8 ms·

I'm a bit puzzled by this. We're not talking about "workplace speech codes" here, or lawsuits, at all, so you appear to by attempting to insert a slippery slop

I'm a bit puzzled by this. We're not talking about "workplace speech codes" here, or lawsuits, at all, so you appear to by attempting to insert a slippery slope where there's no need for one. The case here is about a public presentation where a presenter offered up a rather bizarre, inappropriate image (a faceless woman labelled "bitch") which bore no relation to the talk he was giving, and then followed it up with a non-sequitur about it being "an ex-girlfriend." Now, it's hard to read that as anything but misogynist, and while it might be considered an ill-fated attempt at humor, it misses the mark by such a wide margin as to make one wonder exactly what Noah thought he was doing. Trying to dismiss it as "a bit PC and oversensitive" it another way of saying "Since I wasn't offended, I don't need to take seriously the possibility that somebody else might have been." But in this case, even that doesn't seem to fit, because putting "a faceless bitch" on the projector seems designed to shock.

wyclif 15y ago
You're absolutely right that this isn't the workplace. It was a tech conference talk. Which only puts a finer point on what I mean by policing speech. I do NOT want to go to a conference knowing all the talks have been run through some bullshit politically-correct filter to please a given group of people in the room, and if I find out they are, I will cease attending those conferences.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  Nobody is proposing having anyone "policing speech". What we are discussing is one individual's massive failure in self-policing, and another individual's response, calling him on it. Nobody's trying to change the system. Rather, this is how the system works: when you're a presenter, you say what you want. If you act like a jerk, people will most likely publicly point out that you acted like a jerk, which should theoretically lead to some self-insight for the presenter in question. I'm still puzzled by your presumed outrage.
  - teadrinker 15y ago
    Self-policing? Are you serious? I'm with the other guy on this one. I want to live in a free society, where no one attempts to enforce some artificial moral code on what I can or can not say. Don't like it, leave. Enough people like Noah to get him a sizable fan base and enjoy his humor. It DOES tend to be women who create artificial PC rules, and I would argue that is one of the reasons they are underrepresented within startup ups, given the traditional lack of sophisticated social skills of the (usually male) engineers. It would ruin the dynamic of a good team to have a PC woman "watching their every word" for perceived slights.
    - pyre 15y ago
      > I'm with the other guy on this one. I want to live > in a free society, where no one attempts to enforce > some artificial moral code on what I can or can not > say. Don't like it, leave. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like you understand how human society currently works. In a 'free society,' if a majority of people think you are an asshole, they are going to treat you like one. If you don't want to be treated like an asshole, you'll have to adjust your behavior. Technically, this is forcing you to self-censor yourself, but it's a hell of a lot better than state-censorship or even organizational-censorship. I'd be curious how you would approach eliminating this sort of 'censorship.' So far as I can tell, it would impose the idea on other people that they can't think or act the way they want to just so that 'you' can feel comfortable walking around acting like an ass (and living in a fantasy where you believe that no one thinks you're an ass).
      - teadrinker 15y ago
        The majority of people did not think he was an asshole. What we have here is one citizen attempting to censor another by influencing public opinion based upon her own beliefs and biases. And of course, white knights of the world will agree. That does not make a "majority", far from it, although it appears so since they are most vocal in support.
        pyre 15y ago

wyclif 15y ago

You're absolutely right that this isn't the workplace. It was a tech conference talk. Which only puts a finer point on what I mean by policing speech. I do NOT want to go to a conference knowing all the talks have been run through some bullshit politically-correct filter to please a given group of people in the room, and if I find out they are, I will cease attending those conferences.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
Nobody is proposing having anyone "policing speech". What we are discussing is one individual's massive failure in self-policing, and another individual's response, calling him on it. Nobody's trying to change the system. Rather, this is how the system works: when you're a presenter, you say what you want. If you act like a jerk, people will most likely publicly point out that you acted like a jerk, which should theoretically lead to some self-insight for the presenter in question. I'm still puzzled by your presumed outrage.
- teadrinker 15y ago
  Self-policing? Are you serious? I'm with the other guy on this one. I want to live in a free society, where no one attempts to enforce some artificial moral code on what I can or can not say. Don't like it, leave. Enough people like Noah to get him a sizable fan base and enjoy his humor. It DOES tend to be women who create artificial PC rules, and I would argue that is one of the reasons they are underrepresented within startup ups, given the traditional lack of sophisticated social skills of the (usually male) engineers. It would ruin the dynamic of a good team to have a PC woman "watching their every word" for perceived slights.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > I'm with the other guy on this one. I want to live > in a free society, where no one attempts to enforce > some artificial moral code on what I can or can not > say. Don't like it, leave. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like you understand how human society currently works. In a 'free society,' if a majority of people think you are an asshole, they are going to treat you like one. If you don't want to be treated like an asshole, you'll have to adjust your behavior. Technically, this is forcing you to self-censor yourself, but it's a hell of a lot better than state-censorship or even organizational-censorship. I'd be curious how you would approach eliminating this sort of 'censorship.' So far as I can tell, it would impose the idea on other people that they can't think or act the way they want to just so that 'you' can feel comfortable walking around acting like an ass (and living in a fantasy where you believe that no one thinks you're an ass).
    - teadrinker 15y ago
      The majority of people did not think he was an asshole. What we have here is one citizen attempting to censor another by influencing public opinion based upon her own beliefs and biases. And of course, white knights of the world will agree. That does not make a "majority", far from it, although it appears so since they are most vocal in support.
      - pyre 15y ago