Apparently We're Not Ready to Be Adults About Anything | Hacker News Reader

Apparently We're Not Ready to Be Adults About Anything

chriszf.posterous.com

19 pointsdavj9 comments

I'm sick of these "oooh no dick jokes" and "political correctness" fascism applied everywhere.

Come on, there's a difference between saying a woman directly to the face that you'd like to bang her, and to make jokes about sex in a group of people.

This whole mess of "oh we have to be politically correct in any f*ing way to avoid lawsuits" has spread from the US to Europe. 1984 anyone? I'm free to think what I want and to make jokes to my friends about topics I want. Without any PC-fascists interfering and waffling about stuff they have no business at.

This does not mean that I dislike women in tech or think of them as free-for-all or whatever stupid cliché. I don't give a shit about boobs or dicks, I care about how _good_ someone is at his job only. As we all should. We have to take care of paying everyone equal, not firing people because they're LGBT (Don't ask, don't tell dropping was a first step, yay) and to eliminate _any_ gender or sexual related discrimination.

i don't think fascism means what you think it means.

In Germany the term "Feminazis" or similar is used as a (offensive) title for extreme feminists (which we unfortunately have a lot of!).

Nothing against feminism, but it has more and more turned into a war on men.

quite familiar with the term. That doesn't make these folks who are upset with the issue the same as those folks who you are referencing. IMO it is quite unfair to link them.

EDIT: there are extremes in every viewpoint, and there are probably some people who actually do dislike men. But does that really make it ok to bring it up in this context due to all evidence to the contrary in the tech fields?

> "oh we have to be politically correct in any fing way to avoid lawsuits"

Let's parse this out a little more. "We must act to avoid lawsuits." Or put another way, "We must not do things for which we might be sued." Or put another way, "We must, individually, avoid the risk of making people uncomfortable here at their place of work where they are contractually obligated to be so that they will not sue us and win."

Some of you may know this concept as fascism.

I think this issue has been so inflammatory because it covers a lot of sensitive topics.

- Women in one of the last male dominated tech fields - Privacy between two people having a conversation - The ramifications stories can have in todays twitter world (i.e. getting fired over hearsay)

There are so many issues one could discuss its difficult to know where to start. On one hand no one really knows exactly what joke was said except for those three individuals involved. At the same time while innocent until proven guilty, no one wants to be painted as unsympathetic to womens plight against sexism in the tech field.

Then there is the issue about whether its acceptable to assume there is a right not to be offended. One persons dongle joke is another person 'trigger'. Is it understandable that some individuals feel threatened by the heavy handed consequences that can come with what is assumed (rightly or wrongly) to be general conference chit chat.

Why is it that as a Muslim I have no right to be offended when people make jokes or down right derogatory comments about Islam (which are protected by the oft affirmed free speech shield) yet this person was allowed to be offended and seek retribution for a comment that she heard.

It's an interesting situation thats for sure.

No one has a "right" not to be offended insofar as such would trump any right to freedom of speech. That said, any company under the current circumstances has a "right" to fire an employee who might afford them negative attention one way or the other, and certainly under the conditions of sexual harassment.

Please note, I am not saying that I agree the company should have done so, merely that they likely have the right.

reminds me of a quote... 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry

Note that "free speech" is aimed at the government restricting your speech. Individuals and private venues are not required to provide free speech. (In your home, your newspaper, your website or your hotel you can restrict speech in any way you want.)

> ... yet this person was allowed to be offended and seek retribution for a comment that she heard.

The conference had a clear well thought out policy which they followed. Someone making derogatory comments about religion (yours or anyone elses) would also have been relevant to the code of conduct. Note they want the conference to be for everyone and encourage contacting staff. I have yet to see anyone faulting pycon. https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/

Generally everyone has the right to be offended for any reason. The issue is what they can expect others to do about it. You would have every right to kick people out of your house, the supermarket could use their own discretion and pulling Fox News from the air would be a dangerous precedent. On the whole I think the US is better off because of free speech, but like with things that can be used for good it can also be used for bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com