4 ms·

Right? If you're asked not to speak at a conference, why would you go on to consistently prove it was the right decision to remove you?

somebodyelse1 7y ago
She was not asked. She was invited, and then kicked out of buzzconf (said conference), and the motives are not clear. Then he said there was some kind of harassment of which we don't have any proof except what he say. Then the guy justifies the ban saying it is because of commercial reasons, but before that he said it was because of some mysterious people were not comfortable WITH THE BOYFRIEND (are we in china were we ban people because of their associations?). He changed the narrative. Ok, so which people? can he name them? are they anonymous? are they the guy's angry ex-girlfriend? (VERY likely) Do we have to believe him in this too? That's many things to believe.
- unbalancedparen 7y ago
  Hello somebodyelse1. We had our commercial reasons to change the lineup. After living this, I think their reaction speaks for itself.
- duxup 7y ago
  Invited and then dis-invited doesn't seem to change much. The response still seems way out of line / indicate the dis-invite was for good reason.
stlHusker 7y ago
It is the bullshit asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. As another person mentioned, DerbyCon got tired of dealing with it (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-has-an-end/ https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-h...). And then had to respond to a bullshit storm related to their integrity a month later (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-clarifications-inclusiveness-and-gender/ https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-clarifications-inclus...).
chrisseaton 7y ago
I could turn that around to you: why would you expect someone removed from a schedule for being known to be disruptive, to not be disruptive when removed?

somebodyelse1 7y ago

She was not asked. She was invited, and then kicked out of buzzconf (said conference), and the motives are not clear. Then he said there was some kind of harassment of which we don't have any proof except what he say. Then the guy justifies the ban saying it is because of commercial reasons, but before that he said it was because of some mysterious people were not comfortable WITH THE BOYFRIEND (are we in china were we ban people because of their associations?). He changed the narrative. Ok, so which people? can he name them? are they anonymous? are they the guy's angry ex-girlfriend? (VERY likely) Do we have to believe him in this too? That's many things to believe.

unbalancedparen 7y ago
Hello somebodyelse1. We had our commercial reasons to change the lineup. After living this, I think their reaction speaks for itself.
duxup 7y ago
Invited and then dis-invited doesn't seem to change much. The response still seems way out of line / indicate the dis-invite was for good reason.

stlHusker 7y ago

It is the bullshit asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. As another person mentioned, DerbyCon got tired of dealing with it (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-has-an-end/ https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-9-0-every-beginning-h...). And then had to respond to a bullshit storm related to their integrity a month later (https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-clarifications-inclusiveness-and-gender/ https://www.derbycon.com/blog/derbycon-clarifications-inclus...).

chrisseaton 7y ago

I could turn that around to you: why would you expect someone removed from a schedule for being known to be disruptive, to not be disruptive when removed?