dangerously serious
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 21:55 (ten years ago) link
snap. twitter. GUILTY.
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 22:00 (ten years ago) link
Not inaccurate tbf
― mister borges (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 22:15 (ten years ago) link
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE SEXISTS
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 06:39 (ten years ago) link
"nobody likes a squealer"
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 06:40 (ten 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 (ten 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 (ten years ago) link
I think we've all agreed on that tbf.
― mister borges (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 08:28 (ten years ago) link
have we? glad to hear it!
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 09:12 (ten years ago) link
was responding directly to I guess the feeling here is that this is some kind of punk-rock justice btw so
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 09:15 (ten years ago) link
Sorry, I meant that the general feeling seemed to be that this type of 'naming & shaming'/taking-pictures-in-the-act thing was seen as a kind of punk-rock justice, not that justice had been done in this case. I don't think anyone should have lost their jobs here.
― Walter Galt, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:04 (ten years ago) link
sorry, but that's bullshit. there were guidelines for how conference attendees were to behave. there were conference organizers tasked with making sure those guidelines were followed. she tweeted an identifying photo of the guy in violation and tagged it so the organizers would see it. it worked, and they pulled richards & the other guy aside to deal with the matter.
this wasn't justice via twitter mob, it was an extremely focused and effective appeal to the appropriate authority. that's not exactly "punk rock"
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:18 (ten years ago) link
^^^ a thousand times yes
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:43 (ten years ago) link
Seems to me that after taking a picture of those dudes and Tweeting "Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon," she then Tweeted, two minutes later, "Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct? I'm in lightning talks, top right near stage, 10 rows back #pycon" to over 12,000 people. She didn't "@" anyone in the Tweet. So she's asked "someone" to confront two dudes who will now be identifiable based on the photo she posted without any full explanation/context. And though some people in this thread believe that "twitter is a place generally accepted as a tool for frivolous chatter," I don't see it that way. That's a seriously dangerous (yep) way to deal with this type of situation.
― Walter Galt, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:57 (ten years ago) link
seriously dangerous
lmao
― caek, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:00 (ten years ago) link
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/03/28/a-white-boys-observations-of-sexism-and-the-adria-richards-fiasco/
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:18 (ten years ago) link
by contrast: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/31/bad-for-business-everyone-has-an-adria-richards-story/
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:19 (ten years ago) link
FYI these were the top two personal blog opinion pieces that came back on my google search; I did not do any special searching or filtering aside from searching "Adria Richards" and discarding news stories
Also, the anti- story was ranked as more relevant than the pro- story.
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:21 (ten years ago) link
I wouldn't recommend anyone clicking on that second link and giving the author the traffic; it's a hideous article.
― Walter Galt, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:28 (ten years ago) link
they literally use that traffic to shoot down u.s. drones with black-market missiles. literally.
― s.clover, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:36 (ten years ago) link
(although, haha yeah, ew.)
― s.clover, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:37 (ten years ago) link
she tweeted an identifying photo of the guy in violation and tagged it so the organizers would see it
Why not just email the photo to the organizers then?
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:40 (ten years ago) link
Because if you do it in public they're less likely to be able to brush it under the carpet/ignore your issue.
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:51 (ten years ago) link
So she's asked "someone" to confront two dudes who will now be identifiable based on the photo she posted without any full explanation/context.
Having attended umpteen thousand professional conferences, I can promise you the appropriate people were monitoring the #pycon hashtag in real time and did not need to be @-addressed.
― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 13:52 (ten years ago) link
Because if you do it in public they're less likely to be able to brush it under the carpet/ignore your issue
So attempt to work it out in private first and then take it public if they try and brush it under the carpet.
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:01 (ten years ago) link
Why?
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:05 (ten years ago) link
Because that's the standard way of dealing with HR issues in organizations all over the world.
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:07 (ten years ago) link
I missed the part of this where Adria Richards was affiliated with an HR department
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:08 (ten years ago) link
SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:15 (ten years ago) link
Well, the incident didn't happen in private, did it? So why should Adria Richards keep her objections private? Besides, if she first went to the men or organizers privately and wasn't satisfied with their response, she'd be derided as some kind of extortionist if she told them 'fine, I'm gonna have to take this public'.
I've reported on people caught in the act of bullying while wearing a company shirt. Called the company rather than try to reach some sort of fake compromise with people who were assholes, because the only thing creating a problem between us was (wait for it) their behaviour. Were the bullies angry with me when I straight-up told them I'd reported them? Yes, of course they were, but I expected that the combination of belligerence and stupidity that underpinned their need to shit on other people also underpinned their denial of responsibility for the actions that brought us to that point.
― karl lagerlout (suzy), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:25 (ten years ago) link
"Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct?"
such a SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS request
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:33 (ten years ago) link
what i'm hearing is: "why couldn't richards be more circumspect and ladylike before taking action? why didn't she employ less effective remedies first? as white men, don't these guys have a god-given RIGHT to save face once they're caught? isn't that in the u.s. constitution somewhere?"
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:38 (ten years ago) link
Cant help what yr hearing
― mister borges (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:40 (ten years ago) link
elmo totally otm. Also, to restate from upthread: "Why didn't she do what I, a white/man would have done?" "Why didn't she decide to use the same 'correct' strategies that I am equipped with/trained to use, like confrontation?"
― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:43 (ten years ago) link
I'm still amazed that one of the pieces of evidence used to show that Adria Richards is an unreasonable, divisive harpy who is looking for offense everywhere she goes is because she once objected to someone using porn metaphors in a professional presentation
Like, what the hell is wrong with these people?
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:48 (ten years ago) link
adria richards is a misandrist who wants to take away your dick jokes and your gonzo porn, the danger is serious
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:50 (ten years ago) link
Not everybody has the temperament to go all confrontational in public and feel confident of not being aggressed even more or shamed by their aggressor or other bad outcomes. Most of the time *I* don't, and I'm not exactly a shrinking water lily.
It might not seem "confrontational" to say, "That behavior is inappropriate/offensive. Could you please discontinue it?" but look at how offended THE INTERNET is by having its judgement questioned over this brouhaha and THE INTERNET WASN'T EVEN ONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. That's the only evidence you need about how someone can flare up over even a meek request if it cuts across what they think they're entitled to.
― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 14:51 (ten years ago) link
Not sure who has suggested confrontation. Wouldnt do it myself, as a white man who can lift boxes ad grow a beard and everything.
― mister borges (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:01 (ten years ago) link
There have been lots of responses along the lines of "Why didn't she just ask them to stop? Why can't she deal with the problem face-to-face? It's so passive-aggressive to appeal to authority" and so on, FYI.
― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:03 (ten years ago) link
I think the internet needs a refresher course on what passive-aggressive actually means.
― karl lagerlout (suzy), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:07 (ten years ago) link
the only thing "wrong" she did was not follow the guidelines stated by PyCon for reporting harassing behavior, yet PyCon staff still were able to handle the situation
This wouldn't even be a story if dude's company hadn't decided to terminate his employment, a decision Adria Richards neither forced them into nor publicly cosigned; in fact, she publicly stated she disagreed with dude's termination. This, of course, did not stop the braying horde from holding her personally responsible for dude losing his job, a mob so hopped up on their desire to take this woman down a peg that when dude identified himself and apologized publicly to her for offending her, they turned on him and started calling him names for the crime of showing empathy and remorse.
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:09 (ten years ago) link
Yeah, in addition to all the victim-blaming there was more than a touch of 'she's uppity' - particularly by the woman who wrote about working with her on another conference.
― karl lagerlout (suzy), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:14 (ten years ago) link
^^^^ was gonna say there's a massive section of the tech commentariat who seem to be suffering intellectual blue-balls right now cos they're not "allowed" to say the word "uppity" and yet are so clearly desperate to do so.
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:16 (ten years ago) link
lol I had written "this uppity woman" and then took it out because I didn't think it needed spelling out
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:18 (ten years ago) link
I'll join ye happily in arguin against the entire disgusting internet, yknow
― mister borges (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:19 (ten years ago) link
spelling out the obvious is my stock in trade, Dan...
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:23 (ten years ago) link
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:18 AM (6 hours ago)
this is still sort of my thing (i don't care about the picture thing, i think it's weird but i don't think it was 'wrong') - are we outraged because he said something sexist or because he broke the sacred rule of tech conferences, which we all care so deeply about. i suppose the answer for most is 'both' but my position was always "oh, that's the comment that started all this?"
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 3 April 2013 17:37 (ten years ago) link
My degree of offense to what he said is immaterial. The bigger point is that this specific conference had set out explicit rules of conduct precisely because it wanted to be run as a welcoming, inclusive event and this dude with his dumb comments broke them. She was well within her right to report him and the blowback she got as a result is ridiculous.
― the pheromones of hot clothing (DJP), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 17:48 (ten years ago) link
i mean what if one of the rules of the tech conference was u had to wear a tie if youre a guy. it'd seem p drastic to report them for breaking the rules. so the whole "she was just alerting the proper authorities to rule breakers" is kind of a red herring; the issue is whether dongle jokes are particularly oppressive. given that i'm approaching this issue from a position of privilege i could respect the opinion of someone else who finds it not OK. i just probably wouldn't want to hang out with adria she seems like kind of a drag tbh
xp
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 3 April 2013 17:51 (ten years ago) link
excellent! another priceless white guy perspective!!
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 17:52 (ten years ago) link