Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
The post is satire.
Unnecessary satire. Gasoline on the ridiculous bonfire, if you ask me.
A Difficult Situation
351–360 of 485 posts
Re: A Difficult Situation
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
That tweet is definitely relevant. The whole point is we're trying to protect people from offensive behavior. The definition of what's offensive is vague at best. Common approach - if someone was offended, it's offensive - assumes that we trust victims accounts that they were in fact offended. While context is important, it is much harder to believe that someone would be seriously offended by a joke when they make th…
The only problem with this reasoning is it seems dangerously close to the "they were asking for it" argument. If you are raising concern for something, the entire history of your life does not automatically come into question; this is just an unfortunate side effect of the record-everything technological society we now live in. Corollary to the upcoming ubiquity of Google Goggles, what if the recordings of one's pers…
That's a slippery slope fallacy, and no, it's not dangerously close to that. If you make a certain kind of joke, I would have a very hard time believing you were offended by that same kind of joke when those two events happened within hours of each others.
As far as I've seen, people's atitudes towards crude jokes do not change in the space of a few hours. Maybe they might change that quickly if something significant were to happen in that space of time, but I doubt it in this case.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would have been a great freaking story? 1) Guys make inappropriate jokes 2) Adria feels offended. Doesn't matter if she "should" or "shouldn't". It happened. OK so far, different people have different opinions on acceptable behavior. This particular one is explicitly unacceptable in the rules of the conference. 3) Adria texts PyCon staff, and they act exactly as they did in this sitution. 4) Adria write…
> 5) There would still be much internet hate. i honestly don't think there would have been much hate. Allot of the anger was as how drastically she reacted by posting their photos online.
Maybe - However in rebuttal I point you to the HN discussion about the pycon harassment policy, wherein some seemingly uncontroversial policy brought out a lot of surprisingly harsh and angry statements.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
With certain people, it's not just about crude jokes. I think Lyndsy Simon summed it up pretty well in his comment on Avdi Grimm's G+ post [1]. It's not possible to link to a comment, so I'll reproduce it here: I was at a sprint on Monday, speaking to a female developer. She was discussing a project she'd worked on, and a coworker's method for solving a tricky problem. I said something along the lines of "So, which p…
Well, except nothing happened to him. He wasn't reported, he wasn't fired, his photo wasn't taken. So obviously it's not the same as those jokes.
That's irrelevant. Here's the concluding mark from the quote:
> but the fact that someone who's "on their side" is concerned that their feet will be held to this fire is evidence that there is a lack of empathy from all sides of the debate, and that's a bad thing.
He didn't say it was the same. He was commenting on his feelings and his perception of the social atmosphere.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
In her blog post about this, she was likening herself to Joan of Arc over this event. And that was just the beginning. Too bad that website is down.
I'd like to see anyone take this level of vitriol and be completely level-headed. I would start stockpiling food, because apparently Jesus Christ has come back and the End Times are here.
[deleted]
Re: A Difficult Situation
#356I'm honestly surprised that anyone is attacking Sendgrid, defending Ms Richards, attacking PyCon or defending Playhaven in this incident. The fact is that what you do reflects on your employer to a degree. If you're a developer evangelist, that's quite a high degree, particularly if you drag them into your public spat. Most people in the media (news readers and so forth) have a "morals clause" in their contract becau…
The joke was between 2 people seated behind her -- were both engineers at Playhaven? Was the other person fired? Edit: Why the downvotes? Is there something I've missed? Does this comment really prevent further discussion on the issue?
Well, there's tons of commentary on the issue, and I think you are getting down-voted (I didn't DV you, FWIW), because you could've read or searched through them to figure out whether the other guy was fired.
The answers are: if you had seen the photo in question, you'd see that the two engineers are actually wearing PlayHaven T-Shirts, which strongly implies that if one of them works for PlayHaven, then the other does too (which was corroborated in another thread).
The other person wasn't fired because he was the recipient of the joke, rather than the producer.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It depends on your definition of racism racism - dictionary 1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. 2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. This is the original definition of the word - 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100 y…
> The redefinition of racism is merely a fabrication meant to suit someone elses particular agenda, or to get you to submit to their particular argument or point-of-view. A dictionary only outlines common usage (it does not provide context), and I indicated the common usage in my comment as well. If you ever want to make a nuanced argument , you must clearly define (and sometimes re-define) the words you are using! O…
Mucking up the language is a crime against understanding.
Redefining established words is not acceptable.
Anyway, this discussion is a red herring.
Adria just wants an excuse to be racist, and you're defending her.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post is satire.
Unnecessary satire. Gasoline on the ridiculous bonfire, if you ask me.
I think I might agree to some extent. I don't understand what section about "evangelists should be attractive" or whatever is referring to; presumably another incident? I get that it is sarcastic, but I don't understand the motivation behind that sarcasm.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole situation makes me deeply uncomfortable. First, because it demonstrates the extent to which a company can be brought to its knees by a group of hostile people organized online. Second because hundreds and hundreds of men here and elsewhere seem quite happy to align themselves with an overtly sexist, violently threatening campaign against an individual whose views they disagree with. I am not in a position…
But why did she tweet the photo? Why stir up a bunch of shit in public? Apparently she has done it before: http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/
Wow! I am speechless. I was so willing let her get away with the way overblown Internet meltdown, but this proves without any doubt that Adria has a pattern of such public misbehavior. Hope all her potential future employers read this one link, if nothing else.
What a vindictive sociopath!
Re: A Difficult Situation
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
That tweet is definitely relevant. The whole point is we're trying to protect people from offensive behavior. The definition of what's offensive is vague at best. Common approach - if someone was offended, it's offensive - assumes that we trust victims accounts that they were in fact offended. While context is important, it is much harder to believe that someone would be seriously offended by a joke when they make th…
The only problem with this reasoning is it seems dangerously close to the "they were asking for it" argument. If you are raising concern for something, the entire history of your life does not automatically come into question; this is just an unfortunate side effect of the record-everything technological society we now live in. Corollary to the upcoming ubiquity of Google Goggles, what if the recordings of one's pers…
That's a valid concern in general, but I don't think it applies here for the following reasons:
First, being part of a minority group and claiming offense gives you a lot of power to inflict damage on others. You are leveraging both, the legal system and very strong social stigmas. There is a reason why you are granted this power, but with power comes responsibility. If I walk on a sidewalk and bump into someone, I say I'm sorry and we go about our business. If I'm driving a 18-wheel truck and bump into someone, it's an entirely different story. We don't have a magic gauge to measure your emotional state, so we have to take your word for it. I think scrutinizing your past to ensure that what you say is at least consistent with what you do is a reasonable measure to prevent people from abusing the aforesaid power.
Second, if something wasn't offensive to you yesterday, but suddenly is today - even if I'm most sincerely trying to avoid offending you, how do I keep up with the "list of things that offend you" du jour? Do you have a protocol in mind?