3 ms·

What is that SNL sketch? The famous "Point, Counter-Point" 1979 sketch starring Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. The one where Dan Aykroyd says the phrase, "Jane,

What is that SNL sketch? The famous "Point, Counter-Point" 1979 sketch starring Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. The one where Dan Aykroyd says the phrase, "Jane, you ignorant slut." I actually burst out laughing when I got to this part. These people need a serious talking-to. It's clear they have no idea what the sketch was about, and that it was actually deeply and brilliantly anti-sexist to its core. Let alone the of climate of the time, or how their reaction might be received by the great Jane Curtin. There's also this concept of "irony", but that may a bit too far out for them at this point.

guitheeengineer 2y ago
The article it's cherry-picking one minor incident of many more, to superficially construct a narrative to provoke the kind of reaction you're having at the moment (how could someone be banned just by referencing a snl skit), so readers instantly pick his side without considering all other repeated violations of their CoC: Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community members. The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members. Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment. Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission. Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions. Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly. Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. Source: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... (I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).
- veltas 2y ago
  The cherry-picking is explicit in the article, and the fact that the cherry-picked reasons are given as reasons at all is chilling. As is the fact this is all being dealt with publicly, like some sort of public shaming ritual. The process the Python project has adopted feels like social media hysteria formalised.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  > Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical evidence You can see evidence with your own eyes right here: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_iclr_now_has_a_track_with_racebased_and_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_... > Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment No comment needed > Discussing bans or removals of community members Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government. > Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples. > Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts Was there a rule that prohibits that? > Use of potentially offensive terms Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"? > Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. > Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).
  - belZaah 2y ago
    The neurodivergence part got to me. Almost by definition, it takes effort (i.e, is harder) to interact with a person that’s different. So why is it controversial to say it takes effort to interact with a neurodivergent person. As one myself, I can certainly say it takes a _lot_ of effort the other way. Talking to normal people is exhausting!
fuzzfactor 2y ago
I thought that was it. The L in SNL stands for "live". This was aired one time live and it had a distinct and unmistakable meaning to an impressionable generation of all ages. But way more people did have their VCRs running. For years this was the correct answer if a pointless back-and-forth, among people who work together respectfully almost all the time and will be doing so almost all the time in the future, when it would come to such an absurd point that it must end. The first one to recognize this point has arrived and call "Jane, you ignorant slut" entitled everyone involved to an immediate halt to the escalating discourse. This was a trigger which gained agreement to move in a direction more respectful, forever after that for people who do work together. Well within corporate decorum to signal that no further disparagement makes sense and the worst it could get is behind us. Nobody ever said this to each other except one time live, and the real Jane made it clear that it's not harmful to her so what does that tell you about people who can't take a joke. It didn't used to take a whole lot of social awareness for everyone to benefit by recognizing when they had gotten as comical as SNL. Calling a truce like this immediately set the stage that further unflattering action from any party signifies who is actually more of a loser than you thought.

guitheeengineer 2y ago

The article it's cherry-picking one minor incident of many more, to superficially construct a narrative to provoke the kind of reaction you're having at the moment (how could someone be banned just by referencing a snl skit), so readers instantly pick his side without considering all other repeated violations of their CoC: Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community members. The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members. Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment. Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission. Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions. Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly. Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. Source: https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250 https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... (I don't necessarily agree with either side, I just find it worthy pointing out that the article is bending the story to fit a narrative the author usually tries to paint).

veltas 2y ago
The cherry-picking is explicit in the article, and the fact that the cherry-picked reasons are given as reasons at all is chilling. As is the fact this is all being dealt with publicly, like some sort of public shaming ritual. The process the Python project has adopted feels like social media hysteria formalised.
lostmsu 2y ago
> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical evidence You can see evidence with your own eyes right here: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_iclr_now_has_a_track_with_racebased_and_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_... > Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment No comment needed > Discussing bans or removals of community members Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government. > Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples. > Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts Was there a rule that prohibits that? > Use of potentially offensive terms Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"? > Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. > Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).
- belZaah 2y ago
  The neurodivergence part got to me. Almost by definition, it takes effort (i.e, is harder) to interact with a person that’s different. So why is it controversial to say it takes effort to interact with a neurodivergent person. As one myself, I can certainly say it takes a _lot_ of effort the other way. Talking to normal people is exhausting!

fuzzfactor 2y ago

I thought that was it. The L in SNL stands for "live". This was aired one time live and it had a distinct and unmistakable meaning to an impressionable generation of all ages. But way more people did have their VCRs running. For years this was the correct answer if a pointless back-and-forth, among people who work together respectfully almost all the time and will be doing so almost all the time in the future, when it would come to such an absurd point that it must end. The first one to recognize this point has arrived and call "Jane, you ignorant slut" entitled everyone involved to an immediate halt to the escalating discourse. This was a trigger which gained agreement to move in a direction more respectful, forever after that for people who do work together. Well within corporate decorum to signal that no further disparagement makes sense and the worst it could get is behind us. Nobody ever said this to each other except one time live, and the real Jane made it clear that it's not harmful to her so what does that tell you about people who can't take a joke. It didn't used to take a whole lot of social awareness for everyone to benefit by recognizing when they had gotten as comical as SNL. Calling a truce like this immediately set the stage that further unflattering action from any party signifies who is actually more of a loser than you thought.