4 ms·

Is this about sexism again? The culture has lost when political correctness is taken too far. Perhaps the guy behaved like an a*e for disturbing other people, b

by scrrr 14y ago

Is this about sexism again? The culture has lost when political correctness is taken too far. Perhaps the guy behaved like an a*e for disturbing other people, but this is not how you handle it. You turn around, and tell them to STFU. But perhaps she was offended by the nature of the jokes. Possibly off topic, because I didn't follow the incident at all. But I just thought of Derek Sivers' summary [1] of PG's "Hackers and Painters" (which I haven't read yet) and there he writes: "What exactly is "hate speech?" This sounds like a phrase out of 1984. Labels like that are probably the biggest external clue. If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it. You don't need to say that it's heretical. And if it isn't false, it shouldn't be suppressed. So when you see statements being attacked as x-ist or y-ic (substitute your current values of x and y), whether in 1630 or 2030, that's a sure sign that something is wrong." [1] http://sivers.org/book/HackersPainters http://sivers.org/book/HackersPainters For what it's worth, he shouldn't be too upset for not working there anymore.

gnur 14y ago
I agree, it is in peoples nature to make fun of those who are different, be it by gender, etnicity, height, intelligence or whatever. But in most cases, this is harmless fun between two people that don't share that trait. Only when you are actively, openly insulting said people and treating them different then anyone else you are doing something very wrong. Some racist jokes are just really funny, but that doesn't mean I'm racist. Also, I feel like this is more of an issue in the US then in Europe. I really couldn't imagine someone being fire for a picture posted on twitter by someone else accusing you of something nasty in The Netherlands.
- tomp 14y ago
  It is also in people's nature to make fun about those that are similar, the same, or even about themselves. I make a lot of jokes. About women, blacks, jews, ... also, about men, whites, programmers. I don't discriminate; I make fun of everything and everyone!
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I make a lot of jokes. About women, blacks, jews, ... also, about men, whites, programmers. I don't discriminate; I make fun of everything and everyone!" The existence of dirty joke books that include every possible person and group doesn't make it a good idea to bring any one of them up at a professional event.
- dalke 14y ago
  There are few valid arguments you can make which start by appealing to "peoples nature." This is not one of them. It's a natural thing to take a dump. But you most certainly don't to that in the audience of a Python conference presentation. Even if it is harmless, because you used your own bucket and cleaned up after yourself. Even if you and your family usually leave the door open when using the toilet at home. Even if there are some hilarious poop jokes. If people can control when they use the toilet, when they eat, when they have sex -- all much more important parts of people's nature than telling sexist jokes -- then I see no good reason why they aren't also able to control the use of sexist language in the workplace. (There are rare exceptions. Some people have fecal incontinence, and can't control when they defecate. Others have mental problems which prevent them from controlling what they say. Dealing with those exceptions is far outside this current debate.) Now, there may be other reasons (though I can't think of any) which justify sexist behavior in a work environment, or for that matter justify making fun of someone who doesn't want to be made fun of. But an appeal to natural behaviors does not provide that justification. And please do note that you said "harmless fun between two people that don't share that trait", but as this was a public meeting, where the conversation was easily overheard by others, your situation does not apply because more than two people were involved.
aptwebapps 14y ago
"If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it. " I have to disagree with that. There are many possible things worse than being false. People are not computers and speech does not happen in an ahistorical vacuum. It would be nice if we could debate everything dispassionately, but it's simply not the case. Let me give an extreme example. A few years ago in an English football (soccer) game, one player had his leg horribly broken in a bad tackle. He was out for about a year and a half. As he was being taken from the field, a few of the opposing fans were chanting, "You've only got one leg!" Now this was not literally true, of course, but it was to most intents and purposes. I don't think many people would think this behavior was all right. Just to be very clear, I'm citing this example to explain why I disagree with the statement I quoted at the top, not to draw a comparison with today's story. But not all examples are so obvious and concepts like 'hate speech' are introduced in an attempt to point out the sometimes subtle problems with particular examples. Of course, such concepts are like any other tool or shortcut: they can be abused as easily as used for their intended purposes.
- ciupicri 14y ago
  Your football example isn't too good. Football galleries yell worse things than "You've only got one leg!". They also have hooligans who destroy stuff and beat other people.
  - aptwebapps 14y ago
    So? The point of the example is that being factually inaccurate is not the only possible problem with a statement.
    - ciupicri 14y ago
      What I mean is that is hardly hate speech.
      - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        The point of the example was not to define "hate speech" it was to disagree with the assertion that "The worst thing a statement can be is false". Let's not be children by playing the game of "Well, your central point was fine but this peripheral unimportant point that only I perceive is wrong and therefore the whole post is wrong"
sp332 14y ago
This isn't about culture in general. This is about PyCon. They are trying to be extra-specially welcoming to women, in particular. They don't pretend this isn't artificial! You don't have to guess what's allowed; PyCon has a code of conduct https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/ https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/ that spells it out for you. Edit: they guy who got fired agrees: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681

by scrrr 14y ago

gnur 14y ago

I agree, it is in peoples nature to make fun of those who are different, be it by gender, etnicity, height, intelligence or whatever. But in most cases, this is harmless fun between two people that don't share that trait. Only when you are actively, openly insulting said people and treating them different then anyone else you are doing something very wrong. Some racist jokes are just really funny, but that doesn't mean I'm racist. Also, I feel like this is more of an issue in the US then in Europe. I really couldn't imagine someone being fire for a picture posted on twitter by someone else accusing you of something nasty in The Netherlands.

tomp 14y ago
It is also in people's nature to make fun about those that are similar, the same, or even about themselves. I make a lot of jokes. About women, blacks, jews, ... also, about men, whites, programmers. I don't discriminate; I make fun of everything and everyone!
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I make a lot of jokes. About women, blacks, jews, ... also, about men, whites, programmers. I don't discriminate; I make fun of everything and everyone!" The existence of dirty joke books that include every possible person and group doesn't make it a good idea to bring any one of them up at a professional event.
dalke 14y ago
There are few valid arguments you can make which start by appealing to "peoples nature." This is not one of them. It's a natural thing to take a dump. But you most certainly don't to that in the audience of a Python conference presentation. Even if it is harmless, because you used your own bucket and cleaned up after yourself. Even if you and your family usually leave the door open when using the toilet at home. Even if there are some hilarious poop jokes. If people can control when they use the toilet, when they eat, when they have sex -- all much more important parts of people's nature than telling sexist jokes -- then I see no good reason why they aren't also able to control the use of sexist language in the workplace. (There are rare exceptions. Some people have fecal incontinence, and can't control when they defecate. Others have mental problems which prevent them from controlling what they say. Dealing with those exceptions is far outside this current debate.) Now, there may be other reasons (though I can't think of any) which justify sexist behavior in a work environment, or for that matter justify making fun of someone who doesn't want to be made fun of. But an appeal to natural behaviors does not provide that justification. And please do note that you said "harmless fun between two people that don't share that trait", but as this was a public meeting, where the conversation was easily overheard by others, your situation does not apply because more than two people were involved.

aptwebapps 14y ago

"If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it. " I have to disagree with that. There are many possible things worse than being false. People are not computers and speech does not happen in an ahistorical vacuum. It would be nice if we could debate everything dispassionately, but it's simply not the case. Let me give an extreme example. A few years ago in an English football (soccer) game, one player had his leg horribly broken in a bad tackle. He was out for about a year and a half. As he was being taken from the field, a few of the opposing fans were chanting, "You've only got one leg!" Now this was not literally true, of course, but it was to most intents and purposes. I don't think many people would think this behavior was all right. Just to be very clear, I'm citing this example to explain why I disagree with the statement I quoted at the top, not to draw a comparison with today's story. But not all examples are so obvious and concepts like 'hate speech' are introduced in an attempt to point out the sometimes subtle problems with particular examples. Of course, such concepts are like any other tool or shortcut: they can be abused as easily as used for their intended purposes.

ciupicri 14y ago
Your football example isn't too good. Football galleries yell worse things than "You've only got one leg!". They also have hooligans who destroy stuff and beat other people.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  So? The point of the example is that being factually inaccurate is not the only possible problem with a statement.
  - ciupicri 14y ago
    What I mean is that is hardly hate speech.
    - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
      The point of the example was not to define "hate speech" it was to disagree with the assertion that "The worst thing a statement can be is false". Let's not be children by playing the game of "Well, your central point was fine but this peripheral unimportant point that only I perceive is wrong and therefore the whole post is wrong"

sp332 14y ago

This isn't about culture in general. This is about PyCon. They are trying to be extra-specially welcoming to women, in particular. They don't pretend this isn't artificial! You don't have to guess what's allowed; PyCon has a code of conduct https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/ https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/ that spells it out for you. Edit: they guy who got fired agrees: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5398681