[lambda]

(warning: strong, potentially triggering language contained in this post)

> I'm sorry, are we talking about children or adults? If someone can't manage a potentially ambiguous beer invite -- for instance, by inviting other people along -- they ought to keep it to themselves and just say "no thanks"

I was responding to someone who was acting as if he had to be on his toes any time he invited a woman for a beer, as if he'd be immediately be branded a sexist for ever thinking about inviting her for beer.

Yes, I'm making this sound childish, because his complaint was childish. I was giving him some advice, in case he actually believed that there was a risk of being branded a sexist for inviting someone to a beer, for how to resolve such situations that he seems to be so afraid of safely, without any potential hint of ambiguity. I was only half serious. It is fine advice if you really are so socially inept as to not know where that line is; however, I suspect that his argument was more of a strawman, built up so he could complain about some perceived wrong online, rather than an actual legitimate explanation for why he thinks that men frequently ignore women at technical conferences.

> Yes, it is the exception, but angry rhetorical baseball bats like "mansplaining" and "privilege" are being plastered all over the tech community these days, and it stops seeming like the exception.

Hm? The fact that people are bigger assholes online than they are in real life is news to you? I was pointing out that real life consequences are relatively rare, while online rhetoric can be much more heated, so your response about heated online rhetoric doesn't really contradict what I was saying.

And think about this for a minute. People who are criticizing sexism online and go over the line use such horrible "rhetorical baseball bats" as "mansplaining" and "privilege", while those who criticize perceived over-sensitivity to sexism use things like murder and rape threats: http://www.dailydot.com/news/adria-richards-fired-sendgrid-v... If you are going to complain about "rhetorical basebal bats", I think that death threats are a bit more severe than being accused of "mansplaining."

> I already feel uncomfortable attending an event that has adopted Ada Initiative-derived code of conduct

Really? This code of conduct makes you feel uncomfortable?

https://us.pycon.org/2012/codeofconduct/

What part of that makes you feel uncomfortable? I think it's pretty unobjectionable.

> when people start using hostile language to describe my gender and race in broad strokes, I'm clearly in the cross-hairs for a small, vocal, and highly volatile minority

No, you really aren't in any cross hairs. Come on. Unless you are actively harassing people, or making inappropriate jokes in professional venues, there is no one who is against you or out to get you.

None of the people proposing these codes of conduct are against white men at all (I'm assuming that's the "gender and race" you are referring to, please correct me if I'm wrong); if they were, why would they be going to programming conferences in the first place, which are full of white men? What they are looking for is recognition that there are other people at the conference, who may not feel the same sense of safety as you do.

One problem is that without a code of conduct, it can be hard to know where to draw the line, or hard to adequately enforce that line as there is no written guideline for how to deal with such situations. With the code of conduct, it becomes more clear; blatantly sexual language is over the line, and it can be dealt with by expulsion from the conference. It's simple, and it lets you not worry about it; as a conference organizer, you don't have to worry about how prominent in the community someone is when they make a porn-based presentation, you can just firmly say "no."

[teacup50]

"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention."

That's extremely open ended, based on perception rather than objectivity, and how we got donglegate.

As for physically threatening language online -- that's not being codified as a cultural ideal.

Also, trigger warnings? Really? The amount of coddling of easily bruised egos here is mindboggling.

Every race, creed, gender, and nation has members who have seen events that are a burden on the psyche and could "trigger" on any number of imaginable things. You, however, are focused on first world, tech industry, mostly white women.

Are you going to also post trigger warnings for discussions of Soviet era politics? Lots of people lived through some pretty horrendous stuff. What about apartheid? Rwanda? Serbia? Growing up with a single parent? Childhood bullying? Poverty? Substance abuse? Where does it end? How do you even keep track of it all?

You don't. You're selfishly focused on a comparatively wealthy, privileged subgroup that apparently has nothing better to do -- despite a world filled with real problems, including sexism -- than bludgeon people for failing to highlight "triggers".

This sort of disproportionate nonsense is exactly why I can't feel safe or comfortable around your segment of the tech industry. Your sense of ethics and rectitude is skewed far outside the norm, objectively unsupportable and irrational.

[lambda]

> That's extremely open ended, based on perception rather than objectivity, and how we got donglegate.

You realize that the PyCon organizers talked to the attendee in question to let him know that some of his comments had cause offense and left it at that, right? It was the internet hate machine (on both sides), his employer, and her employer, who took any actions. You can't really blame the policy for what happened; as far as I can tell, the conference did everything right, it's everyone else who overreacted.

> As for threatening language online -- that's not being codified as a cultural ideal.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What are you saying is being "codified as a cultural ideal"? What are you saying isn't?

> Also, trigger warnings? Really? The amount of coddling of easily bruised egos here is mindboggling.

And yet you're so afraid that someone might accuse you of mansplaining? I can't imagine how you can complain about a thin skin while in the same breath complaining about that term. If your mind boggles at coddling, maybe you should complain about such terms being used as rhetorical baseball bats; because all you're really doing there is asking for the same coddling in return.

By the way, I had added the trigger warning when I had originally planned on actually including some of the rape and death threats in my post; I then decided against it, and to only mention them, but neglected to remove the warning.

> Every race, creed, gender, and nation has members who have seen events that are a burden on the psyche and could "trigger" on any number of imaginable things. You, however, are focused on first world, tech industry, mostly white women.

Um, we're talking about first world tech industry stuff, among a first world tech industry audience, about topics that are more likely to be sensitive for such an audience as they involve rape and death threats against members of the first world tech industry. I don't know why the fact that other groups have other triggers has anything to do with this; it's something that's generally considered polite to do in these kinds of discussions, as someone following the discussion may be someone fairly directly affected by the topics discussed.

The comments I was considering quoting are not things that I would likely repeat in person to a group of people without knowing who was around and listening, as there are some people who are more sensitive to such things than others (I've had a friend faint at a graphic description of a medical procedure before; you never know when someone will be more affected by your words than you had expected). On the internet, you can never know who will be listening, so it's polite to provide at least a warning so those people who may be affected can skip over it or prepare themselves if necessary.

> This sort of disproportionate nonsense is exactly why I can't feel safe or comfortable around your segment of the tech industry.

Exactly what makes you feel unsafe? That I'm trying to show a certain amount of respect for other people? Or that you're being asked by the code of conduct to act in a polite and professional manner? I'm not really sure how that's supposed to make you feel unsafe.

[teacup50]

> Um, we're talking about first world tech industry stuff, among a first world tech industry audience, about topics that are more likely to be sensitive for such an audience as they involve rape and death threats against members of the first world tech industry.

So do you adjust your trigger warnings for all contexts and all people? Stay up-to-date so you can avoid the "trigger" du jour?

Or do you accept that nannying people in all contexts and all subjects is beyond any reasonable ken, and people are responsible for their own welfare?

> I have no idea what you're talking about. What are you saying is being "codified as a cultural ideal"? What are you saying isn't?

Rape and death threats are not being codified into conference codes of conduct, are not considered to be, by any rational observer, acceptable behavior, and -- let's be perfectly honest -- are not actually strong threats. Public figures receive hateful correspondence, often from unbalanced or broken people, and especially regarding more controversial topics.

That occurrence is not representative of the population at large, nor is it representative of the industry, and occurring outside the bounds of the industry and without any acceptance as part of our culture, it's certainly not relevant to the conversation other than as a footnote on the broader lack of cultural civility.

On the other hand, when members of the industry, with their name attached, with a large following, who participate in conferences by setting or helping form codes of conduct, women-only conference services, and otherwise inhabit a privileged industry position that gives them the opportunity for discrimination, use sexist, racist, and exclusionary words, terms, and language, then I'd say it's being codified in industry culture.

> On the internet, you can never know who will be listening, so it's polite to provide at least a warning so those people who may be affected can skip over it or prepare themselves if necessary.

That's ridiculous. You can never know what will be a "trigger", either, and you're myopically focused on a narrow and selfish definition.

> Exactly what makes you feel unsafe? That I'm trying to show a certain amount of respect for other people? Or that you're being asked by the code of conduct to act in a polite and professional manner? I'm not really sure how that's supposed to make you feel unsafe.

That perceived offensive is now more important than objective truth, and alone is enough to cause one to be pulled aside at a conference, lose your job, or libel a company or person publicly.

That's more than enough to be made to feel unsafe and unwelcome, and "trigger" warnings only serve to reinforce the appearance of Orwellian groupthink, with-us-or-against-us, that your position embodies.