(In)famous author and programmer John Sonmez (author of Soft Skills and The Complete Software Developer's Career Guide) has said some patently despicable things on Twitter lately, and faced a rightly-deserved backlash:
When events like this happen, whether it's an author, or a musician, or an actor, the conversation often ends up at the idea of separating the artist from their art. Can we enjoy John Sonmez's books while still thinking he's an awful person who has said some disgusting things? Is this cognitive dissonance? If someone else had written the same books, would they be any more useful?
Sonmez's publisher has dropped Soft Skills and his courses have been dropped from Pluralsight. I'm completely uncomfortable with financially supporting someone who's hurt people so flippantly, but should we avoid even secondhand (or library copies) of his books?
What do you think?
Photo by Viktoria Goda from Pexels
Top comments (41)
Software is an art of ongoing human collaboration. Take Redis. The future of this technology has a lot to do with what Salvatore Sanfilippo thinks and says now and in the future.
So when someone takes a stand or a position, they're telling you what ecosystem you need to be involved in. When I go to Rails Conf, I'm not just there because of the Ruby framework, I'm there because of the people and the culture. It's intertwined.
It's often complicated, but still intertwined.
What's not complicated, in my opinion, is the Sonmez case. Not only was this tirade flagrant and entirely self-inflicted (he didn't misspeak, he was on the attack the whole time), it was on brand and non-surprising.
Have you seen his YouTube channel, featuring such hits as "How to have sex with a woman from work"?
His advice is literally to be their boss or in a position of power over them.
His entire existence is cartoonishly misogynistic.
I think even having this discussion with Sonmez in mind is kind of doing injustice to areas of legitimate grey area.
The fact that Bob Martin is defending Sonmez is mind-boggling.
I've seen situations where the punishment does not fit the crime, or things get unnecessarily dramatic in the Twitterverse, and this is not one of them. No amount of blacklisting or boycotting is enough to get Sonmez out of his role as an influence on software culture.
And culture is the right word here. Sonmez' entire contribution as far as I can tell is cultural. He's not the author of a framework or operating system. He's an author whose trade is software development.
I actually read Sonmez's book "Soft Skills". I don't remember all the details but I recall finding it a useful read. But there are so many alternatives to that book.
Martin's contribution to this debacle is also in keeping with a reputation of being insensitive and asinine.
Social media amplifies the ability for powerful people to cause harm, and without consequences the populous has no recourse.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Yikes. Didn't know about the YouTube channel. This guy is almost cartoonishly misogynistic.
For me, at least, knowing things like this about the author of a book (or a musician or whatever), it's something I think about while reading or otherwise absorbing their work. It's difficult for me to think of the artist as separate from their art.
In fact, it's sometimes difficult for me to enjoy a piece of art (especially visual art like paintings) at all unless I know a bit about the backstory behind the piece, or the author's inspirations for creating it. Knowing that Sonmez was probably thinking about ways of tricking women into sleeping with him while writing Soft Skills would make that book unreadable for me, even if the content of the book itself was useful.
What are your recommended alternatives to Soft Skills? I'd rather promote them than Sonmez's work.
Everything I wanted to say, and then some, with far more brevity than I am capable of. Well said, Ben.
When you look at the Mona Lisa do you spend much time thinking about the painter? When you use LibreOffice do you think much about the lives, times and ugly personal secrets of the army of developers who coded it? How about the people who designed and built your car? Or the staff of the company that sold you the car?
As Ruby Hamad of the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in Australia aptly points out, "All heroes have a dark side, no matter what side they're on". Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and his namesake Martin Luther had a dark side. Hey, even Charles Darwin!
Are we going to trash everything these people did because they weren't perfect? Is absolute perfection the standard? If so, then the only person worth listening to is Jesus Christ who not only claimed to teach truth, but also claimed to embody it.
I often pray to God asking for help and inspiration in my work. However, I don't look in the Bible for information on C#, JavaScript and the history of programming languages. For that I'm going to have to rely on human beings, flaws and all.
P.S. In my little backwater, the name John Sonmez was unknown until I read the article leading to this comment.
This is a tough and important question! It looks like most people agree that Sonmez's behavior was appalling...but now what?
Art (and science, and probably everything else) is riddled with despicable actions and people. Should we be "cleansing" our parks, libraries, museums, and record collections whenever something terrible is revealed? What message are we sending to the abused if we don't?
So...uh, I don't have any answers but I think it's important that we think about it!
Thanks, Joe. That's sort of my opinion on the matter. Obviously, this guy has said some terrible things. But saying terrible things doesn't -- in and of itself -- make you a terrible person. But a pattern of behaviour, such as Sonmez has shown, suggests that this person will only continue to say and do disgusting things as long as they have the platform to do so. Deplatforming seems to be the only reasonable option in order to prevent future harm, at the very least.
I won't be promoting or reading any of Sonmez's work for the foreseeable future.
// , As far as Libraries, would you have to start with the worst? Deplatform all copies of anything written by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.?
That's a different issue, because those were very impactful people, historically. We continue to study their works to understand their psyches and the consequences of their actions. John Sonmez is not Stalin.
// , I don't think anybody is saying John Sonmez is Stalin.
At what point does "this is offensive" / "offends me" translate into "this shouldn't be available?"
You're the one who drew a direct line from Sonmez to Stalin, not me.
I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm saying that I'm not comfortable actively amplifying, in a good light, the views and works of someone who has shown themselves to be a less-than-wholesome person in the past. Refusing to advertise
!=censorship.If you buy a copy of Mein Kampf, your money isn't going into Hitler's pocket. If you buy a copy of Soft Skills, it is going directly into Sonmez's. You're implying, with your wallet, that you approve of his behaviour.
// , I might be confused, here.
Buying Sonmez's book implies that I approve of his behavior, because it funds him?
If generalized, buying
____'s book implies that I approve of____'s behavior, because it funds him?Am I missing something, here?
Please excuse the informal prepositional logic I'm trying to apply here, because it's the way I learned to reason about ideas.
I would say so, yes. Others may disagree with me, of course, including yourself.
Do you not think so?
// , Assuming you're asking this in good, or good enough faith, I suspect that I disagree in part with this conclusion, yes. I disagree more with the question.
More important, I think, is our disagreement on the side effect of moral hazard¹ implicit in this approach. It's a thought process I've found common in those who, out of a sense of honor and shared humanity (I hope) search for some way to advocate for the less fortunate.
I recall, in the past, some other "idea embargoes" in the Midwest. One extreme example stands out, when some family friends were surprised and dismayed that I had got myself a copy of the Quran, out of some misguided idea that this meant I supported Wahabbism or something, rather than just out of curiosity. Ask people who work for Ford what their coworkers would think of them buying a Nissan.
Purchasing does give us some power, but I smell a sulfuric whiff of narcissism in the idea that I should somehow improve society by throwing out all of my copies of stuff made by people whose behavior I find objectionable. And it gets stronger the closer I come to judging the character of others based on the character of the artists who make the work they like.
I've definitely let to whom and where my money is going inform my buying decisions. But I kind of take issue with the title of this post, the thought process that lead to asking this question, and some of the distasteful implications it has for how we relate to and share one another's tastes.
¹Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost. It arises when both the parties have incomplete information about each other.
Also, related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
// , Ah, yes, I'm guilty as charged on that. I need to think about more relevant examples.
I think this is a decision that has to be made by individual people and companies.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable financially (or socially) supporting someone who treats people this way.
I truly believe that we, as individuals, have the power to shape our planet for the better.
As such, I choose not to support John Sonmez (or others like him) that find pleasure in hurting people that work for social equality.
I think you're right that it's a case-by-case basis sort of thing. And I think people can redeem themselves if they're genuinely sorry and they sincerely apologise and try to fix the damage they've done. But knowing that someone held those kinds of views while creating those works does leave them sort of tainted, regardless of the effort they've put in since then in attempting to better themselves.
It's a complex issue, for sure.
Too personal maybe?
Nobody's irreplaceable so if you don't feel comfortable supporting someone, look elsewhere. However that's your personal choice.
An example I can relate to is music. Many of the musicians I listen to could be terrible people, church arsonists etc but that makes no difference to the purpose of entertainment.
Some level of abstraction is inherent otherwise you'll go crazy, but you're free to draw your own line of course.
What church arsonists do you listen to? It's not Mayhem, is it?
You're right, of course, that like everything in life, this isn't black and white. Everyone has to draw their own line and decide what's acceptable and what's not.
Burzum, Emperor... lol no, I just pulled an extreme example.
What I meant by "drawing the line" was not only judging what's acceptable or not, but also about the level of abstraction between yourself and the artist in a certain context.
I won't say that arson is acceptable, but I would listen to Mayhem if I happened to like it. However I wouldn't go to a meet and greet and ask for autographs. Different contexts allow for greater or less abstraction.
An analogy with your original point would be: You're okay reading his book but not watching his videos.
That's probably the best approach. Different levels of acceptance for different media / interactions with that media / that artist. Extremely subjective, unfortunately...
This is a question that needs to be answered on a case by case basis, and in Sonmez's case, he deserved everything coming his way, and it was completely self-inflicted. Had he not jumped in threads and started throwing fire-bombs? Plus, I've read his books, you're not really missing anything.
Not separating ideas, art etc. from who made it is a mistake.
It only leaves us more depraved and ignorant.
Even if it is a bad idea, art etc. then there is probably something to learn from it.
On a side note.
Is this guy not obviously frustrated?
Does he really deserve humiliation, or "being called out" and how will that help anyone?
Wont that just alienate him even more?
IMHO what he deserves is patience and help on how to deal with his frustration in an evolving world.
You would not call out a junior dev' for bad code, you would help them learn.
So why would you call out, or attack, an opinion on any other matter?
It's fruitless, and just comes of as self-serving to me when people "call others out".
Interesting. I've published on his site a number of times. I have to parse this as some of those comments and the style in which points were made are reprehensible.
Many creators happen to be terrible people. Spiritual teachers too (in my second line of work, teaching meditation, it's cults all the way down...). I've never quite figured out what to do about that, when there is beauty and usefulness in their creations and teachings...
Things like this are absolutely an invitation to reconsider your relationship with the person responsible, no doubt about it.
I am utterly shocked!!
And although I agree that what he did is bad and harmful, not to mention his misogynistic attitude, I don't believe calling him out will come up with a desired output.
I am sure we have many Johns in the industry sadly and unless we have a healthy conversation and come up with practical solutions, we won't go anywhere.
We should deploy more empathy. For Instance, I am a man with a physical disability that doesn't necessarily match the classical "being a man" checklist.
Despite being discriminated and bullied in what's supposed to be a male dominated industry, I never called out any because I knew it's about the behaviour not the person.
Most People back their answers with numbers when they talk about inclusion. Numbers are meaningless if you have a toxic work environment or misogynistic coworkers.
We almost never question the defaults. But it's about time we do!
// , This may just be my limited knowledge of networking, but perhaps you could start whitelisting technologies based on their source, rather than making a blacklist of art your set considers problematic, offensive, corruptive, et cetera. Some religions and media groups, in the past, have taken this approach. "Nihil obstat" or ESRB, anyone?
I take the pragmatic approach. For me, the consequence happens to be: Don't use Twitter.
I'm currently thinking pretty hard about my usage of any platform in which "Look who just called who a ____, screenshots attached!" or whatever is worthy of that platform's equivalent of a front page. I just do not have much Schadenfreude or righteous outrage left.
But the question has answers on what the artists can do. Not all the possible answers are on the side of the consumers.
Maybe the artists in question will take the Satoshi Nakamoto approach to software development. Will the artists begin separating themselves from their art? That's an option they have.
As Ben said, "things get unnecessarily dramatic", sometimes in cases where it's warranted (arguably in the subject of this post) but also in cases where it's not warranted: github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185