> She never exchanged a word with the men.
Anyone got a source for those claims? I thought her actions were undefendable the way she described them, but this would make it a whole different beast. And thanks to a lack of sources at the pastebin I don't know if that's true or made up (and I hadn't seen those mentioned anywhere so far).
I stood up slowly, turned around and took three, clear photos. I said back down, did another gut check and started composing a tweet. Three things came to me: act, speak and confront in the moment. I decided to do things differently this time and didn’t say anything to them directly.
The true "forking" meaning was described in the HN post by the one who was fired.
Kinda hard to parse but I assume the guy is one of the two.
Thanks for the forking info
Here's a repo for my hackerspace's website. At the top right of the page is the word "fork".
https://github.com/heatsynclabs/new-hsl
It's worth pointing out that Adria isn't a developer, and might not have realized that this wasn't a sex joke, he was talking about flattering somebody by forking their git repo.
So yes, "I want to fork his repo" is a phrase that can definitely be taken to be sexual in meaning, depending on context and tone of voice.
> The fact is, the way language is interpreted by the listener is far more important than how it was meant by the speaker.
This is absurd to the point that I call Poe's Law.
Nearly ALL language can be "offensive" in some way shape or form. Someone saying they are "offended" literally means nothing. Intent matters. A lot.
Now, couple intent with offense and you have something.
To make up something completely on the spot, imagine it is an equation: offended = O, not offended = NO, intended offense = IO, no intended offense = NIO.
NO + NIO = most civil dialogue.
O + NIO = mistake. Someone should speak up and say something.
O + IO = someone being a jerk, actively trying to hurt someone.
NO + IO = someone trying to be a jerk, the other person realizing it and not letting them do it (among other options here).
What happened here was O + NIO. No mature, rational person's first reaction in that situation is to go nuclear. A mature, rational person will A. ignore it and move on B. explain their offense C. note it, mull it over, look for future conversation to explain their side D. ignore it but use it as a teaching tool (in the abstract) if they have a platform (among other options, but those encompass most. How one chooses to react depends on many variables). Now, if someone takes the time to be mature and rational and actually explain their offense AND THEN the other side continues, well, then the equation has changed. What should have happened (best case) would be a civil dialogue explaining the offense. What should have happened (bare minimum) was anonymous reporting to pycon. What should not have happened was what happened.
So, to sum it up, someone's interpretation is only one side of the equation. To say it is "far more important" is, frankly, absurd.
As I said, I didn't want to take sides. My comment was purely addressing the idea that, because the speaker did not intend the comment to be sexual in nature, that means it was a "fabrication". I do agree with you that the appropriate course of action was to speak to the two men and ask them to cut out the comments.
That said, I disagree with your absolutist position. Yes, anything you say could potentially be considered offensive by someone, but that's not the point. The point is whether it could reasonably be considered offensive by a reasonable person. And yes, I'd have to say that saying "I want to fork his repo", followed up by "large dongle" phallus jokes, is a reasonable candidate to be considered offensive by someone.
If you understand something some way and can't be certain that what you understood is what was meant and go on to tell everyone what you understood instead of verbatim what was said, than yes, that is a fabrication in my book.
See, you didn't say that the first time. You said "the way listener interpreted the language was far more important". No caveats, no stipulations. Simply adding the word "reasonable" changes nearly everything about what you said. Doesn't make it more right, just makes it less wrong ;)
> And yes, I'd have to say that saying "I want to fork his repo", followed up by "large dongle" phallus jokes, is a reasonable candidate to be considered offensive by someone.
By someone, not by most reasonable people at a pycon conference. Even so, I'm sure a single reasonable person (which Adria has NOT shown herself to be, btw) might get offended by that. So I'll ask. So what? Is personal offense now the benchmark by which we judge what one can and cannot say?
> By someone, not by most reasonable people at a pycon conference.
Who are you to judge that? If I were sitting in front of those two guys I would have been made uncomfortable by the large dongle jokes, and I'm a straight white male, just like them.
> Is personal offense now the benchmark by which we judge what one can and cannot say?
In a professional setting? Yeah. Don't say things that you believe may offend your listeners. Setting and context matters. If you know the people you're talking to, you can probably judge what is and isn't ok to say. But if you're sitting in the middle of a sea of people, listening to a talk, then you don't know your listeners, and what's more, whatever you say is going to impede the ability of the people around you to listen to the speaker. Absolutely not the right time to start saying potentially offensive stuff.
As for the last point I am pretty sure she herself admitted that she wasn't in the mood to argue with anyone so she just took the picture instead of confronting them about their comments.