I think there's an interesting thought about intersectionality there. I am assuming your common objection is rudeness (that is, at least, mine). But there's some subtlety.
Linus is, by all reasonable measures, completely powerful at (I think) everything he wants to be doing. He's the only person with commit access to the Linux kernel. He works for a foundation named after himself whose primary goal is to employ him. When he yells at someone on a mailing list, it's doubly objectionable: first, for inherent human-dignity reasons of rudeness, and second, because he doesn't need to. To quote one of his former subsystem maintainers, "I've seen you be polite ... You just don't want to take the time to be polite to everyone. .... You are in a position of power. Stop verbally abusing your developers." If there's something he doesn't want in the kernel, he can just refuse to pull it. He doesn't need to get anyone's attention; he doesn't need to defend his point (there are plenty of good things that he's quietly refused to merge because he doesn't like them), he can just do what he wants. So the rudeness is gratuitous.
Shanley generally doesn't have those luxuries. She doesn't control the conversation on tech feminism, and she certainly doesn't control the culture of the Valley. When she's rude, it's often because that's the only way she can get attention. I actually think, if you read her tweets carefully, that she's very intentional in pushing the Overton window and making space for less-rude people to push their point. It's certainly possible she could accomplish her goals without rudeness, but she couldn't simply drop the rudeness the way Linus does.
(There are more things to consider here, like Linus still being in the industry and Shanley not. On the flip side, there's Shanley's treatment of people she works with and does have power over.)
If you consider those sorts of things and conclude that your problem is with the fundamental behavior of rudeness, or that neither form of rudeness is more defensible than the other, I don't think that's wrong at all. But if you haven't thought about it at all, and you look at Linus and say he's rude, and you look at Shanley and say she's rude too, I think your opinion is poorly informed, because they are coming out of very different places and they have very different intentions and effects.
> I actually think, if you read her tweets carefully, that she's very intentional in pushing the Overton window and making space for less-rude people to push their point. It's certainly possible she could accomplish her goals without rudeness, but she couldn't simply drop the rudeness the way Linus does.
That's an extremely interesting and helpful point, and makes me actually more sympathetic to her. Thanks for that.
That's an extremely interesting and helpful point, and makes me actually more sympathetic to her. Thanks for that.
Unless it also makes you more sympathetic to the Bill O'Reillys of the world and all the "problematic" blowhards on twitter, you're just falling victim to a convenient narrative.
Except that Bill O'Reilly speaks on behalf a group that already has a lot of power, and Shanley doesn't. When O'Reilly pushes the Overton window for the Republican party, he's only "making space" for politicians and pundits who already have a very visible platform. Shanley pushing the Overton window makes space for a lot of voices who aren't already being heard.
Linus is, by all reasonable measures, completely powerful at (I think) everything he wants to be doing. He's the only person with commit access to the Linux kernel. He works for a foundation named after himself whose primary goal is to employ him. When he yells at someone on a mailing list, it's doubly objectionable: first, for inherent human-dignity reasons of rudeness, and second, because he doesn't need to. To quote one of his former subsystem maintainers, "I've seen you be polite ... You just don't want to take the time to be polite to everyone. .... You are in a position of power. Stop verbally abusing your developers." If there's something he doesn't want in the kernel, he can just refuse to pull it. He doesn't need to get anyone's attention; he doesn't need to defend his point (there are plenty of good things that he's quietly refused to merge because he doesn't like them), he can just do what he wants. So the rudeness is gratuitous.
Shanley generally doesn't have those luxuries. She doesn't control the conversation on tech feminism, and she certainly doesn't control the culture of the Valley. When she's rude, it's often because that's the only way she can get attention. I actually think, if you read her tweets carefully, that she's very intentional in pushing the Overton window and making space for less-rude people to push their point. It's certainly possible she could accomplish her goals without rudeness, but she couldn't simply drop the rudeness the way Linus does.
(There are more things to consider here, like Linus still being in the industry and Shanley not. On the flip side, there's Shanley's treatment of people she works with and does have power over.)
If you consider those sorts of things and conclude that your problem is with the fundamental behavior of rudeness, or that neither form of rudeness is more defensible than the other, I don't think that's wrong at all. But if you haven't thought about it at all, and you look at Linus and say he's rude, and you look at Shanley and say she's rude too, I think your opinion is poorly informed, because they are coming out of very different places and they have very different intentions and effects.