5 ms·

> You apologized for lacking nuance on Twitter with your "announcement" and yet continue to do so. I saw parallels of this earlier this year against Richard Da

by lake99 10y ago

> You apologized for lacking nuance on Twitter with your "announcement" and yet continue to do so. I saw parallels of this earlier this year against Richard Dawkins, when the NECSS uninvited him over twitter, followed it with a longer post on their blog[0]. After their actions caused a blowback, they apologized for their lack of professionalism. NECSS backtracked on their position[1] because the blowback was from prominent people. I don't think prominent people in CS will band together like that, so I don't think the Nodevember folks will backtrack either. [0] http://necss.org/2016/01/27/a-statement-concerning-richard-dawkins/ http://necss.org/2016/01/27/a-statement-concerning-richard-d... [1] http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-committee/ http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-com...

thomasfoster96 10y ago
The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted the offending tweets.
- lake99 10y ago
  As for whether that constitutes a major difference or not, it's a judgement call. And I don't agree with your judgement. Here are the full facts, in their own words: NECSS: in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video. That's it. Because it was offensive. And Dawkins' reponse after continued attacks against him on Twitter: Dawkins: Don't you think she should apologise for shrieking "Shut the fuck up" and "Fuckface" at anyone who tried to get a word in? I didn't do wrong to her. I posted, without comment, a video of her screaming vile abuse. I didn't apologise. I merely deleted, explaining that I did it out of concern for a person's life. Apparently, she reported getting threats of violence.
  - thomasfoster96 10y ago
    It appears I didn't know everything about the Dawkins incident - disregard my comment.
  - vor_ 10y ago
    The video was considered offensive because it advocated violence against women and had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it."
    - lake99 10y ago
      > it advocated violence against women You have been misinformed. > had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it." Parody.
      - pryce 10y ago
        Parody should presumably not be a get-out-of-jail free card that that allows people to rinse off and rekindle bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women. If that were the case, we could simply take any sexist or racist thing we want to say, bake it into the premise of a joke with a parody outcome, and publish it without consequence.
        lake99 10y ago
        > not be a get-out-of-jail free card I have no idea if you meant "jail" literally or figuratively. If you meant it literally, our differences are irreconcilable. If you meant it figuratively, no, Dawkins had to face the consequences of retweeting the video. He got disinvited by NECSS, and he was subjected to a ton of abuse and harrassment on Twitter. He was threatened with violence, which is not acceptable by law. As far as I know, he did not press charges against anyone for that, so they go free. > bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women What racist? There was no racism there. Why would you assume that all Islamists would be of a different race and/or nationality than Dawkins. In any case, Muslims are not all the same race either. He has written plenty against Chrisitians and some British political parties too. > If that were the case ... publish it without consequence. Well, that was not the case. Dawkins had to face the consequences of his actions. NECSS had to face the consequences of their own actions.
        10y ago
Anthony-G 10y ago
That situation seemed to be handled a lot better than this one; the first blog post actually detailed the offence as opposed to oblique insinuations. I thought Dawkins' response was professional and gracious: https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/necss-executive-committee-statement-richards-response/ https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/necss-executive-committee...

by lake99 10y ago

thomasfoster96 10y ago

The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted the offending tweets.

lake99 10y ago
As for whether that constitutes a major difference or not, it's a judgement call. And I don't agree with your judgement. Here are the full facts, in their own words: NECSS: in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video. That's it. Because it was offensive. And Dawkins' reponse after continued attacks against him on Twitter: Dawkins: Don't you think she should apologise for shrieking "Shut the fuck up" and "Fuckface" at anyone who tried to get a word in? I didn't do wrong to her. I posted, without comment, a video of her screaming vile abuse. I didn't apologise. I merely deleted, explaining that I did it out of concern for a person's life. Apparently, she reported getting threats of violence.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  It appears I didn't know everything about the Dawkins incident - disregard my comment.
- vor_ 10y ago
  The video was considered offensive because it advocated violence against women and had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it."
  - lake99 10y ago
    > it advocated violence against women You have been misinformed. > had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it." Parody.
    - pryce 10y ago
      Parody should presumably not be a get-out-of-jail free card that that allows people to rinse off and rekindle bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women. If that were the case, we could simply take any sexist or racist thing we want to say, bake it into the premise of a joke with a parody outcome, and publish it without consequence.
      - lake99 10y ago
        > not be a get-out-of-jail free card I have no idea if you meant "jail" literally or figuratively. If you meant it literally, our differences are irreconcilable. If you meant it figuratively, no, Dawkins had to face the consequences of retweeting the video. He got disinvited by NECSS, and he was subjected to a ton of abuse and harrassment on Twitter. He was threatened with violence, which is not acceptable by law. As far as I know, he did not press charges against anyone for that, so they go free. > bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women What racist? There was no racism there. Why would you assume that all Islamists would be of a different race and/or nationality than Dawkins. In any case, Muslims are not all the same race either. He has written plenty against Chrisitians and some British political parties too. > If that were the case ... publish it without consequence. Well, that was not the case. Dawkins had to face the consequences of his actions. NECSS had to face the consequences of their own actions.
        10y ago

Anthony-G 10y ago

That situation seemed to be handled a lot better than this one; the first blog post actually detailed the offence as opposed to oblique insinuations. I thought Dawkins' response was professional and gracious: https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/necss-executive-committee-statement-richards-response/ https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/necss-executive-committee...