151–160 of 283 posts
Would some disconnected third party be able to kindly doxx this douchebag couple for the benefit of everyone else? Thanks.
We can hear someone's report of a terrible experience, and think about the problem, and provide support to that person.
However, judgment and sentencing of some other person has very different standards of proof and process.
> There is no way of making a technical conference if some people feel insecure or uncomfortable. I'm surprised to hear a conference organizer say this, because I think it's an unrealistic goal. There's a difference between people feeling as if their safety is being directly threatened by someone at a conference and someone feeling uncomfortable with a speaker because of, for instance, some of their personal views th…
But the orthodoxy is generally sincere in wanting to promote their preferred behavior, e.g. diversity or inclusivity, so they tend to write it into the code of conduct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He named people (and showed pictures of messages) on Twitter in this convo [1], FWIW. At this point, I think it's more to avoid further escalation, as said in the article. [1] https://twitter.com/unbalancedparen/status/11223070591548702...
I watched this unfold on twitter, and in the organizer's defense, he only addressed the situation and the culprits after those people started a public discussion regarding the ban. The organizer was defending himself. It's a difficult situation to be in.
More reasonably but still on the aggressive side, does this mean that now we have to publicly announce when speaker invitations are rescinded to get ahead of the story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you avoid them simply on the basis of a blog post? OP is saying a false accusation turned into a witch hunt because people believed an allegation posted on the Internet without question. What makes you confident you're better at detecting the truth than the people who believed the woman's story?
What makes you believe the OP’s story?
The story contains various propositions that can basically be divided into:
1. propositions that can likely be independently corroborated by large numbers of people:
--- the conference really happened (we are not told which conference where, but if we knew that, numerous people could be found to attest to it, if it had been real).
--- that the organizer was loudly accosted by the woman, accusing him of stalking: this is a public incident that supposedly happened, in front of witnesses.
--- the non grata couple is real; people don't like them for some reason and warn conference organizers
--- the non grata couple are known for harassing behavior
2. claims made by the organizer, like:
--- he denied participation in the conference to the couple
--- he was harassed by the woman with repeated contact attempts
--- the woman's allegations were false
The claims under (1) are verifiable true or false. If they are true, they lend overwhelming credibility to (2). Basically if everything under (1) is true, it's almost inconceivable that the (2) claims aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He named people (and showed pictures of messages) on Twitter in this convo [1], FWIW. At this point, I think it's more to avoid further escalation, as said in the article. [1] https://twitter.com/unbalancedparen/status/11223070591548702...
Account is suspended it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's a well-known imbalance, and not everything balances itself. Sometimes fairness requires stepping in and lending a helping hand to right an imbalance.
should we be aggressively encouraging men to take up nursing?
yes, of course!
But should we reject good nurse candidates because they are female, and give their jobs to sub-par male candidates? Not so clear.
Would some disconnected third party be able to kindly doxx this douchebag couple for the benefit of everyone else? Thanks.
Please do not do doxx, nor take up pitchforks -- not in this case, nor in any other. We can hear someone's report of a terrible experience, and think about the problem, and provide support to that person. However, judgment and sentencing of some other person has very different standards of proof and process.
I was with the author until the diversity and equity part. Why does everything have to boil down to skin color and gender? I don't see why you need to offer this for a tech conference. It should be about ability and topics. Edit: I already regret making this post.
welcome to clown world. Honk-Honk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My team and I were contacted by different people to warn us that they were uncomfortable with the participation of a speaker and her boyfriend in our conference. They told the organization of the conference that this couple had caused problems to women in the community. > Several people who knew both of them confirmed that they had had problems with them in the past. We also talked with the organizers of other conf…
There's a puzzling detail: that it's a couple who were causing problems to women. If it was a man, little imagination is needed to conjecture that the problem could be something related to sexual harrasement, even if mild. A woman alone, well, it could be the same if she's homosexual. A couple? No problem figuring out they behave like idiots with everyone, as the article describes they did with the autor. But he says…