[rayiner]

It’s not fair to apply one era’s standards to people from another era, but it is fair to hold people accountable for shitty culture that was recognized as such at the time. For example, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1968, at a time when 70% of people disapproved of interracial marriage, and half thought it should be illegal. There is nothing wrong with judging those people for failing to meet a moral standard that was recognied, even if only by an enlightened minority. Morality is not decided by popular vote.

As for Atari:

> Holding board meetings in hot tubs, asking a secretary to get in with them. Doling out “the best-looking secretaries” like prizes to the star employees. Code-naming the home version of Pong after a female employee whom Bushnell said in 2012 “was stacked and had the tiniest waist.” Making a 1973 game called Gotcha, with joysticks replaced by a pair of pink silicone domes, meant to look and feel like breasts.

Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong.

[Slansitartop]

> but it is fair to hold people accountable for shitty culture that was recognized as such at the time. For example, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1968

This isn't anything like Loving v. Virginia, and that's very easy to see: The Lovings were pretty clearly unhappy with their lot in 1968, hence the lawsuit bearing their name. The people who were actually part of the Atari culture aren't complaining about it, and they're actually organizing to dispute the accusations.

The only people complaining about any of this are twitter activists in 2018, and they don't have any credibility, frankly.

[rayiner]

Your use of “their lot” is telling. Yes, lots of people living in a shitty culture don’t realize it’s bad. Half of black people in 1968 disapproved of interracial marriage too. But we hardly have a representative sampling of former Atari employees to determine what people think of the culture in retrospect, or whether they’d be willing to live like that again (or want their daughters to have that “lot”).

[Slansitartop]

> But we hardly have a representative sampling of former Atari employees to determine what people think of the culture in retrospect, or whether they’d be willing to live like that again

All of the evidence we have at this point is positive towards the Atari culture. If the standard is "it was shitty unless you can prove a negative," then there's not much point talking about any of this. Burn the books because we already know everything we need to know.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Then maybe acquiring a representative sample would be a good place to start, and would help make arguments about what people do and don't want now more convincing.

[gaius]

Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong

And yet, those who were there say:

“sex, drugs, and video games,” but one in which all 12 employees say they freely participated, if they participated at all

If everyone who partakes is (enthusiastically) consenting and those who abstain are in no way coerced to do so, what is "wrong"? Who has been "wronged"? How?

it was the best job they ever had

[jerf]

"Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong."

That is true. However... are you sure you would side with the people who knew this was wrong, were you in 1970? Because in 1970, that would be the conservatives, the church-goers, the ones who were not going along with the sexual revolution and were sticking to older mores.

The direct linear ideological ancestors of the current dominant Silicon Valley liberalism were not decrying this sexual liberation... they were the ones creating it, normalizing it, and outright celebrating it, and rubbing the noses of the redneck rubes in flyover country over it, the same redneck rubes in flyover country that the HN gestalt so frequently sneers at today.

The Silicon Valley of 1970 would not pick up the morals 2018 is trying to impose on them. They would actively rebel, because frankly the #meToo morals are rapidly evolving into, if not already at, something even more strict than what the people in 1970 were already rebelling against as being square and out of date!

[rayiner]

I don’t see your point. Conservative church goers weren’t wrong about everything (and they’re certainly not wrong about everything now).

This is not a new observation. Many radical feminists, Dworkin for example, were deeply skeptical of the sexual revolution, and acknowledged that she shared some common ground with conservative women in that regard.

[jerf]

"I don’t see your point."

Well, part of my point is that Atari isn't "them". It is, for most of HN, "us, only fifty years ago". And not just "us, as in Silicon Valley is like really racist and stuff, but not me, oh no, so us but not the us that includes me", but literally us. These were the direct ancestors of Silicon Valley liberalism.

I'm saying that if the moral harridans of 2018 are going to be going back in history to the 1970s to condemn people (and beyond), I'd like to see some sort of reckoning with the history of what's going on here, if for no other reason than to perhaps convince people to slow down a bit and dampen the wildly swaying pendulum before rewriting the social contract willy-nilly again next week. It honestly blows my mind how the direct lineal descendants of the Sexual Revolution are now putting forth a morality that is actually stricter than what conservatives have stuck too, a morality in which even if everyone is adult and consents it can still be condemned if it isn't 2018-approved, with just-barely-not-nonexistent examinations of how that happened and whether it's really a good idea. Where will the pendulum swing next?

[rayiner]

I’d instead say it’s an instance of “tried it, didn’t care for it” and nothing more. Both conservatives and radical feminists in the 1970s pointed out that the sexual revolution was in some ways perpetuating patriarchy, except that instead of expecting women to be wives and mothers it demanded sexual availability in all settings and accommodation of mens’ sexual impulses. But that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t bad things about it or that there is any reason to “slow down.”

I also disagree with the idea that it’s a “pendulum.” It’s moving in the direction of increased autonomy and self determination for women. Sexual revolution: “we don’t want to be trapped into marriage and motherhood by sexual mores.” Women didn’t want “sex in the workplace”—they were just willing to accommodate it because it freed them from something worse. But now women aren’t forced into marriage and motherhood. But they have more demands. “We noticed that men still have most of the power in the workplace. We want to advance in our careers without having to deal with men trying to use that power to get sex.” These are not contradictory at all.

[jerf]

That is a pretty theory.

But I'm a pragmatist and have the annoying habit of looking at the facts on the ground before accepting the theory. When I read the Twitter stream that was linked by seany, I do not see women celebrating that they no longer have to "deal with men trying to use that power to get sex". I see real women being brushed aside, and I see modern day harridans simply assuming and telling them what to feel and de facto what morality they should subscribe to, and whether they should be offended, and if the real women doesn't want to play ball with that, I see real women being essentially disenfranchised from the conversation.

I don't care what pretty theory you wrap around that. It's wrong, and a pendulum that has swung too far. People getting offended on behalf of other people, for events that may very well have happened before the offended people were even born, and disenfranchising them if they disagree is not progress. It's not respectful of women. It is one very loud group using other people, in the worst sense of the term "using", and not caring about what facts get in the way. That is not sustainable, and it will not last, and the longer people try to maintain it by paying too much attention to the pretty theories while ignoring the ugly facts on the ground, the worse the backlash is going to be.

[noobermin]

Made a comment in similar spirit below. What I'll point out is most of the female workers interviewed here did not see their experience as criminal or toxic. I'm pretty sure when 70% of people disapproved of interracial marriage, those who wanted to marry interracially felt disenfranchised. If both sides of the "conflict" felt there was no conflict, why should we impose conflict on them?

[rayiner]

I’m from Bangladesh, where women face many problems. In many cases they are forced to wear head scarves, the rates of domestic violence are through the roof because it is culturally normalized, etc. For the most part, they don’t feel “disenfranchised” because they don’t know anything else. But I know very few American-born Bangladeshis who want to go back and put on coverings and live in a traditional Bangladeshi marriage.

And obviously working at Atari wasn’t like being in Bangladesh. But the basic principle applies. Taking a poll of disenfranchised people is not useful because one of the central features of disenfranchisement is that most people are resigned to it. The question isn’t what they think. That’s not how you judge the culture. How you judge it is to go to people who have experienced something different, and ask them if they’d trade places.

[thehardsphere]

Right, but the women at Atari weren't disenfranchised. Even in the 1970s, their alternatives to working at Atari were numerous. The secretary there who was "stacked" wasn't facing an alternative of no employment or living in Bangladesh if she didn’t like hot tub meetings; she could go work at any company in America that didn't have hot tub meetings, which was all of them.