3 ms·

To be clear, what she did was this: she saw something she thought was utterly vile and morally reprehensible being seemingly "celebrated" in a talk. The talk wa

To be clear, what she did was this: she saw something she thought was utterly vile and morally reprehensible being seemingly "celebrated" in a talk. The talk wasn't necessarily happening yet; it was still being voted on. She mentioned in her podcast that there was a talk on this and suggested that her listeners vote on it. Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way? Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it. If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
"If this was wrong" - well, since she later admitted it was wrong and apologized for it, then yea - it was wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.
MetaCosm 14y ago
Where does it end? If a religious person is deeply offended by a talk that references "My Two Dads" -- should that talk be banned? Should references to evolution, gay rights, anything that might offend anyone be banned? Being offended DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS, it is just you being offended, get over it.
- dalke 14y ago
  Voting a talk up or down is not the same as banning. Voting is an indication that some subgroup of people have a specific view, either positive or negative, towards a talk. The selection committee can use that information to guide their selection. They may even go back to the person and point out that while the talk content is very appropriate, it's structured in such a way that incidental aspects (eg, a joke about "Hans Reiser killing women attendees" at a talk at linux.conf.au) will detract from the talk and blunt the actual content. Or they may decide that the content is important enough to override the vote. You are right, by the way. In the US context, being offended goes not give anyone rights. What gives people rights is the law. The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, the laws says that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex, the law says that frequent and unwanted dirty jokes at the workplace can be a form of sexual harassment, and the law says that if someone doesn't like dirty jokes in the workplace then the first step is to file a complaint. And the law gives wide latitude to what the complaint can be, including making a complaint in public, and says that making a complaint gives extra protections against retaliation. So no, being offended does not give people rights. Civil rights laws give people rights. As to your examples, the law does not say that references to evolution, gay rights, etc. are in violation of the laws against discrimination in the workplace. However, if the only Young Earth Creationist in the company was always singled out as the person to write the "earth geology" transcripts, and there was no special business reason why that Y.E.C. should be singled out, then that Y.E.C may file a complaint for discrimination based on religious beliefs. Because singling out someone in the workplace based on their religious belief is against the law.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago

"If this was wrong" - well, since she later admitted it was wrong and apologized for it, then yea - it was wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.

MetaCosm 14y ago

Where does it end? If a religious person is deeply offended by a talk that references "My Two Dads" -- should that talk be banned? Should references to evolution, gay rights, anything that might offend anyone be banned? Being offended DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS, it is just you being offended, get over it.

dalke 14y ago
Voting a talk up or down is not the same as banning. Voting is an indication that some subgroup of people have a specific view, either positive or negative, towards a talk. The selection committee can use that information to guide their selection. They may even go back to the person and point out that while the talk content is very appropriate, it's structured in such a way that incidental aspects (eg, a joke about "Hans Reiser killing women attendees" at a talk at linux.conf.au) will detract from the talk and blunt the actual content. Or they may decide that the content is important enough to override the vote. You are right, by the way. In the US context, being offended goes not give anyone rights. What gives people rights is the law. The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, the laws says that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex, the law says that frequent and unwanted dirty jokes at the workplace can be a form of sexual harassment, and the law says that if someone doesn't like dirty jokes in the workplace then the first step is to file a complaint. And the law gives wide latitude to what the complaint can be, including making a complaint in public, and says that making a complaint gives extra protections against retaliation. So no, being offended does not give people rights. Civil rights laws give people rights. As to your examples, the law does not say that references to evolution, gay rights, etc. are in violation of the laws against discrimination in the workplace. However, if the only Young Earth Creationist in the company was always singled out as the person to write the "earth geology" transcripts, and there was no special business reason why that Y.E.C. should be singled out, then that Y.E.C may file a complaint for discrimination based on religious beliefs. Because singling out someone in the workplace based on their religious belief is against the law.