5 ms·

"Shortly thereafter, one of the men was fired by his employer, who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes" Isn't this completely wrong? Wasn'

"Shortly thereafter, one of the men was fired by his employer, who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes" Isn't this completely wrong? Wasn't the engineer fired long before Adria was fired? Wasn't the vitriol towards Adria not caused by the fact that the engineer was fired? Not that the vitriol was right. Just getting the facts straight before getting to conclusions.

pmelendez 14y ago
I guess the author meant shortly after the pics were posted on Twitter.
- gonvaled 14y ago
  Mmmm. Nonononono! This is the relevant part: "Yet only last week a woman of color, Adria Richards, was publicly fired from her job at technology company SendGrid, following a massive online campaign of rape and death threats, racial slurs, and computer hacking. Her crime? Tweeting a picture of the two men making sexual jokes behind her at a computer conference. (Shortly thereafter, one of the men was fired by his employer, who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes.)" For anybody not familiar with the story, this reads: 0) Men make sexual jokes 1) Adria tweets 2) Massive online campaign against Adria 3) Adria is fired 4) One engineer is fired In any case, it does not make the explicit connection that people were upset because Adria tweeted and that tweet caused the engineer to be fired. And that Adria did not let the engineer the chance to apologize, or PyCon to correct privately the issue, or, or, or ... Without getting into details of freedom or expression and other related issues. The article is also using the skin-color card to make this issue even more political: not only a woman, but a woman of color was fired! (as if she was not employed beforehand). Mean engineers!
  - Garoof 14y ago
    It's a reading comprehension thing. We're obviously going back in time, to some kind of cause, at "Her crime?". And then "Shortly thereafter" follows the sentence about the tweet and there is no reason to assume it refers to some earlier sentence.
    - gonvaled 14y ago
      Sure, you are perfectly right. The reason why I point it out is that, even though I was familiar with the story, reading that gave me the impression that Adria was the first to be fired. I had to re-check the facts to make sure I was not mistaken. Is that relevant? You bet! The way Adria handled this issue was the main reason why she was fired: having a person loose his job over a sexist remark is overreaction (even Adria admitted this). But having a developer-relations person loose her job because developers are very angry at her is maybe not that surprising. Is that confusion intended by the article author? I think so!
      - Garoof 14y ago
        "Is that confusion intended by the article author?" Probably not. Most everything can be misunderstood, but it's not really a particularly confusing paragraph.
danielweber 14y ago
The article is vague, but can be legitimately read as saying that "thereafter" is after the tweeting of the pic, not of Richards's firing.
- gonvaled 14y ago
  So it is confusing at best. It is glossing over the main reason why people were upset - which is why Adria was fired: she was a developer-relations person, and developers were upset with her, which prevented her to perform her job.
jerrya 14y ago
who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes (http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/ http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/) Given that link that Valerie Aurora attributes to this, Aurora's characterization is just wrong at best, and is an out and out lie of Aurora's at worst. There is absolutely nothing in PlayHaven's statement "hinting at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes."
- jellicle 14y ago
  Well, except for the line where they hint at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes. "We value and protect the privacy of our employees, both past and present, and we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways." And also where they declined to punish the other employee involved. I'm pretty sure that anyone with basic reading comprehension would read that statement as a very clear one that the company already had issues with developer X. Do we even know the name of this martyr? I don't believe it has been published.

pmelendez 14y ago

I guess the author meant shortly after the pics were posted on Twitter.

gonvaled 14y ago
Mmmm. Nonononono! This is the relevant part: "Yet only last week a woman of color, Adria Richards, was publicly fired from her job at technology company SendGrid, following a massive online campaign of rape and death threats, racial slurs, and computer hacking. Her crime? Tweeting a picture of the two men making sexual jokes behind her at a computer conference. (Shortly thereafter, one of the men was fired by his employer, who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes.)" For anybody not familiar with the story, this reads: 0) Men make sexual jokes 1) Adria tweets 2) Massive online campaign against Adria 3) Adria is fired 4) One engineer is fired In any case, it does not make the explicit connection that people were upset because Adria tweeted and that tweet caused the engineer to be fired. And that Adria did not let the engineer the chance to apologize, or PyCon to correct privately the issue, or, or, or ... Without getting into details of freedom or expression and other related issues. The article is also using the skin-color card to make this issue even more political: not only a woman, but a woman of color was fired! (as if she was not employed beforehand). Mean engineers!
- Garoof 14y ago
  It's a reading comprehension thing. We're obviously going back in time, to some kind of cause, at "Her crime?". And then "Shortly thereafter" follows the sentence about the tweet and there is no reason to assume it refers to some earlier sentence.
  - gonvaled 14y ago
    Sure, you are perfectly right. The reason why I point it out is that, even though I was familiar with the story, reading that gave me the impression that Adria was the first to be fired. I had to re-check the facts to make sure I was not mistaken. Is that relevant? You bet! The way Adria handled this issue was the main reason why she was fired: having a person loose his job over a sexist remark is overreaction (even Adria admitted this). But having a developer-relations person loose her job because developers are very angry at her is maybe not that surprising. Is that confusion intended by the article author? I think so!
    - Garoof 14y ago
      "Is that confusion intended by the article author?" Probably not. Most everything can be misunderstood, but it's not really a particularly confusing paragraph.

danielweber 14y ago

The article is vague, but can be legitimately read as saying that "thereafter" is after the tweeting of the pic, not of Richards's firing.

gonvaled 14y ago
So it is confusing at best. It is glossing over the main reason why people were upset - which is why Adria was fired: she was a developer-relations person, and developers were upset with her, which prevented her to perform her job.

jerrya 14y ago

who hinted at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes (http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/ http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/) Given that link that Valerie Aurora attributes to this, Aurora's characterization is just wrong at best, and is an out and out lie of Aurora's at worst. There is absolutely nothing in PlayHaven's statement "hinting at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes."

jellicle 14y ago
Well, except for the line where they hint at multiple contributing factors beyond the jokes. "We value and protect the privacy of our employees, both past and present, and we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways." And also where they declined to punish the other employee involved. I'm pretty sure that anyone with basic reading comprehension would read that statement as a very clear one that the company already had issues with developer X. Do we even know the name of this martyr? I don't believe it has been published.