3 ms·

No, I don't think people are, at large, missing the point. I think there is some more reflecting to do about the article in that pretty much points out the leng

No, I don't think people are, at large, missing the point. I think there is some more reflecting to do about the article in that pretty much points out the lengths people are going to go so they can conform to the CURRENT_THING. Almost like virtue signaling is actually a thing.

mcphage 3y ago
Weird that he was willing go to the lengths of “inventing fake women speakers”, but not willing to go the much shorter lengths of “inviting real women to speak”.
- soco 3y ago
  So basically NOT conforming to the CURRENT_THING at all. Yet still we don't blame them for such blatant lies... maybe because we actually think it's the right way to do things in life - lie and cheat the rules we don't agree with? I know one can even get elected president like this, but it's definitely not what I'd call "role model" behaviour, to put it mildly.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Yet still we don't blame them for such blatant lies. I mean, I for one blame them for blatant lies. And it sounds like others do too, given the fact the conference has been shut down.
- wruza 3y ago
  Do we know for sure these are shorter? I got an impression that he struggled with it, not that he intentionally created woman avatars to avoid inviting women. Assuming the latter for a conference organizer isn't less weird. If that's true, that is very undercover inclusivity sabotage on the verge of conspiracy. Simple desperation to get people there at all and to avoid going bankrupt in case he fails is much more plausible reason. Edit: I'm not sharing particular opinions itt if that matters. It's just the whole issue and these social requirements feel odd to me. By "got what they wanted" I meant exactly that: you put an artificial barrier that makes little sense and people will work around it under the best sense they can make of it. To pre-clarify on what "makes little sense", I think that the rules of these big speakers should be "X must be inclusive by advertising these criteria: <criteria>" instead of "X must have women". Quoting the linked HN thread up there: > we always struggled to get women from outside of Drupal to submit to that track, despite Drupal itself having a relatively large female population. We actively reached out to women both in the PHP community and local to the event and still sometimes had no submissions from women Seems you were saying "shorter lengths" with too much confidence.

mcphage 3y ago

Weird that he was willing go to the lengths of “inventing fake women speakers”, but not willing to go the much shorter lengths of “inviting real women to speak”.

soco 3y ago
So basically NOT conforming to the CURRENT_THING at all. Yet still we don't blame them for such blatant lies... maybe because we actually think it's the right way to do things in life - lie and cheat the rules we don't agree with? I know one can even get elected president like this, but it's definitely not what I'd call "role model" behaviour, to put it mildly.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > Yet still we don't blame them for such blatant lies. I mean, I for one blame them for blatant lies. And it sounds like others do too, given the fact the conference has been shut down.
wruza 3y ago
Do we know for sure these are shorter? I got an impression that he struggled with it, not that he intentionally created woman avatars to avoid inviting women. Assuming the latter for a conference organizer isn't less weird. If that's true, that is very undercover inclusivity sabotage on the verge of conspiracy. Simple desperation to get people there at all and to avoid going bankrupt in case he fails is much more plausible reason. Edit: I'm not sharing particular opinions itt if that matters. It's just the whole issue and these social requirements feel odd to me. By "got what they wanted" I meant exactly that: you put an artificial barrier that makes little sense and people will work around it under the best sense they can make of it. To pre-clarify on what "makes little sense", I think that the rules of these big speakers should be "X must be inclusive by advertising these criteria: <criteria>" instead of "X must have women". Quoting the linked HN thread up there: > we always struggled to get women from outside of Drupal to submit to that track, despite Drupal itself having a relatively large female population. We actively reached out to women both in the PHP community and local to the event and still sometimes had no submissions from women Seems you were saying "shorter lengths" with too much confidence.