Comments on: The GoGaRuConf Pr0n Affair Rhinos vs Rabbits and A Challenge

By: togakangaroo

togakangaroo — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:39:40 +0000

@Piglet That is indeed yet another issue and I only did not approach it from that angle because I wanted to be more general. I think Martin’s argument would apply just as well if you replaced “being offensive” with “making people uncomfortable”.

It is irrelevant whether events should make you feel uncomfortable, the fact that making you uncomfortable is an undesirable outcome is enough. We are a tech community and we should not be excluding potential contributors. My corollary still applies though. No one wants you to feel excluded so we can work on not making you feel uncomfortable and you can whittle away from the other end.

By: Piglet

Piglet — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:27:53 +0000

Calling it ‘offensive’ misses the point. It made some of the extremely few women in the audience uncomfortable because it highlighted (as if they needed reminding) that they were not the audience. They (we) are ‘other’, not-men, and not part of the crowd.

By: Phil Shreckengast

Phil Shreckengast — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:42:01 +0000

I had a long thought on this but I’ll try to summarize: I’d like there is a difference between material that is offensive per se, and material that may or may not make a significant group of people uncomfortable. When I think of something really “offensive”, I think of one person walking up to another and calling them some form of racial slur. That is offensive, without argument.

Now, when we consider pornography being shown to a large group of people who aren’t expecting it, I think we are talking about something else entirely. That is, they are being made uncomfortable, they didn’t expect it, and they wish it wouldn’t happen again.

Concluding – this is why I agree with George. He’s not sitting here defending outrageous hateful acts or anything like that – he is saying that some things that make some uncomfortable make others laugh, or simply roll their eyes, or whatever. We are mature enough to discuss such occurrences without flat out labeling it “offensive” and getting upset. I.E. the immature thing here is for either side to refuse to discuss the issue.

Now, If I ever end up in grad school I’ll make this into a dissertation.

By: togakangaroo

togakangaroo — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:13:48 +0000

@rhino_hater I wasn’t sure whether to allow your comment or whether it was trolling. Then I saw the email you left and am thinking that you are probably joking. Either way, “not offended because you [are being offensive]“? That doesn’t really follow at all does it? Also things are not funny just because they are offensive – Carlos Mencia for example is awful.

@Adrian I agree that it wasn’t particularly funny, I said this when I mentioned that I agree with Martin and in my reply to JD’s comment. In my opinion it also wasn’t horribly offensive – it was fairly eye-rolling and tepid. But that is only my opinion, I know this.

The specifics of the presentation is completely besides the point of my challenge however, this affair is just an excuse to talk bout a far more interesting issue. I am challenging people on all sides of the inappropriateness controversy to agree that just maybe they are not 100% correct.

By: rhino_hater

rhino_hater — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:56:31 +0000

maybe you are not offended because most of the time your one offending. it shows when you said that making this offenses is actually pretty funny -> “a lot of this stuff is actually pretty funny”.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:42:02 +0000

I didn’t see the presentation in person, but the slides were not funny (regardless of how appropriate they were). The analogy was weak, and after a few slides the joke was completely predictable. Plus, “pr0n”? Don’t people outgrow that particular conceit sometime during puberty?

Perhaps if the presentation had been as funny as Bill Hicks or George Carlin, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal.

By: togakangaroo

togakangaroo — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:03:03 +0000

@JD You’re right, the implication is there. I did not intend it but it is there. As I said, I actually agree that the presentation was fairly inappropriate for the context.

I do not want to comment on this presentation specifically or on gender, or on the Ruby community – I don’t have anything new to say in that regard. The point that I want to make is that this controversy is not a one-way street. It is not just that some people need to be more sensitive, everyone has work to do. Everyone.

By: JD

JD — Fri, 01 May 2009 23:54:09 +0000

I’m also as thick skinned as they come, but I think you completely missed the point in one important regard.

In telling the offended people to go and watch Carlin or Hicks, you’re making a couple of unwarranted assumptions. One, that the cause of the offense was the material and that the fragile minds of those offended must have never seen the likes of George Carlin.

I doubt that’s true. Nobody cares about seeing a little skin. What made people uncomfortable was that it was wildly inappropriate in the context of a professional conference. It’s fairly certain that some of the people complaining are fans of George Carlin, Bill Hicks, even pornography. They just don’t want to see it in this context.

When you say something like, “you in the meantime should watch George Carlin”, you’re implying that it is impossible for someone to find Carlin both hysterically funny in a stand up comedy show, and offensively inappropriate were he working in a rape crisis center, an abortion clinic, or to a much much lesser extent, giving a talk at a software conference.