Women and TLUG - a personal rant

[Dave Cramer]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Randy Jonasz <rjonasz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 14-01-16 11:01 AM, Matt Seburn wrote:
>
>> This thread is absurd to me.  Count me as one of those put off enough by
>> what I see here to consider TLUG utterly useless.
>>
>> I attended one meeting years ago, and felt so unwelcome that I haven't
>> been back since.  Heckling was an issue, but I chose not to come back
>> because the group felt very unwelcoming.  It felt like I had walked into a
>> clique of people who had known each other for years and had no interest in
>> letting newcomers into the group.  I tried to follow along to the
>> post-meeting social time (hoping that I'd have better luck socializing
>> there), but everyone walked ahead of me and occasionally looked back to
>> glare at me until I gave up and left.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who
>> has had an experience like this.
>>
>> I stayed on the list because of the useful and interesting discussion,
>> but now I'm reconsidering that decision.  I see a group of people condoning
>> sexual harassment, and prioritizing the harasser's "right" to harass above
>> others' right to not be harassed.  This is absurd to me. Free speech does
>> not mean you have the right to say whatever you want without consequences.
>>  You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you can't sexually harass
>> people.  Both actions can and often do have serious consequences, and for
>> good reason.
>>
> I'll limit my response to William's comment.  No one but maybe a first
> year philosophy student would argue free speech should not have any limits.
>  The question involves what those limits are.  If someone incited hatred to
> a group or an individual by her actions then we must act to prevent that
> from occurring because the behaviour is injuring someone else's ability to
> pursue her life's goals.  In my opinion William's comment does not come
> close to that.  It was a crude comment which belies a distasteful
> sentiment. If you find his comments distasteful then filter his messages to
> the trash bin or express your distaste to him or both.  I worked on an
> assembly line in  a factory in Ontario while in university.  The
> sensibilities there were completely different.  Women and men engaged in
> sexual innuendo usually deriving from stereotypes zestfully.  There was no
> consideration of it being harassment. Everyone smiled or rolled their eyes
> and played along.  The consequences of free speech  does involve tolerating
> distasteful speech in the sense of allowing the perpetrator freedom to
> offend. The consequences of giving offence can be manifold, not to mention
> being ostracized from the group.  But to silence him or her in the name of
> social justice is wrong in my opinion as it limits all our speech and gives
> precedence for further reductions in the space we have for self expression.
>  The nanny state of modern liberalism must be curtailed.
>
>
As I said free speech is accorded to you in public. While this list is
publicly available it is not a public list. There is a requirement to join
it. If you want put your own website up and publish your own views feel
free. I'll defend your right to do so.
I'd also like to remind everyone that this is a view into the linux world
for which we should be ambassadors. I personally make my living from and
around the linux ecosystem, and to have derogatory views associated with my
name through this list will damage my ability to do so.
Given that; I cannot abide this notion of free speech on this list.

I don't mind if it is off topic, but if you wouldn't say it in front of
your grandmother please keep it to yourself. And if you would say the
things that were said in front of your grandmother than I'd vote for
banning you.

Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140116/c145bae4/attachment.html>