[imsofuture]

What's amazing to me is the cognitive dissonance required to make the leap from Adria publicly outing someone (questionable, but not egregious given you know, the public venue) making an off-color joke to 'she got these people fired'.

Their boss finding out what they said got them fired. Because what they said wasn't appropriate in the opinion of their employer. Period. Full stop.

[pyre]

  | what they said wasn't appropriate in the
  | opinion of their employer

There's more nuance than that. By tweeting it, she turned it into a public issue. The scale of the issue changed. The guy's employer probably fired him to avoid association with negative publicity, and to try to avoid being seen as supporting what he said. The fact that the guy was publicly shamed led to that. Had identities been anonymized while the issue was discussed publicly, then things may have turned out differently.

I don't think that she set out to get the guy fired, and it wasn't through direct action, but she did up the stakes.

[mkr-hn]

How is a conversation in earshot of tens of strangers at a public event a private conversation?

[X-Istence]

The same way that if you and I were standing in the subway discussing the finer points of <topic potentially offensive to people on the same railcar> or cracking stupid jokes regarding the requirement for some software to have a dongle.

Just because someone in that crowd can be offended by something we say doesn't mean jack shit, unless it is directed directly at them I don't see how it applies to them.

[mkr-hn]

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I think you're wrong. PyCon's code of conduct does too. I think adding a clause about not public shaming is good though. These comments were creating an environment that reasonably made someone uncomfortable. PyCon's updated policy gives people a safe and productive way to deal with it. There's still a risk it'll leak out (as it often does), but it at least lets everyone know what the expectations are.

[freehunter]

She probably didn't want to get them fired. But it's hard to argue that she didn't want to cause them real damage, at the very least to their reputation. And it should be plainly obvious to someone with a media presence that anything negative they say about someone will ripple well beyond that person's own realm of control.

Everyone says things in private they wouldn't want their employer to hear. People curse outside of work. People drink and smoke. People break the law. They don't get fired for it because there's no one taking pictures of it and blasting it across the Internet. What we have here is irresponsible disclosure. You might not be able to forecast the full effect of such an action, but you have to know it's not going to be good for anyone involved.

[king_jester]

> Everyone says things in private they wouldn't want their employer to hear.

That's the difference in this case. The men in question were not in the personal life having a private discussion, they were attending a conference that their employer was a sponsor of and they were marked as being representatives of that sponsor company via their badges. They are already damaging their own and their company's reputation by making dumb sexist jokes at a professional-for-them event.

[hackinthebochs]

It's already been established that the joke was not sexist. Please stop claiming that it was.

[LockeWatts]

Good luck with that statement, buddy. Anything remotely related to sex and said by men is sexist. Apparently. Don't ask me why.

[eipi]

Until the day a man feels equally comfortable telling a sex-related joke to a woman as to another man, all such jokes are, by definition, sexist. We as a society are not open towards sex and the real sexist men feel that it is to their advantage that women should feel more embarrassed about sex jokes, even a woman have no reason whatsoever to feel that way.

[LockeWatts]

>Until the day a man feels equally comfortable telling a sex-related joke to a woman as to another man, all such jokes are, by definition, sexist.

Okay, then in this case the sexism isn't a bad thing. That's called protecting myself. As this fiasco has demonstrated, you might get me fired for it.

[RougeFemme]

You make a key point: the men were not in their personal lives having a private conversation. I also used your "professional-for-them" in another post.

[Sumaso]

It was her public outing that caused this situation in the first place!

Also, do you think if there wasn't as much drama going around that these men still would have been fired?

There is much more to this situation then an employer finding out that one of their employees make a dongle joke at a conference, and decided that was grounds for them to be fired. It is much more likely that the employer doesn't want to be associated with the debate taking place online, rather than being appealed by their employees actions.

[imsofuture]

If a man had posted that tweet, their firing would not have been notable and the internet would not be calling for boycotts, 'justice', apologies nor issuing death threats.

[hhw]

If a man had posted that tweet, likely nobody would have paid him any attention aside from maybe an eye roll from how easily offended he was, how he lacked a sense of humor (even if the joke wasn't very funny), and how he resorted to extreme passive aggressive tactics instead of simply saying STFU to the guy making the joke.

And if the tweet had still somehow garnered a lot of attention and gotten someone fired, he would have been condemned much more strongly for lacking the basic human decency not to out someone publicly, lacking the empathy to express regret over a man with a wife and three kids losing their job, and not manning up to admit they didn't handle the situation appropriately.

In other words, if a man had posted that tweet, he would have received much worse treatment, because this has everything to do with the tweet being an inappropriate reaction to a silly joke, and nothing to do with discrimination against women.

[jordan0day]

That's an unsupportable assertion.

[SallySinep]

But shucks, it "feels" like it's true. Therefore, in the poster's mind, it is.

[pfortuny]

No, sorry, the situation was started by someone doing something which is at least rude.

They robbed the butcher's cash. It is his fault for leaving it in the counter. Sorry: it was the robber's fault and the butcher's imprudence, nothing more.

[freehunter]

So throwing out a hyperbole to point out absurdity: if this man had been stabbed rather than fired, would you still say that if they didn't want to be stabbed, they shouldn't have made a rude joke? If the community is just so far out of control like people here are saying it is, who is the actual irresponsible party here?

Making the crude remark might be rude, but it hurts no one. There was no real damage from the joke. Public shaming is rude and hurts everyone involved. It can now be measured in real dollar amounts. That's not a consequence of the joke, that's a consequence of irresponsible journalism.

[rmrfrmrf]

> So throwing out a hyperbole to point out absurdity: if this man had been stabbed rather than fired, would you still say that if they didn't want to be stabbed, they shouldn't have made a rude joke?

I can't even begin to explain how fallacious this argument is.

[freehunter]

Note that I explicitly called out the hyperbole of the statement. If the argument is that he got fired because he made this joke rather than because Adria posted about the joke, then surely it should follow that any alternative consequence could be subbed in, right? His employer was mad enough about his joke to fire him. Is it not possible that, in a hypothetical world someone else could be mad enough about the joke to cause him physical harm? And since it's his fault for making the joke, then it's his fault he got injured. Adria did nothing wrong, because he didn't get fired because of her tweet, he got fired because of his joke.

The idea is to point out that his private conversation would never have been made public without Adria, and Adria as a media figure should be able to see the negative consequences of her actions. There are better ways of handling the taking of offense.

[Torgo]

It's called Socratic Method.

[cynicalkane]

We live in a politically correct world, and employers will do the wrong thing in order to save face because it's more expedient. It's hard to both try to help run a business and simultaneously wage war over social discourse.

The pattern is that firms will react, and overreact, to what they perceive as a scandal involving hot-button issues. The firing was a mistake but maybe the people involved were afraid of what might happen if they didn't do it. Or maybe they were acting on the same social outrage that Adria was acting on.

The point is there's a whole social anti-pattern behind the firing and it's incorrect to pin it on any one actor to the exclusion of others.

[rdtsc]

Then those employers should be punished via the same public shaming mechanism. If this is the new way to do things, fine, but it works both ways.

Never heard of PlayHeaven before. Now it is on my black list. I will make sure to remember it. Unless I read a public apology with an offer to hire him back, I will make sure to go out of my way to let everyone know about them.

PyCon -- making off color jokes is reason to take statements and escort people out in front of everyone, but posting insulting face pictures on attendees (sponsors none the less) is ok? Nope. It is not 'OK'. There should be a public apology. Guess which one makes PyCon a hostile environment? Imagine someone saying "I refuse to attend PyCon if the person who posted a picture of naked woman in one of the slides comes too". Everyone understands that, sympathy flows on twitter etc. Now what if I say I refuse to attend if Adria attends. I don't feel safe and don't feel welcome when my face could easily end up twitter with an insult underneath. Isn't that the same issue?

[fyi80]

It doesn't work both ways, because the employer is not subject to the same external pressures that the employee is. The employer answers to the general public, the employee answers to one easily-scared manager.

It's related, but not equivalent.

[rdtsc]

I meant it is similar in how public shaming and humiliation is accepted as a valid way to deal with such situations.

Initially it was probably done more to companies. It is probably the most efficient way to get a large corporation to listen to a customer -- fear of public shaming.

Adria applied it a personal level and in the context of a tech conference. That was the "new" twist here.

From an external point of view a scared manager, a small pyramid of scared managers, or a single owner doesn't matter. I see it as a corporate response. That is what makes manager's job hard -- making such decisions. He made a bad decision, the company or higher ups haven't responded yet, or apologized.

[rdsubhas]

Exactly. Think of yourself as an employer - either you retain the employee and get branded as a "Women unfriendly company", or as a company that harbors "Male chauvenists". Or you just fire the relevant folks and save face.

Both are tough choices - but its obvious which one is the most (to the employer).

[reinhardt]

Hopefully with more incidents like this, employers branded as "overreacting, bending over backwards PC twats" will start receiving similar unfavorable treatment as the aforementioned labelings.

[RougeFemme]

Not all employers will over-react and fire someone. The employer could have chosen to keep him and say the standard, "We regret. . .We do not condone. . .We have taken appropriate action. . .The specific action taken is a private personnel matter." Yes, it's BS to some degree, but in this case it would have been valid. And yes, some people might have still called for his head, but I suspect that number would have been relatively small.

[nawitus]

Hypothethical example: if a feminist group attacks a company which employs a person, then the company is pressured into letting said person go, because they don't want to get associated with misogy, as that might decrease profit. In that example the feminist group is clearly responsible for the firing of the guy, even though the company technically made the decision.

You can't just lay the blame on the company which has to operate in reality, and has to protect their brand. That said, part of the blame is also with the company.

[king_jester]

This is exactly what we would expect to happen. Company's that employ and protect people who reinforce misogyny should held accountable for that, although I would argue most groups prefer education and training over discipline and firing for the most common work-related sexism issues.

[CodeMage]

Their boss finding out what they said got them fired.

You know, we don't actually know what they said. We also don't know for sure why the guy was fired.

It might help to keep these things in mind before yelling "off with their heads" or "off with her head".

For the record, I'm neither defending them nor saying Adria handled it right. I could go on, but I already blogged about it [1] and I'm tired of repeating myself.

[1]: http://beardseye.blogspot.com/2013/03/off-with-their-heads-p...

[SallySinep]

You know, we don't actually know what they said.

And that's the single most astonishingly under-emphasized fact about this whole ridiculous "discussion."

[shardling]

That blog post is one of the better things I've read about this issue.

[blhack]

>Because what they said wasn't appropriate in the opinion of their employer. Period. Full stop.

Ha. Hardly.

The guy was fired because the company didn't want to deal with the wrath of angry internet armies following along with Adria Richards.

[throwaway0321]

The person being fired is a direct consequence of her tweet and/or blog post. She has thousands of followers. It isn't likely she thought nothing would come of it.

[pimentel]

Or maybe a viral picture of a misogynist with the company tshirt would be motivational enough for the company to fire him (maybe summed to other things in him the company didn't like, who knows). Is he really a misogynist jerk? Does not matter: the picture was published to twitter with that message implied.

EDIT: I'm not saying he's a misogynist, in fact I think otherwise. What I'm saying is if she implies he is with a photo attached, he can easily be seen as one.

[aviraldg]

misogynist (mĭ-sŏjˈə-nĭst) n. One who hates women.

Please explain how that applies to someone making a joke about "forking and dongles"

[pimentel]

Read my comment again: it's not about what he is or what he's done, but what the picture (and her explaining in her blog or HN) made it seem. Of course it's not sexist, let alone misogynist.

[SallySinep]

a picture of a misogynist...

Jeez.

Do you have the raw text of the "dongle" joke available? If not, then on what basis are you labeling this person as a misogynist?

Really now -- you're making a specific, and highly charged accusation about this person. If you can't provide substantiation, then you should step back and apologize.

[pimentel]

Read my reply to aviraldg's comment. I'm not saying he is a misogynist. I'm saying that as soon as she posted the picture (and blogged and etc) he's as good as a misogynist.

[SallySinep]

Got it - thanks for the clarification.

[deelowe]

My thoughts exactly. She may have overreacted, but it's irrelevant. She's free to say whatever she'd like in her personal life just like these two gentleman are.

The employer OTOH, made a very stupid decision based on an opinion someone expressed on the internet. They are the ones to blame, not Adria.

[SallySinep]

Period. Full stop.

Not. There are also issues of fabricated evidence and due process involved.

[dos1]

Totally agree. The employer owns absolutely all responsibility for terminating the employee. However, I do not believe it would have been out of line for Adria to have said something like "I heard one of the guys in the photo I posted on Twitter yesterday was fired. I just wanted to say that I'm terribly sorry to hear that and my intent was never to cause harm! I'm very sorry!" I believe contrition on her part would have nipped this whole thing in the bud.

I also know that had I posted that picture which resulted in someone losing their job, I would feel great remorse and WANT to make amends. Especially given the relatively minor infraction (private, but overheard, joke).

[king_jester]

So she should apologize because someone was offensive, got outed for it, and their employer felt that was reason enough to can them? I have to disagree, you do not have a right to remain anonymous while making a space unsafe and if the company you are representing feels that you've made them look horrible, they have a right to discipline you (although I believe a firing was too severe, if you fired everyone who had a problem with keeping things professional you'd have no workers, companies are better off with some kind of sensitivity training for the staff).

[orourkek]

> So she should apologize because someone was offensive, got outed for it, and their employer felt that was reason enough to can them?

No. What he said was:

> I do not believe it would have been out of line for Adria to have said something like "I heard one of the guys in the photo I posted on Twitter yesterday was fired. I just wanted to say that I'm terribly sorry to hear that and my intent was never to cause harm! I'm very sorry!"

Not that she should have done it, but basically that he thinks it would have been a good idea and could have been a solution to the entire fiasco.

For someone who is so publicly concerned with professionalism, I feel Adria should/could have either:

1. Not taken a semi-secret photo of the guys with the intent of publicly outing them. If she was really offended by the comments she should have gotten up and contacted the event staff. The unprofessional thing to do would be to take a conversation out of context, pair it with a picture of the guys, and tweet it to thousands of people. What's the end game there?

2. Assuming she did tweet as she did, the professional response would be to apologize to the guy that got fired. Saying that she's sorry that he got fired (not even that she's sorry for getting him fired, which is obviously debatable) would have, as the above poster noted, nipped the whole thing in the bud.

The other factor here is that Adria was obviously villainized and attacked seemingly from all angles. I understand that this would be a hard thing to deal with, but I can't exactly empathize with her. Tweeting about the incident is one thing, but taking a picture of them is taking it to another level entirely - and not a very professional level at that...

[mst]

Given she tweeted shortly afterwards that pycon staff were dealing with the problem and she was happy with that, I think she implicitly wasn't condoning any action taken by anybody afterwards.

Making that explicit might have been a good thing to do at the time; I don't see that such a statement would've needed to be in the form of an apology though, merely a clear dissocation from the stupid choices made by an HR department she has no control over.

[dos1]

Sure, she didn't need to apologize (and hasn't). Look how good that's worked out for her and SendGrid.