| |||||||||||||
Debugging conference anti-harassment policiesDebugging conference anti-harassment policiesPosted Feb 3, 2011 2:44 UTC (Thu) by ofeeley (guest, #36105)In reply to: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies by paulj Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies
I read Dave Neary's comment as saying that it all depends on the context _and_ that it's irrelevant what we're all individually happy with or not: If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.
I'm not arguing against your own assessment of the annoyance. I have, personally, been both annoyed and also amused by Paddy jokes. It all depends on context: my friends can make them, others can't. I can imagine that it's much worse for someone with a more immediate source of unease.
I personally enjoyed Pesce's talk and wasn't in the least offended by it and was a bit surprised at the furore after I'd read the notes and viewed the slides, so probably it's useful for me that an explicit policy exists to let me be aware that some other people feel very differently.
That said, I do wonder where is the logical endpoint of avoiding offense once it's spelt out as a quasi-legal policy instead of being a set of cultural norms? The subjective nature of determining whether offense has been given (or was intended to be given) makes this very grey territory and the language[1] of the generic anti-harrasment policy enters boldly into this at several points, e.g. "Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment." Who exactly determines what is "sexualized clothing"? Is this according to Western norms? Do we accomodate the viewpoints of members of various Judaeo-Christian religions of a more conservative type?
A glib answer that it's the conference organizers who make the determination does nothing to answer the core question. On the whole this seems like a poor candidate to choose in order to exercise a policy which was initially debated[2] in the context of stopping the problem of women being "stalked, leered at, and physically assaulted at conferences".
1. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_...
(Log in to post comments)
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 10, 2011 0:52 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.I think this is a key point. Different people have different standards of offensiveness, and we need to keep that in mind when deciding what we want to say and do. And, perhaps more important, it is the role of the listener, not the speaker, to decide if speech is offensive. If a substantial group of people* thinks that something is offensive, then it is offensive even if the speaker meant it innocently, though I would hope that innocent intent- and a good apology- would be enough to mollify an offended minority. That said, it's possible to get carried away with trying to avoid offense. It's important to be a welcoming community, but it's also important to have room for open debate and honest differences of opinion. You don't want to become so sensitive that you let people use pretend outrage as an excuse to shut down opinions they don't like. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance- it doesn't sound as though anyone objects to Mr. Pesce's opinions, just his way of getting them across- but it is something to guard against. *Exactly what "substantial" means is obviously open to debate. I think it depends on the nature of the offensive content, and on the group that's being offended. If the offensive behavior has a target (e.g. sexually suggestive pictures of women or ethnic jokes), a large minority of the target group is substantial even if- maybe even especially if- they're a tiny fraction of the whole population.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 10, 2011 10:08 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link]
> If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then
> it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.
Well, I find talk like this offensive. This is no joke. Political correctness offends me more than even many direct personal attacks. I would be contradicting myself asking for banning of correctness on the basis that it offends me - but well, perhaps I will start doing so anyway because hypocrites might not be able to comprehend the absurdity.
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 10, 2011 14:06 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?
Debugging conference anti-harassment policies Posted Feb 12, 2011 8:04 UTC (Sat) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]
"So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?"
Are you really trying to hit all the logical fallacies in the book ?
|
|||||||||||||