Forking and Dongle Jokes Don't Belong At Tech Conferences

> Now everyone is gonna "watch out" when they meet a woman,

no, only creepy nerds will have to.

I find puns(?) like dong-le, fork you, etc absolutely funny. Might be juvenile humour left but why am I not allowed to like them and laugh?

> A woman reacted by taking a creepshot of them

A creepshot by definition is a sexualized photograph, this doesn't count.

> publicly shaming them on Twitter

Nothing wrong with this.

> and getting them kicked out of the room without even trying to simply talk to them

When a con attendee violates the rules and con staff wish to pull them aside, that is totally legit. And no, she was under no obligation to explain anything to them.

> This was a failure at displaying a stable, adult personality.

You are implying that the OP is unstable, which is a pretty gross thing to say and is offensive to folks with mental disability.

> The company employing one of the guys fired him. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 A father of three is out of a job because a silly joke he was telling a friend was overheard by someone with more power than sense.

The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room. Having con staff pull the person aside is an expected outcome, but being fired is completely outside of the OP's control and is, frankly, a huge overreaction from a company that would rather throw people aside than actually engage in meaningful sensitivity training for its employees.

> But this campaign to make everything as comfortable as possible for a group of people who is assumed to need protection...

Women in tech are not asking for others to protect them, but rather that policies be made and enforced that allow them to participate like any other attendee of the con. That con spaces are so unsafe in a variety of ways doesn't highlight the need for protection, but the need to provide basic rules of decency and to enforce them.

> ...as interpreted by some vocal elements whose representativity is anything but proven, has already led us to establish a ridiculous police state atmosphere where an engineer can be fired for making an off-color joke to a friend.

A conference is not a public gov't and they reserve the right to enforce policies attendees agree to when buying tickets or signing up. A police state this is not.

> This is not making tech welcoming to women. This is making tech unwelcoming and hostile to all the geeks, men and women, who are uncomfortable with this corporate-style PC totalitarianism.

Oddly enough the company that fired the gentleman in question fits more in line with your feelings of corporate-style totalitarianism. However, pulling con attendees aside who are making the space unsafe is to be expected and is a desired thing. Also, there isn't anything PC about not making penis jokes at a professional conference where your company is a sponsor.

> And at this point it's not just a looming dystopia. It's happening now! A geek lost their job for a joke, because their corporate masters were afraid of the backlash from a cyber-bully riding the right PR wave.

The problem you seem to have is with corporation and private business, not someone ensuring that the conference they are attending is a safe space.

It seems like you're being downvoted pretty heavily. Part of it probably has to do with the views you're expressing, but I think a big part of it is the manner in which you are expressing those views. The former is probably never going to change for you, but the latter could always be changed.

> A creepshot by definition is a sexualized photograph, this doesn't count.

I think your argument here is being overly dismissive. Sure in the most common usage of the term, it's not a creepshot. But I still think many would agree that it's creepy, as a matter of social custom, to take pictures of random people. It never bodes well for an argument when it's focused on the semantics of a single term.

> Nothing wrong with this.

You don't provide a justification for this. Just a matter-of-fact statement (which is very off-putting).

> And no, she was under no obligation to explain anything to them

I agree she was not under any obligation to explain anything to them. But again, I think this argument is overly technical. Might it have been a good idea to simply ask them to apologize, and then leave it at that? I don't think anyone should instantly jump for the nuclear option (of getting people kicked out).

> which is a pretty gross thing to say and is offensive to folks with mental disability.

I think you're getting downvoted here for throwing out what appears to be a red herring (quibbling over a minor detail and in general being overly focused on semantics).

> The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room

I agree with you here, but then again, keep this in mind: the Department of Justice did not intend for Aaron Swartz to kill himself. Yet that was the consequence of their actions. I apologize if anyone thinks this example is too extreme.

I also feel like it's a leap to say that it is actually the company that is being overly PC. It's more likely they fired him because of the negative media attention.