[tiredofcareer]

Why is informing others necessary? You dealt with the problem, give the person a chance to change. If they're a repeat offender, eventually they'll piss off enough people that the overlapping social networks will catch wind of it organically. There's no reason to broadcast, make a list, or "save the world" by putting a face out there as someone to avoid.

I see the safety argument making an appearance here yet again, even though neither Adria nor the woman in this story were in any danger from the person (as far as I can tell). If you think jokes make PyCon or GDC an unsafe place, I'm sure everyone who's ever been sexually assaulted would like a word with you about what 'safe' means. It's making the assumption that people who joke inappropriately will eventually be rapists, and we should therefore warn everyone to stay away from them, which is fundamentally flawed.

Just deal with it in person. If he's a repeat, eventually it'll catch up with him enough. Of course, there's no saying something this controversial without geek feminists trotting out the "you're just shutting up the victim" line, which is complete hogwash. I've been called a rape apologist for making the point about dealing with something privately. People do change, even in the extreme scenarios, and the age of rapid social media and Internet communication demands ever higher vigilance over our actions online.

There are two outcomes, if we extrapolate this to the ends: we shame someone publicly and effectively destroy a career, eliminating any possibility of improvement as a human being and the contributions that person might have brought to the table, or we deal with it in person and attempt to steer him toward the right path. The default tendency to feel hopeless about fixing something is swaying this choice the wrong way.

[drakeandrews]

If someone is going around causing issues sufficiently that they're a repeat offender, I don't see why they should be given additional chances. Let them have their ever shrinking circle of misogynists, just don't let them into conferences. Access is a privilege, not a right.

The argument that because in these two cases (of the damn near uncountable issues of people having to put up with similar comments, criticisms or slurs) the person in question wasn't in any danger doesn't mean that in every instance the person was neither in danger nor felt in danger. And what's more, these comments, jokes etc. actively contribute to an environment where it is insinuated that these words and by extension these actions are okay.

So an asshat making a sexist joke will hopefully never rape someone, but they're certainly making it a more fertile environment for the bastard who then goes on to rape someone. Under this understanding of the issue, yes it makes sense to actively exclude those people making sexist (or for that matter homophobic, racist etc., the "rape culture" argument extends just fine to other examples) jokes.