4 ms·

If it were private, it wouldn't have happened with people nearby to hear it and the photo wouldn't have depicted dozens of people surrounding.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
paganel 14y ago
So you're saying "private" is not in fact, well, "private". I grew up as a kid on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, in Eastern Europe, where as it happens walls had ears and "private" was not in fact "private". To see this stuff repeating 25 years later in the free world is scary.
- awj 14y ago
  How on earth can you expect privacy in a conversation that people literally cannot help but overhear? This was a crowd of people in an audience either waiting for or listening to a presentation.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Yes, that's right. A privately run conference asking attendees to behave professionally around other attendees is exactly like the KGB, and is a sure sign that we are sliding downward into totalitarianism.
  - rmrfrmrf 14y ago
    Thank you -- all of these hate-laden comments are making me lose my mind.
  - paganel 14y ago
    This is going already too far, but anyway, here it goes. First of all, during the '80s (the time when I grew up) the KGB or the Securitate (the institution that was operating in my country) had already left their "harsh" methods behind, for the most part anyway, but they were instead operating through the peer pressure of those around you (friends, neighbors, strangers on the street, even close relatives). More exactly, had you by chance happened to listen to Radio Free Europe or made negative comments about the fact that there was no meat for sale in the stores, some of those mentioned above might have just "snitched" you to the powers that be (the Securitate in my country's case). You weren't risking that much, "just" your day job (like one of the guys in this story) and probably also the roof above your kids' heads (now if you don't have a job and you can't pay mortgage/rent you're in the same situation). Like I said, maybe it didn't seem much from the outside, but it was enough. All this because someone might have overheard you say something that wasn't abiding to the rules of the time. Yes, I do find the power to speak freely a little bit scary.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Obviously I'm not arguing that Richards behaved appropriately in publicly shaming them. I'm saying that they behaved inappropriately in making the joke in the first place, and that there's nothing scary or totalitarian about a privately run conference having a code of conduct asking people to act professionally. Of course, the proper way to handle this would have been for Richards to talk to someone running the conference. They would have then gone to the people who were making the inappropriate jokes and asked them to remember that this was a professional environment, upon which apologies would have been given, and that would have been the end of it.
  - psionski 14y ago
    Of course it is! Either you're free to say anything or you're not free at all. There's no relativism here.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      You are free to say anything, and the people who run the conference are free to ask you to leave.
      - psionski 14y ago
        If you're at my private property, am I free to kill you? It's the same thing, it just falls under another paragraph of the constitution (in most countries; America has exceptions where you are indeed free to do this, but this is another topic). Let's forget the law for a second; by group opinion, do they have the moral right to do this?
        mistercow 14y ago
        I'm squeamish about this "moral rights" concept which seems at odds with my general view of morality, but I'll run with it assuming a sort of vague "is this fair?" definition. >If you're at my private property, am I free to kill you? It's the same thing No, it's not even close to the same thing. I have the right to ask you to leave, regardless of whether you're on my private property. The difference is that if you're on my property, my request actually carries weight. Your being on my private property is a privilege that I can extend to you and later revoke. I cannot control what you say, but I can make your welcome at my property conditional upon what you say. And in general, you do not have a "moral right" to trespass[1]. I do not have the right to kill you, regardless of whether you're on my private property. They are not comparable ideas. And yes, I think that in terms of fairness, a property owner generally has the right to ask anyone on her property to leave for just about any reason or no reason[2]. If you come to my house and start making dick jokes that I find distasteful, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me asking you to cut it out or leave. But I don't have the right to kill you. [1] There are exceptions, of course, which is why I dislike talking about general moral rights. I'm sure you can craft some clever thought experiment that will trip up this general rule, which is one of the reasons I consider myself a utilitarian. [2] see above
ineedtosleep 14y ago
Exactly. If you're sitting in a restaurant eating with some acquaintances/friends, you shouldn't expect privacy there either. The table next to you can get offended with some random inside joke that includes the words "penis", "boob", or maybe even "yoga pants." No jokes allowed unless you're wrapped in a Faraday cage filled in with sound proof material. None whatsoever.
- mistercow 14y ago
  That analogy is completely ridiculous. Restaurants are not venues that require customers to agree to a code of conduct barring inappropriate jokes. They're also not the kind of places where people are sitting quietly and near enough each other to hear jokes told quietly.
  - marshray 14y ago
    Python conventions are places where people can overhear my conversation, take pictures of me, and publicize them as personal accusations with impunity? I've been to plenty of conferences and I haven't heard of this happening, except to politicians when they forget there are microphones and news reporters around. This is why our society does, in fact, have a separate set of privacy rules for people classified as "public figures". So the rest of us can hang out and chat in comfort by assuming in all probability the absence of a news reporter or papparazi trying to play "gotcha" with a camera and microphone.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Let's keep the threads of argument separate here. On the one hand, we have the question of whether or not that joke was acceptable in that situation, and in the ancestor comment, danilocampos was arguing that it was not. I tend to agree. Then there is the separate question of whether publicly shaming the person as Richards did was an acceptable response. I certainly do not think it was. But it's a separate issue.
      - marshray 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

paganel 14y ago

So you're saying "private" is not in fact, well, "private". I grew up as a kid on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, in Eastern Europe, where as it happens walls had ears and "private" was not in fact "private". To see this stuff repeating 25 years later in the free world is scary.

awj 14y ago
How on earth can you expect privacy in a conversation that people literally cannot help but overhear? This was a crowd of people in an audience either waiting for or listening to a presentation.
mistercow 14y ago
Yes, that's right. A privately run conference asking attendees to behave professionally around other attendees is exactly like the KGB, and is a sure sign that we are sliding downward into totalitarianism.
- rmrfrmrf 14y ago
  Thank you -- all of these hate-laden comments are making me lose my mind.
- paganel 14y ago
  This is going already too far, but anyway, here it goes. First of all, during the '80s (the time when I grew up) the KGB or the Securitate (the institution that was operating in my country) had already left their "harsh" methods behind, for the most part anyway, but they were instead operating through the peer pressure of those around you (friends, neighbors, strangers on the street, even close relatives). More exactly, had you by chance happened to listen to Radio Free Europe or made negative comments about the fact that there was no meat for sale in the stores, some of those mentioned above might have just "snitched" you to the powers that be (the Securitate in my country's case). You weren't risking that much, "just" your day job (like one of the guys in this story) and probably also the roof above your kids' heads (now if you don't have a job and you can't pay mortgage/rent you're in the same situation). Like I said, maybe it didn't seem much from the outside, but it was enough. All this because someone might have overheard you say something that wasn't abiding to the rules of the time. Yes, I do find the power to speak freely a little bit scary.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Obviously I'm not arguing that Richards behaved appropriately in publicly shaming them. I'm saying that they behaved inappropriately in making the joke in the first place, and that there's nothing scary or totalitarian about a privately run conference having a code of conduct asking people to act professionally. Of course, the proper way to handle this would have been for Richards to talk to someone running the conference. They would have then gone to the people who were making the inappropriate jokes and asked them to remember that this was a professional environment, upon which apologies would have been given, and that would have been the end of it.
- psionski 14y ago
  Of course it is! Either you're free to say anything or you're not free at all. There's no relativism here.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    You are free to say anything, and the people who run the conference are free to ask you to leave.
    - psionski 14y ago
      If you're at my private property, am I free to kill you? It's the same thing, it just falls under another paragraph of the constitution (in most countries; America has exceptions where you are indeed free to do this, but this is another topic). Let's forget the law for a second; by group opinion, do they have the moral right to do this?
      - mistercow 14y ago
        I'm squeamish about this "moral rights" concept which seems at odds with my general view of morality, but I'll run with it assuming a sort of vague "is this fair?" definition. >If you're at my private property, am I free to kill you? It's the same thing No, it's not even close to the same thing. I have the right to ask you to leave, regardless of whether you're on my private property. The difference is that if you're on my property, my request actually carries weight. Your being on my private property is a privilege that I can extend to you and later revoke. I cannot control what you say, but I can make your welcome at my property conditional upon what you say. And in general, you do not have a "moral right" to trespass[1]. I do not have the right to kill you, regardless of whether you're on my private property. They are not comparable ideas. And yes, I think that in terms of fairness, a property owner generally has the right to ask anyone on her property to leave for just about any reason or no reason[2]. If you come to my house and start making dick jokes that I find distasteful, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me asking you to cut it out or leave. But I don't have the right to kill you. [1] There are exceptions, of course, which is why I dislike talking about general moral rights. I'm sure you can craft some clever thought experiment that will trip up this general rule, which is one of the reasons I consider myself a utilitarian. [2] see above

ineedtosleep 14y ago

Exactly. If you're sitting in a restaurant eating with some acquaintances/friends, you shouldn't expect privacy there either. The table next to you can get offended with some random inside joke that includes the words "penis", "boob", or maybe even "yoga pants." No jokes allowed unless you're wrapped in a Faraday cage filled in with sound proof material. None whatsoever.

mistercow 14y ago
That analogy is completely ridiculous. Restaurants are not venues that require customers to agree to a code of conduct barring inappropriate jokes. They're also not the kind of places where people are sitting quietly and near enough each other to hear jokes told quietly.
- marshray 14y ago
  Python conventions are places where people can overhear my conversation, take pictures of me, and publicize them as personal accusations with impunity? I've been to plenty of conferences and I haven't heard of this happening, except to politicians when they forget there are microphones and news reporters around. This is why our society does, in fact, have a separate set of privacy rules for people classified as "public figures". So the rest of us can hang out and chat in comfort by assuming in all probability the absence of a news reporter or papparazi trying to play "gotcha" with a camera and microphone.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Let's keep the threads of argument separate here. On the one hand, we have the question of whether or not that joke was acceptable in that situation, and in the ancestor comment, danilocampos was arguing that it was not. I tend to agree. Then there is the separate question of whether publicly shaming the person as Richards did was an acceptable response. I certainly do not think it was. But it's a separate issue.
    - marshray 14y ago