Y’all. I’m so pissed off right now. This situation has shown that, in the tech industry, as a woman, I’m basically a second class citizen and things that happen to either me or other women are deemed not worth addressing by the companies that employ us. Here is some background:
About a month and…
Agreed; this situation is super frustrating all around. The “no evidence” thing only makes sense if you assert that Julie is lying and/or ignore her first hand evidence. I also love how HN latched on to Jane Doe’s anonymous medium piece about the “other side of the story,” and are falling over themselves to believe it.
Curious how no one wants to believe Julie, but we’re totally willing to believe an anonymous source, so long as we can call Julie a liar! We have to listen to all sides, right?! right?! free speech or something? UGH -.-
Oh boy, I like this a lot. I wonder what’s the simplest way to implement it. Maybe use regular labels and style them to be inside the inputs, and then bind on focus to trigger a transition to move them out of the way? Oh, and they interrupt the border of the input, so they need to be z-indexed on in front. Oh, and we’d have to check on blur whether or not the value of the input is empty, and if it is empty, slide it back into the input with some more transitions. Sounds pretty ugly and hell to do cross-browser pixel positioning. It’s unfortunate not to be able to use the placeholder attribute, though, if we do it that way.
With Angular directives or Polymer, there’s maybe better ways to encapsulate the behavior? We could definitely make a custom attribute fancy-placeholder or something like that (is it possible to enhance the existing placeholder attributes? that’s probably frowned upon) so we wouldn’t have to have an extra element floating around for each input, and it’d be easier to edit the HTML when the entire thing is part of the <input> tag. And then you’d have to set up a similar listener on focus and blur whether you should trigger the CSS transition.
Having never worked with CSS transitions before, I wonder how you trigger them. Curious…
His right to free speech entitles him to express any opinion he pleases. But it does not shield him from the personal and professional repercussions of what he says.
Our right to free speech entitles us to be vocally outraged, to encourage others to boycott Firefox, or to call for his firing. What Mozilla pressures or forces him to do as a result is solely their decision and their problem, and has nothing to do with anyone’s free speech — it’s a business decision.
So let’s knock that argument right out. This is not a free speech issue, period, and it’s incorrect, misleading, and naive to attempt to make it one. Such distortions are the fastest way to pervert and derail an argument, as we often see from our politicians, and I expect better from intelligent people like Andrew Sullivan.
Like Marco says, freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences. Consequences are literally the whole point of speech, after all. Eich’s go-around is reminiscent of the Pax furor of a few months ago, with Eich’s supporters incorrectly conflating freedom of speech with freedom from only the undesired social consequences of speech.
Surely Eich wouldn’t want freedom from outlawing gay marriage, which was the temporary consequence of his “speech” in support of prop8. Why should he be exempt from only the negative consequences (being deemed unfit to be Mozilla’s CEO)?
It’s frustrating to see the backlash against Eich characterized as a lynch mob/a witch hunt/bullying/burning him at the stake. For one, they’re gross exaggerations that derail the conversation - no one is being murdered in public as spectacle - and they’re mischaracterizations of the power dynamics of the situation. They indicate that the backlash Eich suffered was somehow illegitimate, but that’s inconsistent with believing in free speech: the backlash is the free speech right of his opponents.
Lynch mobs, witch hunts, and stake-burners (?) don’t have any right to kill people, and they have nothing to do with free speech. But, expressing our opinion that Eich is unfit to be CEO as a consequence of his speech is exercising our free speech, and shouldn’t be stopped or opposed like we oppose literal lynch mobs, witch hunts, and bullying.
the-worst-starfighter asked: Okay, saw your Sarkeesian thing, and couple things- One, that is the single weakest collection of strawmen I've ever seen, and two, disagreeing/having legitimate criticisms of someone =/= trolling. And don't give me that "Dudebro manbaby" shit. I'm a guy, but I think the whole 'fighting sexism in the game industry' thing is a worthy cause- when it's not being led by a plagiarist who calls for people who disagree with her to kill themselves and then plays the victim when she's called out on it.
First, when and where exactly has Anita Sarkeesian told people who disagreed with her to kill themselves? Primary sources only, please. No “well this dude told another dude who heard from this third dude”. Frankly, I find this claim pretty hard to believe, given that Anita has been so goddamn classy in dealing with the mouthbreathing neckbeards who vomit hatred at her on a daily basis that she is my role model of how to put dudebro trolls in their place while keeping the moral high ground. FOR REALZ.
Second, so you’re against the “fighting sexism thing” but you think that someone speaking out against the LITERALLY THOUSANDS of rape threats she got is “playing the victim”? Because if that fucking bitch is going to HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING IN PUBLIC, she totally deserves to have people tell her that she should get raped. AMIRITE?
Yeah, no. So congratulations! You’re a misogynist.
wow this ask
i really like the part where Anita’s experienced disagreement and legitimate criticism. i know when people disagree with and criticize me, I’m expecting to get untold amounts of rape threats & death threats, get doxxed & DDoS’d, and lord knows what else. and besides, with all that legitimate criticism, how dare anita play the victim? we all know she’s literally ruining the entire multibillion dollar games industry, one twenty minute youtube video at a time. lol
good thing there’s another ally for the ‘fighting sexism in the game industry thing’, though. lol, the counter argument to the second “point” is even on the flow chart. haha but imagine if - some people were gonna go out and fight sexism but then they were like “hey wait we can’t yet, first let’s check in with that person who thinks we’re a worthy cause. sheesh, that was a close call everyone! almost made some progress that would alienate them!”
edit: no ok so, slightly less snark
I don’t think the flow chart was meant to address respectful disagreements or legitimate criticisms - that should be obvious. Of course, the majority of the feedback Anita received was not respectful or legitimate; thus, the flow chart. regardless of whether or not we approve of anita, she’s initiated a ton of conversations about sexism and games and those conversations are a crucial first step for many in the industry.
As you gather your things and walk toward the field for any game, choose the answer which best represents your inner monologue:
We have crushed this team twice this season. No need to even cleat up. The rookies will get plenty of playing time.
I am feeling good. A few butterflies, but I am excited about playing this next team. Let’s go!
My stomach hurts. I can’t breathe. All I can think about is how important it is to WIN this game. I don’t think we can do it, but I hope we do.
Tiina Booth nails it on not enough nervous, good nervous, and bad nervous. I’m really loving her mental toughness/head-game series over on UW.
I’m especially sensitive to ‘not enough nervous,’ having been victim to it too many times to count. All it does is set you up to work less and run slower, followed by being upset when the points don’t come in easy. It’s one thing to open up the lines and but still play hard & honest; it’s another thing to come in thinking it’ll be okay to relax. Especially on D - it only takes a few seconds for two O players to score, but it takes seven D players at least ten hard seconds to get a D; one weak link in the D is often all the vulnerability a good thrower needs.
If you’re one of the good guys and you want to help speed things up, you can start by respecting that even if my being different doesn’t bother you, it may very well bother me—and only one of us has to be uncomfortable for it to count as a problem. Understand that while individual differences between me and the majority of my coworkers might seem small and silly, they can add up to an overall feeling of isolation.
I was internally nodding and agreeing with this whole article. Plus it’s just great writing, the juxtaposition between her sense of humor, and her sense of isolation.