| |||||||||||||
Debugging conference anti-harassment policiesDebugging conference anti-harassment policiesPosted Feb 1, 2011 1:16 UTC (Tue) by cjb (guest, #40354)In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies by MisterIO Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
Intelligent people would go for the "as much freedom as it's possible" kind of approach, on the other hand people with problems would go for the "let's censor every kind of offending words or thoughts"Wow, so people who agree with you are "intelligent" and people who disagree with you "have problems"? How convenient!
(Log in to post comments)
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:27 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
In the Middle Ages women accused of being witches were burned at the stake. That was horrible and due to the censors of the time, the inquisitors and the stupid people who supported them and the church, that is almost averyone. Is this subjective or objective? Is there any difference now just because I'm talking about the current times instead of the past? Remember that we're talking about speeches. There is absolutely no good reason for any kind of censorship in speeches, whatsoever! But if you prefer censorship, try at least to have some coherence.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:34 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
Now I'm going somewhat offtopic, but just to put this into perspective: look at that guy who put that book on amazon which was about pedophilia and was arrested for that. The argument of the book was horrible, but it still was just a book and he was arrested for that?! You should try to consider the times we're in and if we really need some more censorship than we already have.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:45 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
You're right, it's obscene that a privately run conference should have any right to interfere with what potential speakers are able to say in front of their audience. We should abolish the paper selection committee forthwith and force speakers to engage in a battle to the death to obtain one of the available slots.
More seriously. There's a great deal of censorship involved in the entire process of running an event like this. Abstracts that aren't deemed "interesting" don't get picked. Speakers that have proven problematic in the past are likely to be frowned upon. Though I don't believe it's ever happened at LCA, it's plausible that speakers might be ejected from the conference for unrelated reasons before they have an opportunity to present. But you know what's wonderful about free speech? Anyone unable to present their opinions can choose to do so elsewhere, and anyone interested in those opinions can view them there. Crying "censorship" the moment someone is taken to task for breaching a policy that was voluntarily implemented by the conference organisers is ignoring the reality of the situation - to wit, speakers have never been at liberty to say whatever they want to, and likely never will be at this kind of event.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 1, 2011 3:25 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
Oh, come on! Sure, we can do this game for fun, but that's it. Censorship isn't as ambiguosly defined as you imply. By the way, these last messages you commented on weren't directly related to conferences, I was merely answering to this comment "Wow, so people who agree with you are "intelligent" and people who disagree with you "have problems"? How convenient!", trying to explain why I took that approach about censorship.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 2, 2011 3:52 UTC (Wed) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link] We should abolish the paper selection committee forthwith and force speakers to engage in a battle to the death to obtain one of the available slots.Do I detect sarcasm? You say that as if you believe the idea has no merit!
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 3, 2011 16:53 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
> In the Middle Ages women accused of being witches were
> burned at the stake.
(Completely Off-Topic)
No, they were NOT. This happened in the Renaissance and later!
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:04 UTC (Thu) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
And mostly where the power structure of the church had broken down and the new protestant churches hadn't gained ascendancy much. The whole witch-burning-myth is part and parcel with a whole lot of other 19th century myths that have been accepted as truth, from primary school books up to university lecturers, but which aren't true. The kalevala, kilts, ravens at the tower, Columbus being persecuted by the inquisition and so on. "The Invention of Tradition" by Hobshawn and Ranger is a really interesting read.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 11, 2011 8:32 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
> "The Invention of Tradition" by Hobshawn and Ranger
> is a really interesting read.
Many thanks, I immediately got it and am reading it right now.
|
|||||||||||||