Debugging conference anti-harassment policies [LWN.net]

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 23:26 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies by jordanb
Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

> Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?

Banning such images is probably inappropriate, but using them should certainly been seen as insensitive.

That doesn't mean that speakers should be afraid of offending the sensibilities of some unknown member of the audience, but a little caution is appropriate. Any speaker who wants to be heard needs to give careful thought about how to present - not just what to present. When a speaker does over-step a boundary, a simple polite complaint and a simple apology should be the end of it.

The real problem here isn't the original offense - it is that fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other.

(Log in to post comments)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 0:47 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]

"[the problem is the] fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other."

Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 2:19 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

> Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

I assume you mean "you said:
Other people cannot reasonably have different standard to me
or
a community doesn't need people to make concessions to each other"

Obviously no-one said those things explicitly.
However when someone says something like "I cannot see why anyone would be bothered by that" (when people clearly were bothered) it comes very close to rejecting people with different standards.
And when someone says that people who are bothered should just get over it, or walk out, or whatever, it comes very close to rejecting the need to make concessions.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 12:43 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]

"... However, when someone says something like ..."

The difference between what these people said, and what you said they said, is the qualification/specificity. No one said "there exist no other reasonable standards". They suggested that some particular standard may not be reasonable. No one said "people don't need to make concessions". They suggested only that some particular concessions should not be made.