If this story was deleted based by PG because the conversation devolved pretty quickly, that's reasonable; if this story was deleted automatically based on some large number of people flagging it, that's pretty damn interesting in the context of the story.
Yeap, something is up with the general whole front-page today; stories with low points from long ago are floating up whilst this and other today stories are disappearing
Flagging might explain disappearing, but does it explain that the front page is all out-of-order?
I flagged it because I don't think anything useful comes out of those sexism threads. It's effectively trolling. Not saying it is not a problem, just that it won't be solved by flamewars on HN.
It is incredibly important not only because of the sexism angle, but it opens up a pretty clear case of the appropriateness of handling customer complaints in a public forum.
Flagging something do to a perceived "possible flamewar" is no better than lame use of fallacies to discount such a commonplace and pregnant problem.
I mostly agree. In general, I think such threads belong to the same class as political threads, where the impetus for contribution is some combination of intellectual and moral masturbation.
The only reason I did not have flag the previous thread, was because it was an example of sexism par excellence. Both sides started out wrong in some way -- her curse with a demand yielded his emotional tilt. This produced to a weird feedback loop that lead to one side being really wrong, when in reality they were probably not that far apart initially.
It was an example of an entire evolutionary chain of an emotional conflict. You don't get to see that too often. (Well, on twitter, you actually do, but this chain was much more relevant to the sexism mime of the last week than "mY ScaLa buTthUrts your RuBy.")
I'm pretty sure that in a community of entrepreneurs and developers, this story is actually one of the most pertinent. It deals with PR and culture and I don't see why anyone should flag it. The comment thread on that story was really interesting - you might want to read it. Sometimes it is not just about the story - it is also about the discussion on HN that I come here for
Newsflash: people get defensive when you act aggressively. If the person you are requesting something from asks you to act more calmly ('? why the agressive tone'), why don't you do that? All of this wouldn't happen if, when requested, she simply explained her objection.
Unless, of course, your purpose is not to convince the other side to take down the video, but make as much of a scene as you can.
Really don't like how Shanley went about this, although the responses from Christian were very unprofessional. Sexism issues aside, no matter how angry you become, having a tantrum doesn't solve your problem. With an issue like this it's best to complain privately and then, if you don't receive an adequate response, consider going public with it. It's especially unfair in this case as Geeklist are getting bad PR when the video wasn't their fault.
Still, this is a good example of how NOT to handle a complaint. Both sides are at fault here, IMO.
Let everyone rant about whatever they think is wrong without involving their employers. It's not like she was campaigning against them. They just wanted to silence her all along.
Because of the behaviour of both male and female participators in this "discussion", I don't know to whom Charles Arthur refers to as sexist. The men act like typical chauvinistic males as one would call them, and the women sounds very entitled and arrogant, spouting typical feminist nonsense. Both are in the wrong, one maybe more than the other.
In any case, this doesn't really fit on HN I think.
18 comments
[ 2469 ms ] story [ 1715 ms ] threadhttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3739913
Perhaps it was the title? Almost makes a case for the reverse of HN's policy on using the original article title.
Flagging might explain disappearing, but does it explain that the front page is all out-of-order?
Flagging something do to a perceived "possible flamewar" is no better than lame use of fallacies to discount such a commonplace and pregnant problem.
The only reason I did not have flag the previous thread, was because it was an example of sexism par excellence. Both sides started out wrong in some way -- her curse with a demand yielded his emotional tilt. This produced to a weird feedback loop that lead to one side being really wrong, when in reality they were probably not that far apart initially.
It was an example of an entire evolutionary chain of an emotional conflict. You don't get to see that too often. (Well, on twitter, you actually do, but this chain was much more relevant to the sexism mime of the last week than "mY ScaLa buTthUrts your RuBy.")
Unless, of course, your purpose is not to convince the other side to take down the video, but make as much of a scene as you can.
They could have handled it a lot better. Bringing her employers into it? Etc.
Still, this is a good example of how NOT to handle a complaint. Both sides are at fault here, IMO.
In any case, this doesn't really fit on HN I think.