Women and TLUG - a personal rant

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott wrote:

> William is Free to say what he wishes.
[...]
> If I didn't support free speech, as an operator of the list I
> could simply ban the parties involved and remove the messages from
> our archive. That is Censorship.

Yes, moderating a list treads the fine line of censorship. We're all
free to make our own choices (list operators included), but if that
kind of "free speech" is the norm on the list then I choose to remove
myself.

If strict behaviour is enforced by banning someone then only that one
person is inconvenienced, allowing the majority of the list members to
enjoy the benefits of having a list. But if one person's behaviour or
language drives everyone else away then nobody benefits.

I'm not a list moderator, so I was out of line in telling William not
to repeat such language. For that I apologize to Scott.

- --Bob.



On 14-01-16 12:40 AM, Scott Sullivan wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 10:12 PM, Randy Jonasz wrote:
>> On 14-01-15 09:55 PM, Colin McGregor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:15 PM, William Park
>>> <opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org <mailto:opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org>> wrote: 
>>> For example, if SAP were to present at TLUG and give free
>>> samples of their software, I'd bet women would be more than
>>> happy to come in garter belt and sucking on their favourite
>>> dildos.  I would attend, too, only because I normally have to
>>> pay to see that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> William,
>>> 
>>> Sigh, the above sort of comment is part of the problem, not
>>> part of the solution...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Colin.
>> 
>> I must admit William's comment took me by surprise and shocked
>> me. But in a free society where free speech is lauded and
>> exported beyond our borders I must disagree with the
>> condemnations.  Are we to censor ourselves so only anodine speech
>> is acceptable?  Free speech involves the freedom to be offended.
>> If William wishes to represent himself as someone who objectifies
>> women as sexual objects so be it.  Although he has my
>> condolences.  Poor taste and a lack of judgement is no excuse
>> for censorship.
> 
> Well, this an interesting example case.
> 
> William is Free to say what he wishes.
> 
> Likewise others are Free to say that they feel his behaviour is
> not acceptable.
> 
> Free speech is simply letting both side stand in the light and
> allow those with brains in their heads to consider and make their
> own opinions.
> 
> If I didn't support free speech, as an operator of the list I
> could simply ban the parties involved and remove the messages from
> our archive. That is Censorship.
> 
> It is now and always will be William's choice in what he says. It
> is also his choice to consider how what he has said will reflect on
> his character and influence how one may choose, or choose not to
> interact with him in the future. This cuts in both directions for
> all parties on this list and is not a zero sum game.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAlLXjrwACgkQuRKJsNLM5erkuACfa8+p13oukaZBkmAezZ29eMcI
gKsAnRV6sbueEWI29iSXZTK9lOWbUv6G
=Jg6v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists