There is also utility in having a good HR department
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:04 (eleven years ago) link
"Please evaluate these hash functions and also the following princess Diana/9-11 jokes"
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:08 (eleven years ago) link
"Where do you see yourself in five years?"
"What do you think are your best and worst qualities?"
"What's the difference between a Jew and a lasagna?"
― 誤訳侮辱, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:36 (eleven years ago) link
A: eggplant
― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:41 (eleven years ago) link
or alternatively:
"A lasagna doesn't ENJOY getting baked...if you know what I mean bro. L'chaim."
― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:42 (eleven years ago) link
this is still and will remain an entirely bullshit argument whose only practical effect is to explicitly or implicitly advance the idea that she deserved the response she got,
It's not an 'argument,' and I don't believe that she deserved the response that she got, in any way.
― Walter Galt, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:42 (eleven years ago) link
no, there is literally no space for a third view here
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:49 (eleven years ago) link
heh
― Walter Galt, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:53 (eleven years ago) link
Once you throw dogma out the window there's plenty of room for ambivalence.
― tsrobodo, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:53 (eleven years ago) link
i am laughing so much at the idea that taking photographs of random people is not ok to do, ever
throw every high-school senior in a photography class in jail
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:54 (eleven years ago) link
Yes!
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:55 (eleven years ago) link
especially don't photograph cops, they hate it
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:57 (eleven years ago) link
dismantle the surveillance infrastructure of our modern police state, while we're at it
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 16:58 (eleven years ago) link
the third view you're talking about is only accessible to some of the people participating in this conversation
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:12 (eleven years ago) link
richards used a photograph to identify a person who was in violation of the conference guidelines. her use of photography is only being scolded as 'wrong' because it gave her agency and subverted the established hierarchy
let's see whether that argument still holds up the next time its proponents encounter a 'booth babe' at their next trade show
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:13 (eleven years ago) link
"you're either with us or against us" is p much always a terrible educational/persuasive tool ime djp, my experience of course is irrelevant but hey it's the only one i got
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:15 (eleven years ago) link
the real point is that the more you go on about all of the "mistakes" Adria Richards made in this situation, the more you excuse the heaping pile of shit that was dumped on her; the situation really is that binary, and if you can't tell that from the legion of comments trailing every single fucking article and blog post that's been written about this and disseminated to the wider community, open your fucking eyes
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:16 (eleven years ago) link
I am very pointedly not saying "you are either with us or against us"; I am saying "you are with them; are you sure you want to be?"
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:17 (eleven years ago) link
and i'm saying put me with them if you like, i guess.
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:18 (eleven years ago) link
you can't have your dongle and eat it too
― Heyman (crüt), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:19 (eleven years ago) link
I mean if it's yr view that anything but unqualified beatification of adria is 'you're with them' then i cant see any point in pretending that's not 'against us'
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:22 (eleven years ago) link
o plz
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:22 (eleven years ago) link
How, exactly, is "Adria did nothing to deserve the bullshit that's been slung her way" equivalent to unqualified beatification?
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:29 (eleven years ago) link
choosing to damn both sides (even if unequally) isn't being objective, it's making a choice that has pragmatic connotations just like choosing to focus on one or the other side.
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:40 (eleven years ago) link
I should that doesn't mean we're condemned to this particular "either/or" but we'd have to think carefully about how to get beyond it in a way that doesn't boil down to "well she fucked up a little too."
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:43 (eleven years ago) link
the same equivalence that states that thinking her posting the pics on twitter wasn't a great move is equivalent to approval of every vile internet comment slung her way since xps
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:44 (eleven years ago) link
Xpost: mainly because saying that isn't really past the original "either/or" we're stuck in.
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:45 (eleven years ago) link
final point being you're choosing sides even when (especially when) you think you aren't.
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:46 (eleven years ago) link
I hate having my picture taken, hate HATE hate, but it's an occupational hazard. taking a picture of me at dinner would under most circumstances be bullshit; however if I am in public talking a lot of offensive bullshit and you're having to listen to it guess what I am consenting to have you document my assholism. don't want somebody whose comfort you're totally oblivious to taking your picture, maybe dial back the sexist garbage and voila, Adria Richards isn't taking your picture. the "but is it wrong to post their picture! two wrongs don't" etc line doesn't arise if they themselves haven't already announced by their actions that they don't give a shit about decorum. people who think they get to call the shots about what counts as decorum and who has to follow its protocols when they themselves don't...are dicks and should have their pictures posted on the damn internet for me to laugh at, is what I'm saying
― not feeling those lighters (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:50 (eleven years ago) link
very otm
― Heyman (crüt), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:54 (eleven years ago) link
booming
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 17:57 (eleven years ago) link
i think part of the conflict among well-meaning people on this issue boils down to what "level of observation" you choose to proceed from.
feminist criticism proceeds from "patriarchy"--it's gonna observe that context and show how what happens is determined by that context. that also means feminism is gonna exclude certain things (just as discussed above in terms of the universality of exclusion). patriarchy is not capable of exhaustively determining the context for every social phenomenon.
but since such exclusions are in a sense universal that revelation doesn't invalidate feminism. quite the contrary. it's at this point of recognition that you take on accountability for siding with feminism (ie, that you observe patriarchy) in this case or against it. given the situation as best i can see it (the famously misogynistic atmosphere of a tech conference) it seems a no brainer to side with feminism here. but i dont get the last word.
― ryan, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 18:11 (eleven years ago) link
There's a pretty huge leap from photojournalism to the slippery slope of cameraphone justice. I think those guys were pricks! But I won't ever think that invites "Snap. Twitter. GUILTY." That's insane, and seriously dangerous!
― She Got the Shakes, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 20:54 (eleven years ago) link
"seriously dangerous"
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:01 (eleven years ago) link
someone might be culpable for their gross behavior STOP HELP THIS IS MADNESS
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:02 (eleven years ago) link
apropos of nothing
but Limbaugh appears to be getting the message — in his own way. Two weeks ago, he misinterpreted new Beyonce lyrics as sending a message that “she married the rich guy” and “now understands it’s worth it to bow down” to her husband. The next day, he told listeners: “The news is out that of course I’m back into my misinge — , m — , m — , well, misoge — , right, right, whatever it is.”
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:03 (eleven years ago) link
oh Rushpaws
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:04 (eleven years ago) link
theres something appealingly tech-y about treating the unfolding of events as a unwanted outcome that can be traced back to a single bug in the system, i.e. adria richards taking a photo
― max, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:17 (eleven years ago) link
i really thought/hoped pycon would be a bit more diverse than what that photo showed.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:23 (eleven years ago) link
"seriously dangerous"― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut)
Seriously dangerous.
― She Got the Shakes, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:26 (eleven years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375ENQbru8s
― how's life, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:38 (eleven years ago) link
dangerously serious
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:55 (eleven years ago) link
snap. twitter. GUILTY.
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 22:00 (eleven years ago) link
Not inaccurate tbf
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 22:15 (eleven years ago) link
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE SEXISTS
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 06:39 (eleven years ago) link
"nobody likes a squealer"
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 06:40 (eleven years ago) link
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that's what I've said? My point is more about how dangerous (I know Elmo doesn't care for that word, or finds that I'm being dramatic?) I think that court-by-cameraphone can be. It's not about defending sexists, it's about how slippery of a slope this kind of thing is. I don't know the whole story of anything just because I've seen a picture that somebody Tweeted - and I seem to see more and more of the types of pictures of people on Twitter where someone has taken a snap to run with a caption saying "this guy stole my guitar - anybody know him?" (or, more commonly, "look at this strange looking/poorly dressed/ugly person," but that's a different kind of damning). I guess the feeling here is that this is some kind of punk-rock justice, but I think it's a bit closer to the scarier side of things.
I shouldn't have to say that I also think those guys were dicks, and that I think that the people threatening that woman were heinous.
― She Got the Shakes, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 07:07 (eleven years ago) link
Not suggesting that's what you've said, Shakes, just summing up what I see as the larger tenor of a certain take on this case. I don't think this is "punk rock justice", not least since this story ended with the victim losing her job for speaking up, which doesn't sound too just to me.
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 07:36 (eleven years ago) link
I think we've all agreed on that tbf.
― mister borges (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 08:28 (eleven years ago) link
have we? glad to hear it!
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 09:12 (eleven years ago) link