9 ms·

After reading all sides of the story, I see why there is so much anger towards Adria. However, it is unacceptable for her or SendGrid to be attacked digitally.

After reading all sides of the story, I see why there is so much anger towards Adria. However, it is unacceptable for her or SendGrid to be attacked digitally. Adria did an arguably right thing in a wrong way at the wrong time. 1. Assuming the way she said it happened is correct, the guys behind her made a sexual (forking/fucking; Dongle/Penis) not sexist joke. If it were even to be seen as sexist, it was towards men. 2. I find it hard to see how taking their pictures and "shaming" them would have made anything thing better. It only set them up to be lynched verbally or otherwise. 3. It was a PRIVATE conversation in a public setting that was overheard. It happens to the best of us. There are 100s of bloopers on YouTube of broadcasters saying embarrassing things when the mic was supposed to be off. 4. She appears hypocritical because at the same PYCON she sexual jokes on Twitter (far much more public) while representing her company (having your company on your profile is almost same as wearing a badge at a conference. Not to include the use of the PYCON hashtag) 5. As a DEVELOPER evangelist for her company, she should be more patient with developers by a massive factor compared to people in other roles. It makes no sense evangelizing for/to people that would be uncomfortable dealing with you. Appeal to understanding, not fear. 6. It is good to know she can stand for herself. Unfortunately, I have to say she got the incident and methodology wrong. All this will pass, and hopefully serve as a lesson for participants and us observers. Edited: Spelling of Adria

imsofuture 14y ago
1) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 2) Totally agree, it was not a wise choice. 3) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 4) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 5) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 6) It's true, not all the best choices were made.
- aviraldg 14y ago
  Then that someone doesn't get to publicly shame me for what is offensive to them, and doesn't have the right to ask me to stop. My joke. Not meant for you. Stop listening.
  - mtrimpe 14y ago
    Except that you can't stop listening because you're in a public situation! I've sat through some train rides myself where I had to listen to people having 'private conversations' riddled with jokes about gay people. I can tell you that will make your blood boil. I just got up and moved away, but doing that at PyCon during a talk is quite a bit harder.
    - fyi80 14y ago
      If think you are ugly, are you obligated to wear a bag over your face in public?
- drharris 14y ago
  You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense?
  - Cushman 14y ago
    > Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? Yes. > What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense? If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your job, that might be a good indicator.
    - gtz57 14y ago
      but people can take offense to anything, so that means you would be responsible for all of the stupid things people get offended about. People don't have the right to not be offended. I think you are half right, but offense probably has to be both given and taken, not just taken.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        Yeah, I mean, if we're in a public place I'm gonna do my best not to upset you. If we're at your place, I'll leave; if we're at my place, you've gotta leave. If it's a bad enough disagreement we can take it to court and let someone objective sort it out. That's how we all get along.
    - X-Istence 14y ago
      I'm sure it would offend (maybe sadden too) my grandparents very much that I don't believe in God, but I don't see that as a reason to never speak my mind about the fact that I don't believe in religion. Nor should my believe in God have anything to do with my job, however I've worked at a place where that would certainly lead to me being let go if I were to mention or discuss that at work with my boss, but what I discuss between friends is my business and not his. I don't see how I need to be responsible for making sure you, or anyone that might be overhearing or reading my words, is not offended by what I am saying.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > 1) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. That would mean you can't be upset for her publicly shaming the guy. You find that offensive, she does not. You can have it both ways.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944
  - unreal37 14y ago
    This is brilliant. "Nothing happens when you're offended."
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Either offensiveness is completely subjective in which case it is sole, entirely and complete the concern of the individual claiming to be offended. Or there is some standard for offensive remarks, in which case you absolutely do get to tell people that they aren't offended by that. Note that if offense is subjective you don't get to complain about others making you offended -- that is by definition your own feelings.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  It's quite true that you can't tell someone what is offensive to them, but that's entirely beside the point. If someone is offended by something and takes no action then that doesn't matter at all. But if someone does something in response to how they feel they were offended, we're going to judge that response by how reasonable that offense seems to us. If the two men in the situation we're talking about had been making crude remarks directly to her and she had contacted the organizers I don't think any body (I care about) would have questioned her actions. If she had pulled a gun and shot them, then I think everybody would agree that that was unjustified. And if she had complained to the organizers because the men were wearing VI polo shirts and she was a diehard emacs user that would also be unjustified. And there are some forms of receiving offense, such as when a racist seeing a black person at a Python convention, where them taking any action at all based on that offence would be wrong. I'm sure there was at least one person like that at PyCon, but I'm also sure that society has trained them to keep their mouth shut. And a good thing too. So we don't get to tell Adria what is offensive to her, but when she shames someone based on that offence we will judge her shaming based on how valid we judge to offence to be. If one of the men had told her to her face that women didn't belong at PyCon then I think her actions would have been entirely justified. As it was, not so much.
  - WildUtah 14y ago
    Dude, it's vi and Emacs, not VI and emacs.
- LockeWatts 14y ago
  Sure, I can't tell you what you should be offended by, but I can tell you your offense is unimportant and selfish.
rdtsc 14y ago
> Adrea[sic] did an arguably right thing in a wrong way It seems she did 2 different things. 1) She reported an incident that made her feel uncomfortable. (I think she did the correct thing here, at least I agree with it) 2) She posted a face photo of some attendees from a sponsoring company, publicly (not just for PyCon attendees but for the whole world) along with an insult "ass clowns". [note: 2 came before 1 as well] 2 is completely unacceptable and I am disappointed and disgusted at PyCon for not kicked her out. Image you go around with a phone snapping pictures of attendees, immediately send them to twitter with insulting tags below. I think she should be the one to lose her job, and PyCon should issue a public apology (a little edit in Github won't do it, sorry). If she doesn't understand why what she did was wrong, she shouldn't be invited to PyCon in future years. How about this, if she comes, I won't. PlayHeaven -- what can I say. I haven't heard of them before but they sure are on my black list as of yesterday. To terminate an employer after he has been slandered online is disrespectful. I refuse to do business with you and will go out my way to tell everyone what you did. (There is another side issue here and I think it goes beyond hypocrisy I think it is straight malignancy. I think she pondered her odds and decided to roll the dice, given her position she quickly climbed the popularity ladder from 0 to 100 in a one day, I have no proof of this, only she knows, but her job title combined with her previous off color penis jokes on Twitter point me in that direction).
- growse 14y ago
  Isn't publishing someone's photo without their consent, like, illegal? I'm aware that copyright of the picture rests with the photographer, but if you want to publish someone's picture (and, as far as I understand it, tweeting is 'publishing'), don't you need their explicit consent?
  - rmrfrmrf 14y ago
    No.
    - growse 14y ago
      Then why blur faces in some published photos / video footage? I live in the UK, could be a different legal situation here...
giardini 14y ago
"However, it is unacceptable for her or SendGrid to be attacked digitally." She could have simply changed seats but chose to use digital methods to publicly humiliate two people, one of whom was consequently fired apparently. "What's good for the gander is good for the goose." BTW isn't this rather Orwellian? Anything you say anywhere can be dredged into view of the public? Is privacy possible anymore?
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  Well it seems like the other shoe has dropped: https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967 https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967
  - danielweber 14y ago
    As someone said on the [dead] thread, way to make a bad situation even worse.
monksy 14y ago
She used her credibility as a member of SendGrid [a sponsor of the conference] to reinforce her statement. These guys did not even endorce their behavior via a company. They were 2 individuals who were talking to each other, she ease dropped and made a mountain out of a molehill.

imsofuture 14y ago

1) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 2) Totally agree, it was not a wise choice. 3) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 4) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 5) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. 6) It's true, not all the best choices were made.

aviraldg 14y ago
Then that someone doesn't get to publicly shame me for what is offensive to them, and doesn't have the right to ask me to stop. My joke. Not meant for you. Stop listening.
- mtrimpe 14y ago
  Except that you can't stop listening because you're in a public situation! I've sat through some train rides myself where I had to listen to people having 'private conversations' riddled with jokes about gay people. I can tell you that will make your blood boil. I just got up and moved away, but doing that at PyCon during a talk is quite a bit harder.
  - fyi80 14y ago
    If think you are ugly, are you obligated to wear a bag over your face in public?
drharris 14y ago
You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense?
- Cushman 14y ago
  > Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? Yes. > What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense? If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your job, that might be a good indicator.
  - gtz57 14y ago
    but people can take offense to anything, so that means you would be responsible for all of the stupid things people get offended about. People don't have the right to not be offended. I think you are half right, but offense probably has to be both given and taken, not just taken.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      Yeah, I mean, if we're in a public place I'm gonna do my best not to upset you. If we're at your place, I'll leave; if we're at my place, you've gotta leave. If it's a bad enough disagreement we can take it to court and let someone objective sort it out. That's how we all get along.
  - X-Istence 14y ago
    I'm sure it would offend (maybe sadden too) my grandparents very much that I don't believe in God, but I don't see that as a reason to never speak my mind about the fact that I don't believe in religion. Nor should my believe in God have anything to do with my job, however I've worked at a place where that would certainly lead to me being let go if I were to mention or discuss that at work with my boss, but what I discuss between friends is my business and not his. I don't see how I need to be responsible for making sure you, or anyone that might be overhearing or reading my words, is not offended by what I am saying.
jasonlotito 14y ago
> 1) You don't get to tell someone what is offensive to them. That would mean you can't be upset for her publicly shaming the guy. You find that offensive, she does not. You can have it both ways.
X-Istence 14y ago
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944
- unreal37 14y ago
  This is brilliant. "Nothing happens when you're offended."
tomjen3 14y ago
Either offensiveness is completely subjective in which case it is sole, entirely and complete the concern of the individual claiming to be offended. Or there is some standard for offensive remarks, in which case you absolutely do get to tell people that they aren't offended by that. Note that if offense is subjective you don't get to complain about others making you offended -- that is by definition your own feelings.
Symmetry 14y ago
It's quite true that you can't tell someone what is offensive to them, but that's entirely beside the point. If someone is offended by something and takes no action then that doesn't matter at all. But if someone does something in response to how they feel they were offended, we're going to judge that response by how reasonable that offense seems to us. If the two men in the situation we're talking about had been making crude remarks directly to her and she had contacted the organizers I don't think any body (I care about) would have questioned her actions. If she had pulled a gun and shot them, then I think everybody would agree that that was unjustified. And if she had complained to the organizers because the men were wearing VI polo shirts and she was a diehard emacs user that would also be unjustified. And there are some forms of receiving offense, such as when a racist seeing a black person at a Python convention, where them taking any action at all based on that offence would be wrong. I'm sure there was at least one person like that at PyCon, but I'm also sure that society has trained them to keep their mouth shut. And a good thing too. So we don't get to tell Adria what is offensive to her, but when she shames someone based on that offence we will judge her shaming based on how valid we judge to offence to be. If one of the men had told her to her face that women didn't belong at PyCon then I think her actions would have been entirely justified. As it was, not so much.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  Dude, it's vi and Emacs, not VI and emacs.
LockeWatts 14y ago
Sure, I can't tell you what you should be offended by, but I can tell you your offense is unimportant and selfish.

rdtsc 14y ago

> Adrea[sic] did an arguably right thing in a wrong way It seems she did 2 different things. 1) She reported an incident that made her feel uncomfortable. (I think she did the correct thing here, at least I agree with it) 2) She posted a face photo of some attendees from a sponsoring company, publicly (not just for PyCon attendees but for the whole world) along with an insult "ass clowns". [note: 2 came before 1 as well] 2 is completely unacceptable and I am disappointed and disgusted at PyCon for not kicked her out. Image you go around with a phone snapping pictures of attendees, immediately send them to twitter with insulting tags below. I think she should be the one to lose her job, and PyCon should issue a public apology (a little edit in Github won't do it, sorry). If she doesn't understand why what she did was wrong, she shouldn't be invited to PyCon in future years. How about this, if she comes, I won't. PlayHeaven -- what can I say. I haven't heard of them before but they sure are on my black list as of yesterday. To terminate an employer after he has been slandered online is disrespectful. I refuse to do business with you and will go out my way to tell everyone what you did. (There is another side issue here and I think it goes beyond hypocrisy I think it is straight malignancy. I think she pondered her odds and decided to roll the dice, given her position she quickly climbed the popularity ladder from 0 to 100 in a one day, I have no proof of this, only she knows, but her job title combined with her previous off color penis jokes on Twitter point me in that direction).

growse 14y ago
Isn't publishing someone's photo without their consent, like, illegal? I'm aware that copyright of the picture rests with the photographer, but if you want to publish someone's picture (and, as far as I understand it, tweeting is 'publishing'), don't you need their explicit consent?
- rmrfrmrf 14y ago
  No.
  - growse 14y ago
    Then why blur faces in some published photos / video footage? I live in the UK, could be a different legal situation here...

giardini 14y ago

"However, it is unacceptable for her or SendGrid to be attacked digitally." She could have simply changed seats but chose to use digital methods to publicly humiliate two people, one of whom was consequently fired apparently. "What's good for the gander is good for the goose." BTW isn't this rather Orwellian? Anything you say anywhere can be dredged into view of the public? Is privacy possible anymore?

Nrsolis 14y ago
Well it seems like the other shoe has dropped: https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967 https://www.facebook.com/SendGrid/posts/10151502570463967
- danielweber 14y ago
  As someone said on the [dead] thread, way to make a bad situation even worse.

monksy 14y ago

She used her credibility as a member of SendGrid [a sponsor of the conference] to reinforce her statement. These guys did not even endorce their behavior via a company. They were 2 individuals who were talking to each other, she ease dropped and made a mountain out of a molehill.