one is inexperienced with moderation (I believe I am qualified to comment on that due to having almost 15 years of experience with online moderation in various communities in some fashion). Otherwise, they exert good patience in the comment threads in response to some with not well meaning intentions with regards to having a productive discussion. A productive discussion would be to try to assist in coming up with a good balance in terms of being inclusive of those who have legitimate concerns with certain tone/terminology/etc. and those who don't want to appear too stifled in terms of having to be overly watchful in what is said to avoid undue public shaming for an accident.

These sort of social problems don't have unilateral solutions, so the sooner that is recognized by all parties, the better the end result can be.

paulddraper7• 10 years ago

Some highlights:

"terminology sensitivity"

"host may be insensitive, use presenter, entertainer instead"

"disabled may be insensitive, use turned off, person with a disability, people with disabilities instead"

"psychotic may be insensitive, use person with a psychotic condition, person with psychosis instead"

F--- that.

You guys are psychotic....er, people with psychosis.

rvense• 10 years ago

How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.

dragandj• 10 years ago

I read only the beginning of that discussion. One idea that came to my mind is that they are really looking for a strict linter that do not allow many custom options, something that approaches the strictness of Crockford's JSLint, perhaps.

It was really difficult for me to understand that nodejs (internal?) source code could be that offensive to anyone to require this level of PC commitment, and I am not even a WASP...

It is also quite ironic that they do it on GitHub.

oh_sigh3• 10 years ago

I'm hopeful that inclusivity/SJW will destroy itself through its own messed up principles. Eventually, many members of those groups will mess up one of the unwritten rules of the club, and see what it's like to become a social pariah for innocent speech. For example, look at the backlash against Lena Dunham, a pretty prominent SJW, over what she said about OBJ.

overgard4• 10 years ago

That's the amazing thing. For all their talk of "inclusivity", when they find anyone disagrees with their goals or methods their strategies revolve around: public denouncements, banishment, and going after people's livelihoods. All the warm-fuzzy talk belies one of the most viciously aggressive anti-free-speech political machines ever assembled.

x0x06• 10 years ago

Criticizing speech with more speech (denouncements) and exercising your right to freedom of association (banishment) are two of the key ideas of free speech itself. You seem confused.

elmigranto• 10 years ago

Some people hear someone say X, put the most sickening meaning into it, get offended, cry on twitter. Pretty sure "saying X" is not the problem here.

fennecfoxen2• 10 years ago

Anecdotally, this seems to be a stronger thing in Node.js community than others. I recall on occasion on the Node channel on Freenode when I got chewed out by the ops+ for not being inclusive enough with a casual "later, guys" (or "later, dudes").

(+ bona fide opped ops, notwithstanding the Freenode "low channel temperature" guidelines)

mdadm6• 10 years ago

Anecdotally, this seems to be a stronger thing in Node.js community than others.

I have seen people speculate that this is due to the lower barrier of entry in the JS community (as a whole), although I'm not certain how true this would be.

mgkimsal• 10 years ago

there's a pretty low barrier to entry in the PHP world, and I don't think we've seen anywhere near the same level of scrutiny.

Odin78• 10 years ago

I had a similar experience with the Rust board, so (anecdotally) it might not be related to the low barrier of entry.

walshemj• 10 years ago

um is not "guys" a gender neutral term these day I have in the UK certainly had female colleagues us it in that way

mdadm6• 10 years ago

It is generally used that way. But it's also sometimes used in the gender-specific manner, and so some people will take offense over it.

waterphone5• 10 years ago

A social justice warrior would suggest that those women are experiencing internalized sexism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_sexism

ralusek2• 10 years ago

There is a simple explanation for this. NodeJS is a popular new environment; it's much more likely that a developer starting today will survey the job market, and choose to pursue NodeJS. It's very likely that a developer starting today belongs to a younger generation.

Generationally, these concepts of triggers and safe spaces are almost exclusively limited to younger generations.

Therefore, if younger people are choosing Node, and they're the people who believe in this nonsense, you're going to have some overlap there.

trjordan3• 10 years ago

The part of this article that highlights what Douglas Crockford did to get him removed from Nodevember is fine. A bit boring, but fine.

The part of this article that generally hand-waves towards "inclusivity" as a movement and dismisses them as people with "unicorn-colored hair" is frustrating. There's little here that actually discusses the issue. It points out a couple of things that Douglas said, trivializes the issues that the inclusivity group cares about, and seems to make its primary point by arguing semantics (oh, look, the inclusivity group excludes people, har har).

I get that its an opinion piece, but there's nothing of substance here that I could possibly disagree with, because it's not defined. If you want to get a bunch of people agree with you and give you internet points, it's spot on. But there's not a lot here that's interesting if you're not already on board with this point of view.

fatbird• 10 years ago

It's worth noting that the details of the reasons Crockford was uninvited have not been confirmed by any of the parties. This article takes speculation from elsewhere as announced truth and proceeds to dismiss inclusivity as a goal on that basis.

noobermin3• 10 years ago

Here is a good update I missed: Formal statement from Nodevember[0]

[0] http://nodevember.org/statement.html

wyager4• 10 years ago

trivializes the issues that the inclusivity group cares about

Actually, the article demonstrates that the group's aims are trivial. "Trivialize" implies that the group is actually trying to do something non-trivial, rather than, say, punish someone for making a few completely inoffensive jokes.

trjordan3• 10 years ago

I suppose I just disagree with you, then. From the Inclusivity Working Group Github:

"Increasing inclusivity means making the Node.js project a safe and friendly place for people from diverse backgrounds."

That seems like a solid goal to me. Their tactics may be petty or ineffective (removing Crockford is a pretty bold step), but that's different the strategy.

Do you believe that that goal is not worthwhile? If it's not, why?

pavanky2• 10 years ago

The part of this article that highlights what Douglas Crockford did to get him removed from Nodevember is fine. A bit boring, but fine.

But that is the important part though. He got removed because he used words like "promiscuous" and "weak" ? How can anyone think a group behind this kind of censoring is a good thing?

PeterisP• 10 years ago

The provided examples of Douglas Crockford's behaviour really do trivialize the issue.

However, if this is all the evidence there is, then that points out that the issue rightfully should be considered as trivial and harmful, because it has real negative consequences (elimination of a speaker) with trivial benefits (as shown by those examples in article).

I'd expect the one of the following responses:

a) Examples that Douglas Crockford did something significantly worse than the examples given in the article;

b) Acknowledgement that there were no non-trivial grounds for cancelling his speech, and that "this 'inclusivity' is not the 'inclusivity'" but an accidental overreaction;

c) Acknowledgement that yes, you consider this particular case as something that should have rightfully been done.

Do note that if you answer (c) then I will consider your [interpretation of the] movement as something harmful and something that should be fought against, because it intentionally does bad things in the name of "good intentions". I'm quite expecting to hear that (a) actually is the case, but if it's not, then the current actions were not okay.

okket• 10 years ago

See also:

"In defence of Douglas Crockford" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12422420

"Crockford" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425061

wyager4• 10 years ago

No, inclusivity is not about banning speech
Sometimes that means enforcing certain standards of speech

Do you hear yourself? The cognitive dissonance is incredible.

lukev5• 10 years ago

Sigh. What I obviously meant (btw, you should read up on the Principle of Charity [0]) is that banning speech is not the goal, it's a means to an end, and one that society has already largely accepted.

Enforcing a certain level of civility in a given place of discourse isn't "banning" and it isn't a free speech issue. It's a basic prerequisite for human interaction.

The "inclusivity" movement is just trying to extend that concept to be sensitive to groups of people that historically have not felt comfortable in certain technical environments.

Argue about the implementation if you like, but please don't assume bad faith on the part of everyone who tries to make tech a more welcoming place.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

DanielBMarkham4• 10 years ago

I think we're conflating all kinds of stuff here.

In small social groups, the group norms around certain behaviors. That's normal. It's also normal that different small social groups will have different norms.

As a personal matter, don't be an asshole. You shouldn't say things to others to deliberately hurt them. The principle of charity is valid here as well, by the way. Sometimes people are hurt because even though you mean well, they take things the wrong way.

In larger groups, probably somewhere around Dunbar's Number, it becomes inevitable that norming will not work -- nor should it work. That's because larger groups of people naturally become echo chambers full of groupthink. It's imperative to have voices and opinions that some find harsh. c.f. On Liberty

These are three separate issues. They are related, yes, but one doesn't trump the others. Society needs all of this to function well.

ADD: One of the interesting things that happened with the invention of the television was that there was no more adult talk anymore. Adults said that in the past, there was plenty of time when the kids ran off and the grown-ups talked about more mature topics.

The TV took every kind of conversation and threw it into the middle of the living room with your 4-year-old. (Or 15-year-old, for that matter). Adult talk radically changed.

Perhaps the net is doing the same thing with small social groups -- eliminating them as a place where local norms can be far outside what most people would find polite. Everything now is just in one big bucket. If so, it promises a more radical change to human society than anything we've seen so far.

jimmywanger3• 10 years ago

"What I obviously meant..."

Apparently it was not obvious. Rhetorical trick much?

Enforcing civility should be a tactic used for individuals, not language. For instance, insults to friends/acquaintances are fine, insults to strangers are not.

You need to enforce this at a user level, not a language/speech/code level. There are plenty of things that change in acceptability level based on context.

oldmanjay4• 10 years ago

I feel it might be helpful to point out that never in the history of anything has starting your comment with "sigh" communicated anything positive about yourself.

laretluval• 10 years ago

It's a basic prerequisite for human interaction.

I don't know about you, but I've experienced a lot of successful human interaction that was not subject to externally enforced speech codes.

callahad• 10 years ago

I don't think there's necessarily cognitive dissonance, here. This reading seems internally consistent: While banning certain types of speech may be a necessary part of creating an inclusive environment, it is not the primary motivation of inclusion, nor always necessary, and thus, inclusion is not about restricting speech.

prodigal_erik• 10 years ago

Chernobyl was about generating power, but that was completely dwarfed by the most enduring consequence. Including a handful of absurdly sensitive people does not justify policing everyone's ideas.

sctb• 10 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425623 and marked it off-topic. The importance of commenting civilly becomes even greater in high-energy threads where the tendency for discussions to veer off is increased.

wyager4• 10 years ago

Fair enough. Although it's difficult to respond civilly to such an aggressively ironic comment.

tptacek• 10 years ago

We only need the one story on this on the front page, and it's here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12422420

pkd2• 10 years ago

I liked it much more when open source was about the code and not the people behind it. Nowadays I worry that I might be called out for using a piece of code (however good it might be) just because the person who wrote it does not use "inclusive" language.

brakmic2• 10 years ago

AFAIK, this only affects the JavaScript-based communities.

I sincerely doubt one would find anything remotely similar in C++, Linux (C lang), or Assembly-programming communities.

The "harder" the language the less non-coding politics around.

santaclaus• 10 years ago

I sincerely doubt one would find anything remotely similar in a C++, Linux (C lang), or Assembly-programming communities.

The Linux world is full of commotion surrounding (written) language.

oldmanjay4• 10 years ago

When you have two people, you have politics. Nerds just have this ridiculous social signal where they have to pretend to be above it.

sheraz• 10 years ago

Nope. Django communities have been infected with this as well.

https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692

pandaman• 10 years ago

In my experience this is centered in San Francisco and is affecting any field, which is strong in that area.

vatotemking• 10 years ago

r/php and php-fig has its own share of drama and toxicity

pyre7• 10 years ago

This is a straw man. No one is going to call you our for using a piece of code because it lacks "inclusive" language, unless you decide to use a library with a name like `libniggerjew`. Or something that maybe includes variable names like "theHolocaustIsALie". At some point, you would have the blame the author of the software for injecting politics into their software.

That said, open source has been shaped by the people behind it. Entire forks have been created over nothing but internal politics regardless of "inclusivity." Large projects have rejected major features just because the maintainer didn't want it even though others did. Just because you have been insulated from this doesn't mean it isn't there.

waterphone5• 10 years ago

This is exactly what happens. People crawl through projects on github for certain words and open pull requests to try and get them changed.

emgee3• 10 years ago

This reminds me, a few years back I was reading the code of a few different obscure libraries. One of them had a primary process that would spawn different worker processes and kill them off if certain conditions were met. No joke, the primary process was named "Hitler".

I didn't end up using the library.

pkd2• 10 years ago

Sure, I am extrapolating a bit based on present trends, but this actually kind of happened with Spacemacs, which is an Emacs distribution. On the issue which was opened for including a CoC, the original maintainer was against adopting the Contributor Covenant as their CoC. This was misinterpreted by several package maintainers as being proof of his reluctance to include a CoC in the first place.

This lead to threats of boycott where the Flycheck maintainer said that he would actively discourage the contributors to his project from supporting Spacemacs because of this issue.

jegoodwin33• 10 years ago

Yes, one of life's harsher lessons is just how vicious Unitarians can be.

throwanem• 10 years ago

"Other grain."

wozer• 10 years ago

If this is true, it is both ridiculous and terrible.

generic_user5• 10 years ago

I think the takeaway is that when you set up a group within your organisation to promote 'inclusion' or 'diversity' you open the door for entrism by seasoned radical activists who have an agenda. An attempt to include 'marginalized' people by excluding everyone who fails there ideological purity test is simply a witch-hunt tactic to consolidate power and subvert the direction of the organisation.

everyone has to be more diligent to protect there projects and communities form these corrosive people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

noobermin3• 10 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if these groups are false flags. I know they aren't, but perhaps it is better to say they are their own parody. There are serious issues out there, discrimination is alive and has been demonstrated in studies, statistics, etc. Garbage like this makes a mockery of the whole thing, the real hurt and issues gets mixed in with this trash and gives some people, I'm sure, solace that all of it is just a tempest in a teapot, and there are no real issues out there.

Groups and fake controversies like this distract from real issues of discrimination. They do more harm to inclusive movements than good.

andybak• 10 years ago

As much as I'd like to think this is true, I don't think it's plausible. It would require a conspiracy of epic proportions.

It's a flaw in human psychology that is related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...

Another aspect is that as that any idealistic movement is prone to being taken over by it's most intractable members. There's a game theoretic spin on it by Nicholas Taleb if I remember correctly: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

As the emotional tone of a debate is heightened, it's hard to argue for moderation. Anything that pushed emotional buttons forces people to the extremes and those arguing for compromise are often ridiculed by both sides.

Therefore we have the phenomenon that many debates end up being between over-the-top SJWs on one side and crazy racists and Red Pill types on the other.

And back in the real world, there is still indisputable injustice and discrimination that would be eminently tractable if everyone would come back down to earth.

EDIT - I'd like to point out that I'm aware of a major flaw in the above - everyone - myself included regards themselves as a reasonable moderate and others as dangerous extremists. I suppose I'd be quite content to be regarded as a flakey liberal by my friends on the right and a closet imperialist by those on the left. (Except - what happens if the sample of my social group is heavily skewed and my 'left/right' is off the scale? And down the rabbit hole we go...)

derefr5• 10 years ago

Everyone is a moderate; people reposition the callipers around their social group, defining people into and out of it, so as to always stay its most central and reasonable example.

derefr5• 10 years ago

The one thing I have always found is that usually, when there is an actual example of one individual who is directly hurt by someone else's prejudices, there aren't two sides to the issue: it's pretty clear to neutral observers that the prejudiced person is in the wrong.

But in almost every case of people being chased up online for this sort of un-PC behavior, there are no examples of individual people who claim to have been directly hurt by them. There's just the group saying that they're "problematic" in some vague sense.

If we could de-legitimize any conversation about injustices that isn't couched in concrete terms of pain caused to non-hypothetical people by non-hypothetical actions, I think there wouldn't be any "tempest" left.

oli5679• 10 years ago

Paul Graham's Essay on 'What You Can't Say'

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

pvg• 10 years ago

The statement of the organizers doesn't give a very detailed reason why they didn't want him giving a keynote at their conference and it certainly doesn't say it was over a tweet or using the word 'promiscuous'. That part seems to be much-repeated speculation that does nothing but fuel outrage.

zeta01342• 10 years ago

Inclusivity is one of those things that you just have to do, and not talk about. I sincerely hope the irony of excluding this man in the name of inclusivity is not lost on the crowd. What a mess.

I think more people would do well to practice the tolerance and acceptance that they preach. As a gay man, I've run into my fair share of loud mouthed, biggoted people, who say incredibly mean things about me without realizing that they're affecting someone in the same room. A good deal of my friends are Christians, and a good deal of my family is as well. At least in our churches, being gay is considered quite a heavy sin. Somewhat intuitively then, when I came out to my family, I was simultaneously declaring that I would no longer be a part of their religion.

And you know? We didn't fight about it. They understand my limitations, and I still love them. I'm still friends with my Christian friends, and I'm still on great terms with my family. We disagree on certain things but that's OK, because they've learned to see the good in my unique outlook on life, and I've learned to understand the love tolerance that their Jesus teaches, because I watch them practice it every day. We've learned to accept one another, despite our differences.

Inclusivity is not hard, but it starts with avoiding conflict. You're going to have to tolerate that which occasionally offends you, and learn to let it go. Learn to love people despite their flaws, because goodness do people have flaws. We're not perfect. Nowhere near it. But all people still have some good in them, and it's worth making the effort to see past that which you dislike to appreciate the human being underneath it all.

danso• 10 years ago

I don't disagree with your overall post except for this point:

Inclusivity is not hard, but it starts with avoiding conflict.

I think inclusivity is hard -- for all the reasons you mention in the following sentence, e.g. having the strength to let things go, and the open-mindedness to love someone despite their purported flaws. Not only is inclusivity hard, but it is important to recognize how hard it is to achieve and maintain. Because otherwise it becomes easy to trivialize people who genuinely fight for it but fail to achieve it.

EugeneOZ• 10 years ago

How it's related to this conf and Crockford? They refused papers of gay-speakers? Crockford insulted gay-speakers? For both cases answer is No - I don't understand this hysteria about Nodevember.

I respect gays, I respect women, but they should try to attempt as speakers before asking why there's only male speakers on some event.

chme2• 10 years ago

I don't understand what straight men have against gay men. They should be happy, because that means less competition. ;)

gugagore• 10 years ago

I understand you might find this cliche cute, but it's actually not even cute.

Gay men challenge what it means to be a "man", that's what can make people uncomfortable.

zeta01342• 10 years ago

I think the idea that another man might find them attractive is a source of discomfort. When I came out to my straight friends, almost all of them asked me if at any point I found them attractive, and were visibly relieved when I informed them that I did not.

justifier• 10 years ago

Inclusivity is one of those things that you just have to do, and not talk about

i agree, marching under any banner makes me extremely uncomfortable.. even one of inclusivity

what should be talked about instead though is the exclusivity

i actively seek paradox

i think there are profound truths to be found therein

one that endeared to me long ago was 'exclude exclusion'

I sincerely hope the irony of excluding this man in the name of inclusivity is not lost on the crowd.

you can easily exclude excluders without your noted irony.. just offer for thaem to exclude thaemself

for a while the posts and articles about this decision lacked any information as to the catalyst to this decision

now what i am seeing is a complete lack of any mention about what the talk was intended to be

what i want to see is this:

first, the topic for the individual's talk.. maybe offer slides or notes as more information will aide in preempting subsequent objections, also if requiring one, then require all speakers to do the same..

if it is purely technical, then great!

if it contains specific elements that people say make them feel excluded, especially that add little more than some intended humor.. see gonads'monads argument..

then offer the speaker an opportunity to either make changes, or to choose to keep the talk as is instead of giving it

why does this whole thing seem predicated on assumptions of universal knowledge and understanding?

what is even the message the conference organisers are trying to express here? progress comes from discourse intended to explicitly develop understanding, stead some assumed a priori posturing

trust is expected, respect is earned

i trust anyone can grow personally, but if someone wants to double down on an inconsequential element of their message that adversely affects others then i'll withhold my respect

that applies to both parties in this as yet farce

PedroBatista• 10 years ago

I'm guessing even the hardcore Victorians would consider this whole thing "a bit much".

coldtea5• 10 years ago

Well, it basically came from some very vocal bullying from “inclusivity” folks, incidentally also a part of the Node.js inclusivity group.

The problem with "inclusivity groups" is that they have to find work for themselves -- even if that means busywork.

Animats• 10 years ago

Inclusivity is so last year. Look how well Trump is doing. Trump brought intolerance out of the closet. Like him or not, he's changed American politics.

knucklesandwich8• 10 years ago

Some people in the developer community need to get better at recognizing when a witch hunt is brewing. This blog post has essentially the same content as the one yesterday on the same subject[1].

Like the one yesterday, it attempts to provide its own explanation for why Crockford was disinvited as the keynote speaker. However, none of these details are mentioned in the actual statement given by Nodevember[2], and there are no sources given for how this explanation was arrived at. The Nodevember statement claims he was disinvited based on some public and private feedback from speakers who felt uncomfortable attending with him as the keynote speaker. Why should we take it on face value that the circumstances documented here are actual set of circumstances that lead to him being disinvited? Where is this information even coming from?

One of the alleged sources is a blog post from Kas Perch[3]. The alleged slut shaming incident seems to be a minor note in a post otherwise focused on his negative and dismissive attitude towards some of the other speakers. Perhaps this is the more salient part of why this person felt uncomfortable attending with him? Perhaps there's more feedback being kept private to protect the witch hunt from targeting those coming forward?

Notably I haven't even seen a statement from Crockford crying foul over this incident. It seems to be coming entirely from other Node developers upset about the fact that he was removed as the keynote speaker. It seems like this is an argument being played out as a proxy over political stances about diversity and inclusion tactics, without a lot of consideration for the actual circumstances. Furthermore I find it very disappointing that this poorly substantiated argument is being used to demonize inclusivity and diversity overall, which is something badly needed in developer communities.

[1] http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford

[2] http://nodevember.org/statement.html

[3] https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-...

tobltobs• 10 years ago

on some public and private feedback from speakers who felt uncomfortable attending with him as the keynote speaker.

So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is.

And you believe that this kind of closed door denunciation will result in a better, more inclusive world?

And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?

knucklesandwich8• 10 years ago

So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is.

No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation, and furthermore there are good reasons for not offering a public explanation.

And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?

No, I'm acknowledging that this is a lot of frenzy being whipped up when the party directly affected by the decision hasn't released a statement questioning their motivation. He may have been given an explanation and has chosen not to make an issue of it for all you know. The only people seemingly angered by this decision are people who aren't affected.

IsaacL3• 10 years ago

I have learned not to jump to conclusions in these stories, even when I want to back my ideological "team". (I'm not a fan of SJWs, but many of the anti-SJWs make up for it by being even worse).

The Nodevember statement seems reasonable on its face:

"[...] his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak.

We reacted to this feedback. Nothing else. Any other speculation around his past behavior was not taken into account.

This conference was started by a group of friends to gather around the love of a shared language and community.

We are in over our heads. The conference has grown to something we never anticipated. We aren't professional organizers or PR people. We are still learning, and will make mistakes. We don't do this as a full time job. We do this because we love the community."

OK, they're just a group of friends doing their thing, and it's their club, their rules.

On the other hand: they're charging $350 a ticket, so can hardly be complete amateurs. It sounds like they're trying to downplay any political angle, when excluding such a speaker would inevitably be seen as a political move in the current climate.

(Conference for an extremely hip, progressive community (Node) excludes old-school elitist greybeard. Only reasons cited publicly are mildly condescending remarks in Crawford's public talks and unelaborated backchannel complaints).

So, though I don't know enough and so withhold firm judgement, it does appear that the Nodevember organisers thought they could deliver a public slap to Crockford by ostracising him, proving some political point, and are now downplaying their own behaviour to avoid the PR backlash.

Either way, it is their club, their rules. The real solution to this is for those closer to Crockford's philosophy of life to assert their right to free association, and host an elitist conference for Real Programmers where noobs are flamed, idiocy is excluded, truth and justice reigns supreme, etc.

Edit: I've just seen this https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 which makes it look as though the Nodevember organisers were bullied into excluding Crockford to deflect a PR s...storm about their insufficiently diverse keynote speakers.

knucklesandwich8• 10 years ago

Even the thread you cited claims there were other speakers who came forward. Unless there's some public acknowledgement over what the deciding factors are, this is a lot of speculation over what little public conversation (on twitter at that, so inherently lacking a lot of the full explanation) exists.

Instead of inserting your own narrative into how and why this occurred and pouring gasoline on the fire, how about let cooler heads prevail. If Crockford feels wronged by this exchange, he's free to come forward with his side of things (and other parties with theirs) if a public debate needs to occur. Until then, this is a lot of people being roped into proxy battle of "SJWs" vs "un-PC enthusiasts" that frankly has little to do with an actual set of circumstances.

dbg31415• 10 years ago

The number of people who go around looking for ways to be offended is seriously troubling and a fat greater theeat to humanity's advancement.

If someone has something to teach me, I don't care what he does outside of the conference -- if he uses gender biased words or votes for evil bunnies, I'm not there to talk to him about those things.

It was better when people knew how to comparatamentalize work and politics and religion and all the other stuff that's personal and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

thiht• 10 years ago

It seems the SJW movement became a new form of inquisition. What's terrifiying is it actually convinces in real life.

dasil003• 10 years ago

I consider myself an ally on most social justice issues. The kind of abuse heaped on women online is unconscionable to me. Not to mention Black Lives Matter where people are actually dying because of systemic prejudice. So you have those issues on one side, there are a lot of them and we need to work on them as a society.

A step down from that big stuff, you have crass offensive behavior like sexual innuendo in conference talks and other things that can pretty readily be identified as going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. It makes sense for professional conferences to have policies against those things.

Then you have this long tail of ways that a person can be offended by subtle interpretations that are impossible to wholly avoid by premeditation except through sheer paranoid blandness. This is the bucket where it seems like this Crockford nonsense falls, and this is also where the movement loses my support. They've crossed the line from helping people to just reaching for the torches and pitchforks, and completely lost the thread that liberalism was once about tolerance.

noobermin3• 10 years ago

I feel that these people do not and should not speak for liberalism. The are like the Alt-Right, they are an extreme fringe which give the movement and causes (very important causes) a bad name.

xwvvvvwx• 10 years ago

pastebin of a nodevember slack channel discussing the incident:

http://pastebin.com/3mQc7DfG

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/50u77r/douglas_...

brador• 10 years ago

Question: Is that Tweet Libel?

"We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all." - Nodevember Tweet

The implication is he creates an uncomfortable environment.

Libel?

erichocean• 10 years ago

Node•vember? Or No•dev•ember?

Seems like it's trending towards the latter.

EdiX3• 10 years ago

This post is currently in page four where it's the most recent post of the page (by a large margin) and the third most upvoted post in the page. Sometimes it's weird how algorithms work.

kazinator3• 10 years ago

You can put a network adapter into "promiscuous mode".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuous_mode

This causes it to disappear all night and crawl home at 11 in the morning with a hangover.

kazinator3• 10 years ago

Hmm; I didn't think that was a good comment and am positive I deleted it.

kazinator3• 10 years ago

Donald Trump:

- "[Mexican immigrants are] bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."

- "Rosie [O'Donnell] is just disgusting --- she's fat, she's a loser. She's a farm animal pig. She's a beast, ok. She's just a loser. She's no good."

RESULT: Just might get elected US President in November!

Obscure JavaScript geek:

- "blah blah ... promiscuous ... blah blah ..."

RESULT: Removed from speaking at some JavaScript conference in November.

These inclusivity people need to look around a little and have a reality check. Their incredibly narrow standard for what is acceptable is not even remotely shared by the American society they live in.

Inclusivity Is a Joke

Related Stories