Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk

Weezul writes "The Ada Initiative's Valerie Aurora got Violet Blue's Hackers As A High-Risk Population (29c3 abstract) talk on harm reduction methodology pulled from the Security BSides meeting in San Francisco by claiming it contained rape triggers [ed note: you might not want to visit the main page of the weblog as it contains a few pictures that might be considered NSFW in more conservative places]. It's frankly asinine to object to work around hacker ethics as 'off topic' at such broad hacker conference. Is Appelbaum's 29c3 keynote 'off topic' for asking hackers to work for the 'good guys' rather than military, police, their contractors, Facebook, etc.? Yes, obviously harm reduction is a psychological hack that need not involve a computer, but this holds for 'social engineering' as well. It's simply that hacking isn't nearly as specialized or inaccessible as say theoretical physics. Worse, there is no shortage of terrible technology laws like the CFAA, DMCA, etc. that exist partially because early hackers failed to communicate an ethics that seemed coherent and reasoned to outsiders." The Ada Initiative responds that such talks do more harm than good. It could also be argued that "not working for the bad guys" type talks aren't off-topic, since the hacker community has traditionally cared about things like information freedom.

Comments

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a rape trigger?

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

People who survive rape sometimes have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which includes an extreme sensitivity to anything reminding them of their experience (like a rape victim who later sees a rape scene in a movie). There's a growing consensus that, in some circumstances, warning people of potential triggers is considered polite, at least, to give them a chance to avoid it.

Re:What?

[h4rr4r]

There is no consensus that we should ban anything in public that might trigger this though. I don't see how this leads to banning a talk, if you think it might trigger your PTSD just don't attend.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape Trigger?

That can't be right

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2010-07-14-roy-rogers-horse_N.htm

Re:What?

[gandhi_2]

Man, go read the post.

http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/44107008572/what-happened-with-my-security-bsides-talk

Basically, if someone wants to shut you down, they can use anything sex-related as a weapon. And if anyone disagrees, you become the enemy.

Violet Blue got shut down because the presentation *mentioned* the sex.

And if you ever disagree with someone who claims to be sensitive to the topic (abuse survivor), then you are worse than hitler.

Outrage is called for.

Re:What?

[Trepidity]

If you mean banned by the government, sure, it shouldn't be. The argument, though, is that technical conferences should, in the sense of "the Ada Initiative thinks this is a best practice to follow", minimize triggering PTSD in unnecessary ways, especially those which might also fall disproportionately on some demographic groups. The Ada Initiative is a private organization that publishes some opinions on the subject, and publishes arguments in support of their opinions.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

By "growing consensus", you mean a large amount of tumblr users.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine and all, but if you read the story, it becomes readily apparent that the "rape triggers" concern was merely a contrivance used in a premeditated plan to have the talk pulled.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

Well, we didn't ban anything. The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that. Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up. So the rep from the Ada Initiative talks to the organizers, mentions this and their specific concerns that content of the talk (like use of GHB for sex) could trigger rape victims, and the organizers pull the plug because they're appropriately risk averse on this topic.

So who blew it? The Ada Initiative did by not approaching Violet Blue beforehand. Violet Blue is trained as a crisis counselor and has worked with rape victims. She knows the issues. They could have worked out a way to present the talk without triggering content and with sensitivity to the concern that discussing sex with a room full of geeks could have a negative impact on the women at the conference.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between a governmental ban and an organizational ban. One is public policy and the other is just some dood trying to keep peace. Did he make the right call? Who knows. Did he have the mental tools at his disposal to deal with this topic (which seems fairly different from the other presentations at the conference)? Probably not.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Violet Blue and would love to hear her talk but perhaps ADA has a point. Violet Blue on sex is not what I would expect to hear at a technical conference.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

The Ada Initiative didn't know about the talk until a few hours before it happened, like everyone else. There was no premeditation, and no conspiracy to silence Violet Blue or an interesting talk.

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

So who blew it? The Ada Initiative did by not approaching Violet Blue beforehand.

If the talk should not have been cancelled then the fault lies with the person who made the decision to cancel the talk, period the end. You can't permit people to foist responsibility off onto groups because of your personal biases, that only leads to cognitive dissonance. The Ada Initiative did not make the decision to cancel the talk, they only advised doing such. You can scowl at them all you want, but it's still not their fault.

There's things I don't like about the Ada Initiative, like their high and mighty tone. But that still doesn't mean that they cancelled this talk, or that they are responsible for the cancellation of this talk. Blame the decision-maker, not the advisor. Our failure to do that as a species is one of the things that keeps us in a condition of suffering.

Re:What?

[wisnoskij]

But they should NOT. That is ridiculous. If someone is so emotionally scared than a person of the gender that raped them, bumping into them in the conference is probably just as likely if not more likely to make them uncomfortable.

If you are a psychological wreck and need others to work around your weaknesses then go live in a padded white room in an asylum.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we didn't ban anything. The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that. Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up. So the rep from the Ada Initiative talks to the organizers, mentions this and their specific concerns that content of the talk (like use of GHB for sex) could trigger rape victims, and the organizers pull the plug because they're appropriately risk averse on this topic.

So who blew it? The Ada Initiative did by not approaching Violet Blue beforehand. Violet Blue is trained as a crisis counselor and has worked with rape victims. She knows the issues. They could have worked out a way to present the talk without triggering content and with sensitivity to the concern that discussing sex with a room full of geeks could have a negative impact on the women at the conference.

No, you are being deceitful. The source in the title specifically says the organizers were informed that the Ada Intitiative would ".. make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”. This is different from simply 'mentioning' something as you state.

Please stop being deceitful, it makes you a harmful and bad person.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerdy con goers use weird and different drugs. Harm reduction is on topic anywhere drugs are being used by even 5% of the population. I've been going to hacker cons for over a decade and everyone i know there uses drugs. This rejects the common recreational use of GHB. The stigma of it as a "rape" drug is far overblown and just a tool prohibitionists use to co-opt feminism. Chloroform is equally useful as a rape drug, wait, i've seen that used recreationally at hacker cons. If you think GHB rape is rampant where is the data? Have you read the London drug rape study? No you haven't, drug rape is a myth. You clearly have no idea how much consensual drug use goes on at a con. Con attendees (hacker, sci-fi, anime, etc) use so many drugs.

Re:What?

[Trepidity]

That's an argument you can make. I think your position is unreasonable position, however, and that intelligent people should not adopt it. In particular, you seem consumed with some emotional anger yourself, and appear more interested in denigrating people who might have post-traumatic reactions, feverishly imagining how they should be committed to asylums, than in rationally analyzing the situation and developing sane conference policies.

Therefore, my personal conclusion is that someone designing a conference policy would be do better to read the Ada Initiative's well-argued opinion, and should not follow your rather poorly, emotionally-argued opinion. It's ultimately up to the conference organizers to decide what policies they wish to have, though.

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

Violet Blue got shut down because the presentation *mentioned* the sex.

Well no, it was entirely about sex and drugs, and not really about vulnerabilities at all, except maybe as a footnote to pretend to relevance.

Outrage is called for.

Maybe, I even think so, but not on the basis you suggest.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean banned by the government, sure, it shouldn't be. The argument, though, is that technical conferences should, in the sense of "the Ada Initiative thinks this is a best practice to follow", minimize triggering PTSD in unnecessary ways, especially those which might also fall disproportionately on some demographic groups. The Ada Initiative is a private organization that publishes some opinions on the subject, and publishes arguments in support of their opinions.

Men are disproportionately the victims of violence.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

But they should NOT. That is ridiculous. If someone is so emotionally scared than a person of the gender that raped them, bumping into them in the conference is probably just as likely if not more likely to make them uncomfortable.

If you are a psychological wreck and need others to work around your weaknesses then go live in a padded white room in an asylum.

I'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is some middle ground though. It is one thing if something central to your talk or point can cause people, that removing it would make a huge difference. It is another if the references are gratuitous, and easily removed or replaced and don't add much. In the later case, it seems appropriate for an organizer to ask them to make it more appropriate to the venue, or if there is a big problem in the former case, the organization saying they don't think the talk is appropriate to include in their function (neither of which is the same as banning from public).

In most fields, you wouldn't include a dirty, offensive joke as part of a professional, public presentation would you? That is not to say there isn't a place for dirty jokes, just not in a presentation where it can distract people from actual technical points (even if you don't care about being offensive or not... it can detract from conveying information when inappropriate).

I don't know how much applies to this case that seems rather indecipherable though...

Re:What?

[fuzzybunny]

Then say "we're not letting this person present because the subject is off-topic" not "we're not letting this person present because of "

Re:What?

[Hatta]

The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that.

OK, what is the good argument for that? It's certainly not the following.

Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.

That's a great reason to get it out in the open, talk about what's acceptable and what's not. Making sex an uncomfortable subject will only make men more uncomfortable which will make more "creepers". You don't fix problems by not talking about it.

What's the actual argument that talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances? Are there any such arguments that are not as easily deflected as the one above?

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

you're an idiot.

Perhaps, but at least he's an idiot with standards.

Re:What?

[beckett]

and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.

so the solution is not to talk about sexuality at all at conferences? If you feel the best way to deal with these "real problems" is to internalize the very issues you take a strong position against, that's fine. but to request someone "pull the plug" to a lecture at a technical symposium just because it disagrees with your political worldview is tantamount to burying your head in the sand becuase you don't like all the men at the beach. the sooner we can talk about sex like grownups, the sooner raise the bar of discussion past adolescence.

The cruelest lies are often told in silence. - Robert Lewis Stevenson.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

drugcon

Re:What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.

And that is supposed to mean that because there are people who got hurt, we stop discussing the problem in the public? How has that ever actually helped anybody?

Re:What?

[daem0n1x]

What the fuck is this summary about? I couldn't parse it...

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I buy that argument. Saying this as your stereotypical geeky nerd who immediately loses his shit when dealing with women, even by proxy. I know this, I'm not proud of it.

But the only way open to me is to kick myself in my metaphorical behind to get my shit together, and I can only do that when I understand what's going on. Without help this goes awry and takes months, even years, of agonizing and figuring out what the fsck went wrong, and why, and then there's how to fix it. My instincts and my intellect don't play well together, and it's the intellect that has to learn to deal with the instinct, because the other way around just doesn't work. I know, I tried.

So the argument is "keep'em ignorant because otherwise they might explore, and maybe things could possibly go wrong, potentially."

Lemme think about that for a microsecond.

No.

Hell no.

In this community full of smart people it's the knowing a little but only a little that's the most dangerous thing there is. Better to know all and develop the maturity to deal with it properly. Yeah, growing up is risky, things will go wrong. So what? We know how to deal with that. Better to have more people know more so they can help each other out, preferrably before they take things too far. It's what friends are for.

And in a more mature environment, hey, maybe more women will feel welcome enough to try this technology thing. Why not?

Where I think that argument is crap, I even more think the manipulation involved to get the talk pulled was shamefully disingenous. Thus, this bunch of holier-than-thou smartarses earned a label of issue-extremists, who'll stoop lower-than-thou to get their views imposed on everyone. Instant loss of moral superiority right there. Sod off with the stupidity-oozing agenda already.

Re:What?

[Runaway1956]

Well, it most certainly is not a "best practice", and damn the demographic group concerned. If this bullshit is acceptable, then we'll have to accept that a member of Race A might be "triggered" if exposed to a member of Race B. Or, a member or Religion Z, if exposed to a member of Religion Y. Or, Gender F, if exposed toa member of Gender M. And, actually, that is all it boils down to. Some bitch feminist didn't like this guy's talk, so she shut him down, with a threat to act hysterical if he were allowed to speak.

Re:What?

[wisnoskij]

I would argue that there is a huge wealth of evidence that informing people about sexual issues is preferable to not.

What the Ada initiative is arguing for is the abolishment of sex-ed, something that does actual damage in either high school or any culture that struggles with its sexuality.

They are also arguing for survivors of rape never hearing the terms sex, rape, or and related terms or content ever again. They are arguing for repression, when we know that in many cases these people need to talk about these issues and hear them discussed. Yes, it is important to be tactful and knowledgeable about how to go about talking about these subjects, even just for normal well adjusted people with no traumatic issues in their past. But an absolute repression of all content is 100 times worst for these victims than anything even the most callous person might say in front of them.

Re:What?

[jbmartin6]

I am designing a conference. How do I find out every thing that may or may not negatively affect some member of the audience and eliminate all of these things from conference presentations? The only way I can see is to have a society where no one says anything.

Re:What?

[Runaway1956]

Except - this story in no way suggests anything that remotely resembles "sane conference policies".

This zany bitch threatened that she would be "triggered" by the gentleman if he spoke. "Triggered". That is an aggressive word, not a defensive word. She threatened to go postal, if she didn't get her way. She committed an assault on the freedom of speech.

Re:What?

[jbmartin6]

You're right about Ada Initiative's response, worth reading. It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

The actual argument is the one I mentioned, though the argument is not that "talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances". If you find it easily deflected, then good for you.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some bitch feminist didn't like this guy's talk, so she shut him down, with a threat to act hysterical if he were allowed to speak.

Not guy. Girl.

Re:What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

...until a few hours before it happened, like everyone else There was no premeditation

I didn't know that premeditation had any time limit placed on it.

Re:What?

[Hatta]

The actual argument is the one I mentioned

But you said it was a good argument. Obviously it's not. Why do people act like it is? Are they stupid or malicious?

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

The Ada Initiative is NOT arguing for anything like what you say. Get your facts right.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

Does this style of interacting with people actually work for you?

Re:What?

[JeanCroix]

FYI, the talk was to be given by Violet Blue, who is certainly NOT a guy.

Re:What?

[Hatta]

though the argument is not that "talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances"

To clarify, I meant "is there an argument that any set of conditions exists where it is harmful to talk about sex openly". Ada is arguing that there is one such set of conditions, but their argument is easily dismissed with a moment of critical thinking. I was going further and asserting that no such argument exists and inviting someone to provide a counterexample.

Re:What?

[ElectricTurtle]

Additionally, since you seem not to know, the presenter, Violet Blue, is a woman, not a man.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead using some common sense? If something has a high chance of offending a number of people, while being minimally relevant to your conference (i.e. high risk, low gain), maybe it is better to find something else.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is supposed to mean that because there are people who got hurt, we stop discussing the problem in the public? How has that ever actually helped anybody?

It has been an effective strategy for the Catholic Church ...

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.

And that is supposed to mean that because there are people who got hurt, we stop discussing the problem in the public? How has that ever actually helped anybody?

No, it's supposed to mean that just because you have not been hurt in that particular manner, does not give you a right to be a sociopathic asshole about it to those that have.

Not that I agree with the Ada Initiative (much to the contrary), but OP is being a prick about it, and deserves to be called out. Honestly, the fact that such a hateful, self-absorbed post would be modded Insightful speaks volumes to the morality (or lack thereof) in today's world.

Re:What?

[Hatta]

You didn't answer the question. Is there a third explanation besides stupidity or maliciousness that can explain their behavior?

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

Also, you know - private group, no duty to 1st Amendment, they have the right to censor whatever they damn well please.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, that is the exact result of lobbying for removal of sexual discussion from public discourse. Apply logic.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. "Knees too pointy. Would not bang."

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

the geek commuinity doesn't have a problem with sexism, at least not more than the rest of society.

lawyers have problems with rape and sexual harrassment,.
politicians have problems with rape and sexual harrassment

football players have a problem with rape and sexual harrassment

executives have a problem with rape and sexual harrassment.

the "problem" that geeks have with sexual harrassment is projection by the rest of society, as one giant collective scape goat. We're the nice guys who take the fall for the abusive ex-boyfriends you eventually go back to.

the result is most geeks are affraid to approach women, and we get less women in the field purpatrated by negative stereotypes.

the ada iniative needs to be confronted. anti-sex feminists need to be confronted.

Hackers groups are outside the typical societies related to regulating computing. using this we all need to stand firm in solidarity. If the Ada initiative refuses to change, we need to start treating them like outsiders and kick them away from cons and talks.

the pro-sex feminists need to raiser there voices and join us. Anti-sex "feminists" are sexist themselves. there is no ifs ands and buts. Solidary needs to between everyone agrees that consent, and invidual rights over what any invidual does with their body trumph diguised moral panic, and tradional moralism, not people who share sex organs, or even sexual prefrence or identity.

Anyone who keeps repeating the misleading meme that hackers or geeks have a disproportionate problem with rape or sexual harrassment, is not only lying, but needs to be confronted

captcha: doomsday

Re:What?

[PartyBoy!911]

So the people who talk about rape all the time (Ada initiative) can't handle some nerd speaking about how bad date rape drugs are?

If you are correct in your assumption that this talk would trigger bad stuff in rape victims, then the same should apply to this very post.
So by your own reasoning your own posts and the attention you create by pulling this talk will harm many more rape victims than would be present in the room.

And why only woman victims? Is rape only done by men??? Or do you only care about women? If you only care about women, why should men care about you?

Re:What?

[Trepidity]

They aren't arguing for any of those things. Merely that technical conferences should not gratuitously include sexual or rape-related references when they aren't on-topic to the actual purpose of the conference. If you've been to any technical conferences, you'd realize this is a pervasive problem in a rather male-dominated, frattish industry, though it's been getting somewhat better lately (perhaps with the exception of game-industry conferences).

I don't see them arguing against sex education anywhere, or even entire sex-focused conferences.

Re:What?

[Eunuchswear]

drug rape is a myth.

Well, no it isn't.

The drug that's most often use is of course alcohol.

Re:What?

[frank_adrian314159]

There was no premeditation, and no conspiracy to silence Violet Blue or an interesting talk.

Yet that was what the first request was - silence the talk. Not a question of what was in the talk, not a request to speak with the presenter, but instead a request to shut it down. No, not a conspiracy, but something worse - a knee-jerk reaction that was honored as a "reasonable" request, causing a speaker to be silenced based on no evidence.

This was a really great way to make your point, Ada Initiative. As a person who supports the project's overall goals of fighting sexism in the high-tech community, I think that the person who requested this action is an utter moron who needs to be expunged from this group before she (or he - how would I know) does any more harm. If it happens to be the group's leader (as indicated in the article summary above), you need a new one.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

Here's a third explanation: your dismissal is facile and mistaken. It's not obvious that it's not a good argument. You might think it is; you might be wrong.

Re:What?

[Trepidity]

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't discuss the topic in public.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

I have. You're still wrong. They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons. It's fallacious to extend that to a general proscription on discussing sex.

Re:What?

[ElectricTurtle]

From what is known about the exchange it seems likely that the Ada Foundation was threatening the con organizers in some way with some kind of negative action if they didn't get what they wanted. The organizers were acting under a duress that the Ada Foundation's representatives/agents initiated. Faulting the Ada Foundation is not a blameshift if, as is apparently the case, the organizers would not have been faced with a negative future condition that would be created by the Ada Foundation if the organizers didn't act.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexism, creeping, and acting like a hormone-fueled 14 year old are not going to be addressed by talking about "sex under the effect of drugs." These are social/behavioral problems that have nothing to do with "sex," and everything to do with "learning how to behave like a functioning adult in a social setting where men and women are both present."

And let's be honest - if the talk HAD focused on "how to work with women without being a sexist jerk, a creep, or a ridiculous horny mess," you lot here on Slashdot would be whining and crying about:
1) Women trying to take over IT and politicize it;
2) Women trying to ruin some sort of pure "male" culture by injecting their estrogen into the geek world;
3) Women really secretly loving the attention because they dress like such whores;
4) Women deciding to pursue IT are just troublemakers, because they want the culture to change to include them, rather than just fitting in with all the boys;
5) It's not my fault I love to fuck but haven't had the chance;
6) If women don't like the negative attention, they should just avoid IT;

And the other million and one idiotic justifications the Slashdot readership manages to trot out every time there's an article about "women in IT" that suggests that the male-dominated culture in IT shops is unfriendly or actively hostile to women.

Re:What?

[h4rr4r]

Any sex content is hostile to women?
That is the most misogynistic thing I have heard all week.

You do know that women are as interested in sex as men, right?

You do realize that the treating them with kids gloves you are endorsing is exactly what people expect of geek groups right? It is the other side of the creepy fratboy coin. Same not treating them like real people BS.

Re:What?

[amicusNYCL]

It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.

That seems rather irrelevant since only the title of the talk, and not the abstract were known when the Ada Initiative sought to have the talk canceled. They didn't even know what the talk was about, and they didn't make an effort to talk to the speaker to figure out what it was about. In short, they didn't know if the talk was on-topic or not, and they just sort of assumed that a talk about sex was going to include "rape triggers".

Re:What?

[foofish]

Except - this story in no way suggests anything that remotely resembles "sane conference policies".

This zany bitch threatened that she would be "triggered" by the lady if she spoke. "Triggered". That is an aggressive word, not a defensive word. She threatened to go postal, if she didn't get her way. She committed an assault on the freedom of speech.

Fixed. The talk was actually being given by a woman, and according to her blog, the only mention of rape was a section on avoiding date rape drugs. So really, by blocking this talk, they kept rape prevention information out of the hands of potential victims.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for recreational use of drugs, but that doesn't require deny that there are issues with people misusing them and problems with non-consensual drug use. Being for use of drugs in all contexts or in no contexts are not the only two options, you can be for people being allowed to do what they want to their own body.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, "an annual meeting of the international hacker scene, organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues." is extremely specific context.

Repeating "it's technical conference, so no sex here!" is just an excuse, as CCC is no such thing. If Ada Initiative thinks "hackers === technical stuff" (note the ===), well, they should be educating themselves on hacker culture first before talking about women in hacker culture.

Re:What?

[Runaway1956]

LOL - for purposes of the argument, it doesn't matter that Violet is a gal. The feminist didn't like this WOMAN'S speech, and threatened to shut the conference down with a fit of hysteria. But, my bad - I let that slip, even after clicking the links. ;^)

Re:What?

[Hatta]

Great, now we're getting somewhere. What exactly did I miss about the argument? If I'm wrong, explain to me where. It's the only way I'll learn.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

The place to get somewhere was after my comment that we didn't ban anything. Your derail into "look how hostile I can be to the idea" has made me not give a shit about helping you learn.

Re:What?

[foofish]

Well, they used the line "vulnerabilities and exploits" in Violet Blue's abstract to suggest that the talk would be about how to exploit vulnerable people (Seriously? For a phrase that is THAT common in security circles?).

Even if that had been the topic of her talk, we all know that the best way to defend against an exploit is to just keep it a secret and hope that no one else knows about it.

Re:What?

[0xdeadbeef]

the fault lies with the person who made the decision to cancel the talk, period the end

Yeah, too bad that's bullshit. By that line of logic, we can't blame fundamentalist groups for pressuring stores into not selling what they don't like with boycotts, or for getting people fined by harassing the FCC. Don't be such a quisling, Mr. Poo.

We blame Valerie Aurora for being a censoring anti-feminist hypocrite.
We blame The Ada Initiative for not immediately firing Valerie Aurora and repudiating her actions.
And we blame the Security BSides people for being spineless.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great reason to get it out in the open, talk about what's acceptable and what's not.

And here is where you would run into problems with the nerd community. The second you tell them that joking about rape is usually a bad idea or that maybe, JUST MAYBE, they should not act like misogynists all the time, they will in fact lose their shit. I'm all for sensible discussion about things like this most of the time. However, my fellow male nerds as a group have shown that they are incapable of taking part in such a discussion in a mature fashion.

Re:What?

[wisnoskij]

Yes it is a specific context, ever context is specific. This woman is trying to educate hacker culture about sex and make it a more informed inclusive culture. She was completely willing to hold this as a after party, side event where you can go see it if you want to (similar, but more extreme, to kids opting out of sex-ed in highschool).

Re:What?

[cayenne8]

I'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.

Look, I understand that rape or any other assault is traumatic. That' a given, it is a horrible crime and should be punished.

That being said, it is a big world, and nasty shit happens. Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason?? I think not. If that person can't handle something, then they themselves can self censor what they see or hear. Anyone that can't handle rape talk, should not attend a talk that involves that, they shouldn't prevent other people from having said discourse on said subject.

I'm getting very tired in our current society of basing everyone on the LOWEST common denominator. Someone might be offended, be traumatized or be allergic to something, so the MAJORITY of people that these things have no effect on, must be deprived of these sights, sounds, smells, consumables to protect the very small minority that should just take their bodies and minds elsewhere so as not to be exposed.

Re:What?

[wisnoskij]

The talk very much was on-topic for the event and completely aimed at its specific audience, and was in no way gratuitous.

She presents talks "about sexuality at tech conferences all over the world", and has even used this exact talk before. And is even well known and respected enough to get a timeslot and stage in this event to talk.

Re:What?

[cayenne8]

They aren't arguing for any of those things. Merely that technical conferences should not gratuitously include sexual or rape-related references when they aren't on-topic to the actual purpose of the conference. If you've been to any technical conferences, you'd realize this is a pervasive problem in a rather male-dominated, frattish industry, though it's been getting somewhat better lately (perhaps with the exception of game-industry conferences).

How about some common sense, and rather than cater to a very small minority of people that might be offended and ban the talk altogether, to allow the talk and have a sign warning people that might be offended to NOT attend the talk and look for some other forum for entertainment.

Why censor based on the lowest common denominator of who might possibly attend the show?

And, as it turns out in this story, there was NO woman that was traumatized in this fashion, it was just a story this Ada organization was using to threaten the conference presenters into banning this talk.

I would take that action as much more despicable than possible offending someone...using a rape victim concern as a false pretense for furthering the Ada agenda, and controlling speech they way THEY seem to think it needs to be controlled.

Re:What?

[i_ate_god]

> Therefore, my personal conclusion is that someone designing a conference policy would be do better to read the Ada Initiative's well-argued opinion, and should not follow your rather poorly, emotionally-argued opinion. It's ultimately up to the conference organizers to decide what policies they wish to have, though.

Your conclusion is illogicall. If the subject matter at hand is risky subject matter for someone, then that someone should not attend, rather than shutting the subject down altogether.

Someone who has PTSD from a war who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about "Advanced Programming Techniques for Automated Targeting Systems", just as someone who as PTSD from a rape who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about the pros and cons of sex and drugs.

Re:What?

[i_ate_god]

The human body is a machine in its own right, so hacking it seems very applicable for a hacker conference.

Re:What?

[tibit]

If you go to such a talk while knowing you have PTSD due to a talk-related experience, it's you who is stupid for bitching about it. Nobody forces you to go to such a talk. The Ada Initiative is here acting just like a bunch of whiners who think that their cause justifies the whining. Sorry, AI, you're not intelligent.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA clearly states that the speaker had planned to present a warning before the talk about the nature of her topic and its potential as a trigger. Previous recordings of her talks on youtube confirm that this is the way the speaker starts her talks.

Re:What?

[Hatta]

What am I supposed to do, lob you softballs you can easily deflect? If you have a sound argument, you should be able to refute even the most hostile of challenges to that argument. An good debater would be thankful for the chance to state his argument in the strongest possible terms.

You're seriously claiming that education has a negative effect. If you're right, this would be the first time ever in the history of humanity that education did not enrich our lives. Do you honestly expect this idea to be greeted warmly by people whose lives are centered around the free exchange of information?

You've yet to make an actual argument here. You've only asserted that geeks find it difficult to talk about sex. That's true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not tech conferences should have talks about sex. An actual argument would detail the harms that come from takling about sex, the harms that come from not talking about sex, and make a cost/benefit analysis. You did none of that. Why not?

OTOH, I made an actual argument that talking about sex has benefits and I discussed how it would provide those benefits. I didn't include benefits from not talking about sex, because I cannot conceive of any. No pun intended.

I'm guessing you're involved in Ada, since you keep using the pronoun "we". If you're involved in Ada, you obviously care about the issue. If you care about the issue, you need to step up your game. If taking your ball and going home is how you respond to a challenge, you might as well give up now.

Re:What?

[nbauman]

They're also arguing that they be the ones who decide what people are allowed to talk about and when.

They enforce their decisions by threatening demonstrations that will embarrass or disrupt the conferences.

The "creeper cards" threaten violence:

CREEPER MOVE!

If you have received this card, you have done something wildly inappropriate or otherwise harassed the person who handed this to you. You should be happy you got a card and not a punch in the face. Check yourself — you might not be this lucky twice!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason??

Why does it always come down a discussion of tip toeing versus letting everything talked about? What about not tip toeing everywhere, but be careful to not swing a baseball bat around in a crowded place?

Re:What?

[Hatta]

They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons.

What are those specific reasons?

Re:What?

[gweihir]

A certain level of robustness is required of anybody partaking in public life. Otherwise public life gets reduced to an unacceptable level with massive negative consequences. Censorship is among the worst of the worst things that can be done to a society. At the same time, coddling people that survived a traumatic experience in public is incredible disrespectful, implying they are weak and cannot function on a normal level anymore and reducing them to the level of a child.

But these people are not children. They are able to leave a presentation when they become uncomfortable. And while a flash-back might be bad, it is entirely their decision whether to risk it or not.

Also, the title of the talk was explicit enough to warn anybody away that is not robust with regard to discussion of sex. People like Valerie Aurora have no business censoring public speech. It does however clearly show on what moral level they operate.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

I'm a man in Canada. I'm not involved with Ada or with any of the conferences mentioned. My use of "we" was meant to indicate that no one banned anything. A conference organizer pulled the plug on a problematic talk. That's not a ban, it's organizing.

Your whole post is indicative of the problem: I didn't come here for debate in the combative sense you're obviously expecting. I came here for discussion. So, yes, lobbing softballs is how that can work--not so they can be deflected, but so they can serve as lead-ins to further points that leaves everyone a bit more knowledgeable. You could have come away from this exchange, not agreeing with Ada or Velvet Blue, but at least understanding how they think they're going about achieving their goals, and what those goals are.

However, you got on to your "stupid or malicious" false dichotomy, and it was obvious that you're looking to score points rather than feel like you know a bit more than you did earlier. So, I take my ball and go home, mainly because debating someone who starts with logical fallacies, likely as a debate tactic, has proven to never be worth my time.

Re:What?

[achbed]

They are arguing for removal of sex and sexual situations from all discussions, unless there's (a) lots of warning, and (b) all discussion is "pro-consent and constructive". They also explicitly state that they believe that any audience WILL contain members that WANT TO RAPE (what do you think "is very unlikely that your audience has a uniformly, or even widely-held, negative opinion of harassment and assault" means?) and that your talk will trigger them to rape in the halls.

This is not a very constructive way to discuss anything. If this tactic was used for discussion of security holes, they would be advocating for the abolition of CERT public mailing lists, and revoking public notification requirements for successful hacks because it may cause people to be uncomfortable.

This topic is uncomfortable for people precisely because it is forbidden to talk about publicly in many circles. Security by obscurity never works, and the same can be said about taboo subjects like the combination of sex and drugs. The more you know, the more you can defend yourself. If you want to remain ignorant and present opportunities for others to harm you, that's your decision. Don't force me to remain ignorant because you want to be.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So no holocaust movies, because they might induce PTSD in survivors?

You fucking nazi.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be true, but you are still a troll.

Re:What?

[hedwards]

That's the thing though, public awareness in all cases is a good thing. Depriving people of necessary awareness because of ones own issues is the height of selfishness. Now, had this been buried inside of a talk without any warning ahead of time, that would have been a different matter. But, objecting to it ahead of time as a way of getting the talk yanked by somebody fraudulently claiming to be a rape survivor is the opposite of what's good.

And if the attitude is really that fratish, then that's precisely the place for a talk of this nature.

If this is genuinely how the Ada initiative is conducting its business, then women should be far more offended about it than men, as those are the sorts of self entitled princesses that have given Feminism such a bad reputation.

Bottom line is that anything can be a trigger, but depriving people of public awareness on that basis is low.

Re:What?

[jcr]

The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women

Sorry, that’s absurd and highly patronizing.

-jcr

Re:What?

[hedwards]

Bullshit. One of my friends in high school was raped after she passed out following smoking a laced joint.

So, yes, it definitely does happen, just because these survivors opt not to file charges does not mean that they were consenting to the sex nor does it mean that they aren't legally entitled to do so.

I can see why you posted this AC as the sentiment behind it is beyond ugly.

Re:What?

[retchdog]

I find trigger warnings asinine. In their current form, they evolved in response to shorter and shorter fiction. For example, a full-length movie or novel will, generally, have some kind of review or advertisement about its content, so no problem; anyone can make an informed decision. Trigger warnings in their current form, afaict, caught on first with shitty four paragraph-long fanfic, so by the time you've read it, you've already been subjected to a crude depiction of pony/vampire rape written at a sixth-grade level. Hence, a prologue comprising a list of `triggers'.

Now we have gone further; the title of a talk, ``sex +/- drugs: known vulnerabilities and exploits," itself is enough to merit a warning. Maybe you've deduced my point already. If that title is enough to `trigger' someone, how isn't ``trigger warning: contains a very oblique reference to drug-related rape" capable of same? Maybe we instead can use a more gentle warning, perhaps, ``trigger warning: contains reference to chemicals and forced sex"? But the phrase ``forced sex" is a bit rough. Maybe instead we can say ``trigger warning: contains reference to chemicals, sexuality, and vulnerability," or ``trigger warnings: contains reference to drugs, sex, vulnerability and exploitation"?

Do you see what i did there? The title of the talk is already a trigger warning (albeit accidentally, as the content was not actually about rape). It just wasn't sanctioned as one by the self-appointed gatekeepers of culture and sanity, so out it goes.

This has been about this particular trigger warning which is especially ridiculous; however, I think they all are. As someone has said about this topic: Give me life, give me pain. Give me myself again. Life isn't going to go away; if you try to sanitize it, you pathologize yourself and everyone else.

Re:What?

[MrEricSir]

...that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women...

Oh dear. Are we really using "sex positive" language to promote a puritanical agenda? Too bad George Carlin isn't alive today, he'd... well, he'd probably have a heart attack.

Please, PLEASE take your puritanical nonsense back to 1650 with you. I'm not willing to accept that the sexual revolution ended with political correctness forcing us to pretend we're not sexual animals. Things shouldn't come full circle that quickly.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this style of interacting with people actually work for you?

I don't have that much practise. How's it going for you?

Re:What?

[Hatta]

it was obvious that you're looking to score points rather than feel like you know a bit more than you did earlier

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I honestly do want to feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier. The problem is, I don't learn anything from listening to arguments that are not rigorous. If I have doubts about your argument, giving you a chance to address those doubts helps me feel like I know a bit more than I did earlier.

I stand by my statement. My dismissal of your argument was neither fascile nor mistaken. In fact, it doesn't even amount to an actual argument, but simply a list of facts.

• Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority
• sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology

• and the geek community has real problems with:

  • sexism
  • creeping on women at conferences
  • and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.

All of these things are true. But nothing in there implies that we shouldn't talk about sex openly. Nothing about any of those facts even suggests that talks about sex might be harmful. I asked you to fill in the blanks for me *after* I had pointed out that these facts only support arguments that sex should be talked about at conferences. You said that was the entirety of the argument. So I dismissed it, with good cause.

Please, just tell me *why* these facts imply that we should not discuss sex at conferences. If you don't, I have to assume you can't.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, I am so tired of hearing people bitch about this being a "male-dominated" industry.

Who's fault is that? Clearly not the males, because they're actually participating.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Semantics, my friend, semantics.

Re:What?

[hey!]

One important question this raises is who gets to decide what a conference is "about". Ada Initiative makes a point of labeling its targets as "off-topic", but it seems to me that scheduling a presentation on sex is prima facie evidence that the conference is "about" matters which in some way relate to sex.

Looking at the conference program, it seems to me that the focus of the conference is DIY experimentation, in which case the topic of sex in substance altered states is certainly on-topic.

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

By that line of logic, we can't blame fundamentalist groups for pressuring stores into not selling what they don't like with boycotts, or for getting people fined by harassing the FCC.

That's right, you can't blame them. You can attack them on that basis, though, and I suggest that you do. You have to blame the decision-makers. They must be held accountable. That's what's wrong with the fucking world today, there I said it but frankly, I think this time it's true. It's about accountability. Some people make the world better and some people make it worse and we need to reward the former and hold the latter accountable.

Don't be such a quisling, Mr. Poo.

I wish I could remember the login credentials for my five-digit UID, so that I could automatically win dick-sucking contests, too. That's the only reason I can imagine why your insults win you admiration while mine win me downmods.

We blame Valerie Aurora for being a censoring anti-feminist hypocrite.
We blame The Ada Initiative for not immediately firing Valerie Aurora and repudiating her actions.
And we blame the Security BSides people for being spineless.

Great, blame away. But the only people you can blame for a decision are the people who made the decision, because without that there's no such thing as free will and none of us are ever responsible for our actions. As far as I'm concerned, we have no choice but to act as though free will exists whether we believe in it or not.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the weakest fucking arguments I have ever heard.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

CCC is *not* a tech conference.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

That being said, it is a big world, and nasty shit happens. Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason??

No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.

The concepts of tact and compassion are sorely lacking from today's "civilized" society.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really go read the academic work on this topic. Your friend is most likely lying, not that perhaps a rape occurred, but that drugs forced upon her without her consent had anything to do with it.

Re:What?

[hairyfeet]

The problem with that is this: Besides what is frankly obvious like rape scenes in movies who in the hell is gonna know what might trigger PTSD? I had a friend that had PTSD from Nam, know what would cause him to have a full blown freak? No, not what you'd think like firecrackers or guns....rain. The sound of rain would cause him to have fllashbacks. I'm all for giving little NSFW heads up and all but this "rape trigger" bullshit is just that, no two people who have had a traumatic experience are gonna be the same and other than the most obvious you end up tapdancing in a damned minefield or making everything so bland that its shit.

Its like when that stink about no females in the new Aliens game was big and I pointed out that women as targets with today's hyper-realistic graphics is naturally a touchy subject and while I personally wouldn't have a problem with blowing away a female in a game (its a fricking avatar, not a person so who cares) that I could easily see why women aren't in the new shooters. For an example I gave "What if one of the "over the top" games like Bulletstorm, which gives you achievements for everything, including for shooting a guy in the balls (ball buster or sex change, something like that, can't remember) had an achievement called "instant flatty" for blowing a girl's boobs off? Would you be okay with that?" and you know what the consensus of the ultra left was? That you shouldn't get achievements for ANYTHING and that all shots should be equal damage, in other words we should go back to Doom where you can be killed by a toe shot.

But this is the problem in a nutshell, what somebody else considers a "rape trigger" or some other PC word that basically means verbotten somebody else might think is funny or nothing at all. Take the George Carlin "Anything can be funny" bit where he said rape shouldn't be off the table for comedy, "Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd, now THAT is funny" and I have to agree that image IS funny. I mean how in the fuck do you decide what IS and IS NOT a rape trigger? I once worked in a shop where the secretary had been raped in college, we ended up being friends and I learned not to have any petroleum products like vaseline or mineral oil out because the sight would cause her to freak...how in the fuck are you gonna predict, again other than the most obvious shit that frankly already gets a NSFW warning, what is and is not a trigger? The whole thing is just batshit and will lead to self censorship because everyone doesn't want to be a bastard and hurt a victim, so the whole idea is frankly nuts.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a man. Not only am I not allowed to volunteer at the local women's shelter, I'm not allowed to know where it is.

And yes, two of the women I have loved were victims of a violent sexual assault, one at gunpoint. That particular assumption on your part is more than a little stupid, because the majority of women have been the victim of rape, to some greater or lesser degree of violence and coercion.

And no, not one of the peculiar Swedish definitions of rape, either.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's assholes like you that make it hard for me, misrepresenting the facts to make it seem like it's a completely different crime.

What about the rest of us? The ones who are that sensitive are very much in the minority. Most rapes are date rapes and most child molestation is non-violent as well. By overplaying the traumatized experience, it means that those of us who are not so traumatized get to be deligitimized by the people that are supposed to be helping us, assuming we even ask for help in the first place.

This isn't the sort of public awareness ad that's placed in public places with little or no concern for the viewer, this is a talk where people can easily avoid going to it if they're that sensitive.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sexually abused as a child and I don't need or want morons like you representing me. Or really, misrepresenting me.

The fact of the matter is that most survivors of such abuse don't have those kind of issues. Only about 30% of child abuse is violent in nature. And, last I checked, at least in the US, the prevalent form of rape was date rape.

Sooo, perhaps rather than chewing people out for sticking up for survivors you might actually bother to ask us about it. Because it wasn't the violation that caused me problems, it was the hamfisted public awareness campaigns that overtly called into question the legitimacy of my experiences.

Re:What?

[hedwards]

But, that's exactly what they're doing. I cannot think of a way of talking about sex which would not lead somebody out there to be triggered. It's an extremely low barrier that they're using.

Now, if the talk involved bad information or was inflammatory in nature, that would be a completely different thing. But, giving people information to protect themselves is completely reasonable.

I had to sit through an incredibly tense discussion on gender in a class where I was the only man there, do you think that was comfortable? No, I've been badly abused by women over the years and it was extremely uncomfortable. But, the subject needed to come up and I could have called in sick for the day or left. Preventing the topic from coming up would have been ridiculous.

Re:What?

[mcvos]

The Ada Initiative is NOT arguing for anything like what you say. Get your facts right.

It's not what they claim to be arguing for, but it is what it amounts to in this particular case.

Although from Violet Blue's description of the conversation, I get the impression she could have explained a bit better that this was basically going to be a "safe sex" talk. And "safe drugs". (Not sure about the rock and roll.)

This talk doesn't sound like it should have been cancelled for this reason. Having it in a smaller room should definitely have been good enough. It's easy to avoid for anyone who thinks they might be triggered by a safe sex talk.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the people who talk about rape all the time (Ada initiative) can't handle some nerd speaking about how bad date rape drugs are?"

But you see, the Ada Initiative are on the side of good, and have absolute moral authority.

Re:What?

[jbolden]

What percentage of people at a hacking conference are represented by the population at a women's shelter? You just throwing out a silly guilt trip, there are lots of bad things in the world. People who were injured in fires are expected to deal with any fire phobia. People who were injured in car accidents are still expected to deal with cars. People who were injured in sexual relationships are still expected to deal with the existence of sexual relationships.

Re:What?

[lgw]

So the trigger warning would itself need a trigger warning? We just need a recursive trigger warning, problem solved.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, go read the post.

What part of "[ed note: you might not want to visit the main page of the weblog as it contains a few pictures that might be considered NSFW in more conservative places]" confused you? The whole point in asking the question is that I couldn't "go read the post".

Re:What?

[jbolden]

Yes they are. Ada's argument if accepted are remarkably broad. They are not structured not phrased in anyway that could narrowly construed.

People aren't idiots.
If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of explosions and fire, that's an argument for a narrow ban.
If you talk about banning smoking at gas stations due to the risk of lung cancer for the smoker or second hand smoke that's an argument for a broad ban.

And if you talk about banning smoking and never mention the gas station specifically, but it just happens to be the context and do so using arguments for a broad ban. Yes they are arguing for a broad ban.

Re:What?

[jbolden]

Very good point.

Re:What?

[beckett]

Your response to a request to reiterate your original argument is to attack the response?

Re:What?

[nightgeometry]

One side says that there were threats of making a big issue of it, the other side says nothing of the sort. You can decide who you believe, but you can't say some who believes the other persons view is being deceitful. Personally I think this whole /. discourse goes a long fucking way to demonstrating why woman may have issues with guys in tech.

Re:What?

[cheekyjohnson]

In particular, you seem consumed with some emotional anger yourself

He disagreed; therefore, he's consumed with some emotional anger. You seem consumed with some emotional anger yourself...

Re:What?

[PCM2]

I have. You're still wrong. They are arguing for not discussing sex in very specific contexts for specific reasons. It's fallacious to extend that to a general proscription on discussing sex.

Care to explain the specific context and the specific reason? From the sound of it, they are arguing against having sex-ed talks at conferences because somebody might not be aware that a sex-ed talk might include topics that make rape survivors uncomfortable. Is there something more specific -- your word -- that makes this specific conference the wrong place for a sex talk?

Re:What?

[Seumas]

"Triggers" are words, phrases, or topics that make people recall bad memories. For most of society and most of mankind's history, people have just dealt with it and not made a federal case about it. Parents who have lost their children to some horrible accident don't go around telling people to stop talking about their children or stop putting children in movies because it reminds them of the loss of their own child. People who were violently abused as children don't go around being offended or telling people to stop talking about things that remind them of being abused or that reminds them of how they didn't have great parents or a great childhood. However, with rape or molestation, you get to spend the rest of your life stopping the flow of conversation and saying "THANKS FOR UTTERING A TRIGGER, ASSHOLE! What might have been an innocently used word or phrase on your part just reminded me about that one time WHEN I GOT RAPED" and then you get to enjoy the awkward moment and feel like a shitty person for doing absolutely nothing wrong, because some self-absorbed, self-involved, navel-gazing person who has gone through an absolutely horrendous and horrifyingly atrocious violation earlier in their life needs to constantly throw out the "trigger" thing as an excuse to stop the world and, in a manner of speaking, say "HEY WORLD, I GOT RAPED OR MOLESTED. I CAN'T COPE WITH THIS OR PROCESS IT, SO SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP A WORD THAT REMINDED ME OF IT, I GET TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF IT AND GET A LITTLE ATTENTION FOR THIS THING THAT I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT BUT AM ALWAYS HAPPY TO MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF WHEN IT COMES UP!".

Horrible things happen to people. Seriously heartbreaking things that make you lose all faith in humanity. There's nothing wrong with talking about it, if it helps you. But there is also nothing wrong with people going on with their own lives talking about things without having to constantly worry about the potential hangups of every individual in an audience or within earshot of a conversation. You have no specific right -- nor do you even have any specific expectation of someone even out of thoughtfulness -- to not have bad memories come up and it's nobody's fault when they do.

Re:What?

[cayenne8]

No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.

But that's not the case here...

Rather than ban the whole talk that many people might have been interested in, why didn't they just put a sign on the door to that hall warning someone not to go in if they have sexual talk issues.

Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence (and I'd think most people at a hackers convention type thing would be smart) would guess if things like that bothered them, they'd be best served by not going to listen.

Re:What?

[Seumas]

Why?

You recalling bad memories are your problem and any number of things could "trigger" those memories. A smell. A sound. A face. A word. An environment. And who is to decide which are so horrible that they have to be avoided? Anything that might remind abused women of their domestic violence in the past? Anything that might remind a drug user of drugs? Anything that might remind a rape victim that they were raped? Anything that might bring back memories of being beaten as a child? Anything that might bring back memories of losing your child in a horrible accident?

In my experience, people don't want to be "protected" from "triggers". They eagerly await the use of "triggers" so that they can be aghast and make a big ordeal out of this thing they claim to not want to think about at all, in the first place. A lot of us probably have some particularly horrendous memories that we stuff far down and try not to ever recall. Other people unknowingly and inadvertently say or do something to bring them back up in our mind. We fucking deal with it. However, the people who talk about "triggers", in my experience, don't just deal with it. Thy stop everything and bring it up and make a huge ordeal of it, because "trigger" is an opportunity for them to unload on the world about this fucking awful thing that they experienced.

It's fine to adjust your speech for the individual in front of you, if you are aware of things that they are sensitive to and that you don't want to make them uncomfortable about, but you don't need to do that across the board in all of your life "just in case". Especially since idiotic things are claimed to be "triggers". For example, when I had a girl nearly take my fucking head off, because I described how the dinner I had the night before kind of made me gag. Turns out "gag" is her trigger and I was a horrible human being for ever saying "gag". I mean, seriously, what the fuck? At a certain point -- and it isn't that far off in the distance -- YOU are responsible for YOUR memories and dealing with them in YOUR head. It is not a task to put off on the rest of society to nerf their conversations and situations so as not to tip over your clearly precariously balanced mental-apple cart.

Re:What?

[Seumas]

I'm sorry, but if you're so overly concerned with the sexual nature of a talk that someone is going to give at your conference, why would you invite a hipster sex-blogger to give a talk? (And one who does pretty anti-geek things like sue a porn star for using the name "Violet Blue", even though she's been using it longer than you have.)

Mostly, I find this whole thing fucking hilarious, primarily because of the "personalities" involved and the sides they're stuck on in this back and forth.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.

You know that you are insulting almost every slashdot reader, right? And that gets modded "5, Insightful"?

Re:What?

[Seumas]

Violet Blue is a woman. She's a sex-blogger with a pretty infamous reputation. Supposedly a pro-geek, sex progressive person who countered both of those positions a few years ago when she filed a lawsuit against a porn actress who worked under the same name (and had been using that name much longer than the blogger has been). The irony that one of this SF/San Diego hipster sex blogger types are the ones criticized for offending is fucking hilarious, to me.

I am also baffled at why they are taking this seriously. A woman read what was going to be said and then said if it was said at the conference, she would lose her shit, because it was a "trigger' (a trigger is a word that you get to use as an excuse to point out to the world that you were violated and make everyone around you feel uncomfortable and guilty about your outburst, while you take no responsibility or blame, because you get to use the "you said a trigger word you bad person!" defense). I mean, she already knows what is said in the talk. she read the words. And she knows they're coming. So it should all be good, right? I mean, this is like reading the manuscript to a film and then saying "oh man, I am going to be so surprised when I watch this movie and find out that Bruce Willis is a ghost!".

It just reeks of being totally disingenuous.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing 'feminist activists' want is m/f equality. They will then be out of a job.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

I have already explained my position in earlier replies to other posters, see for reference.

Re:What?

[Seumas]

Awful things happen to people, in this world. That doesn't mean the rest of the world owes you a life-time of walking on eggshells and altering their speech and behavior which is completely innocent, except when it brings up your bad memories. Memories are a thing that YOU need to cope with. Not the world. Even if they're horrible ones. Stamping your feet, pointing a finger at the other person, and shouting "YOU SAID A TRIGGER!" doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't even help you with your bad memories. It just helps you unload on another human being who did nothing wrong, because of YOUR problem that YOU are still trying to cope with.

There are also a number of other things that have nothing to do with rape that would be just as (un)reasonable to worry about bringing up bad memories about, but people usually just deal with the memory coming up on their own and don't make a scene about it.

I've known a number of people who have been either molested in childhood or raped at some point in their lives and while the degree to which they remained impacted by it on a daily basis varied, none of them went around shouting "trigger! trigger!". Sometimes things brought back the memories they wanted to forget, but instead of going nuclear in an attention-getting sympathy-begging public moment, they just tried to process it themselves. Or, in the most extreme cases, found a polite way to remove themselves from the situation and go off to be alone for awhile.

Shrieking "trigger!" and making everyone around you feel like they've done something wrong is just absurd and fruitless.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason?

That question that he was answering doesn't sound very specific to this case, it sounds like a more open question and you got a more open answer.

Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence

The problem it seems here, is that a lot of people are saying very stupid, absolute things, then get replies that such absolutes suck, only for the replier to get chewed out that it doesn't apply to the situation in the original story. The problem is, many such replies were responding to general or absolute statements that were much broader. I, and I'm sure at least some others, disagree with what was done at this con, thinking the talk should not have been canceled, yet also disagree with a lot of the BS that some people are bringing up while giving much more extreme reasons that the talk should not have been canceled.

Re:What?

[Seumas]

Welcome to the world as it stands in 2013. You are damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If you do or do not do something, it can be perceived as sexist and misogynistic because you did or not do it. In fact, it doesn't even have to offend. Some pudgy white college boy in his dorm room merely has to assert that it's theoretical that someone could possibly be so sensitive as to find it offensive or harmful and it is just as bad as if it actually was offensive or harmful. It makes these discussions so much more difficult, because we're dealing with multiple layers of reality. Often, we're not discussing actual harm or actual potential harm based in reality. Just the perception that it could be construed in a certain way -- usually raised as a concern by someone who doesn't fall even remotely within the demographic of person the offense is being taken on-behalf-of.

In this case, not allowing the subject in a talk (especially when it's being given by someone who is a female sex-blogger activist sort of person) could easily be accused of being discriminatory and insensitive. Only the sexist woman-hating male geek culture would ban a woman from talking about issues that matter to women. On the other hand, they're guilty of the same things if they allow it, because it's discriminatory and insensitive to women who might claim "trigger! durp durp!". There is simply no winning position, here.

It seems the only winning move to make in any of these situations, these days, is to approach your content honestly and with sincerity and just let the rest of the world go fuck itself with its constant allegations that absolutely every single thing done is sexist or misogynistic (and that every single thing not done is, too).

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.

But that's not the case here...

In reference to the post I was originally responding to, yes, it is.

Rather than ban the whole talk that many people might have been interested in, why didn't they just put a sign on the door to that hall warning someone not to go in if they have sexual talk issues.

Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence (and I'd think most people at a hackers convention type thing would be smart) would guess if things like that bothered them, they'd be best served by not going to listen.

From what I've read about the situation, it's a lot simpler than it seems: Violet Blue was to give a talk about, essentially, drugs and sexuality; a (let's call a duck a duck) liberal group, who is probably far more concerned with their own image than with protecting women's rights, found out about it. So, the liberal group decided to harass the event coordinators with vague threats and bullshit claims, until they (the ECs) finally gave in and pressured Violet Blue into not giving the talk (from what I've read, VB was quite gracious in not blaming the event staff for the actions of a small group of assholes).

It had nothing to do with the nature or gender of the attendees, and everything to do with a small group of like-minded political hacks forcing their ideology down everyone else's throat, which is inherently a "not cool" action.

HOWEVER - the actions of this small group of zealots does not excuse folks like wisnoskij, to whom my original response was directed, from their fucked up, narcissistic world view that apparently involves locking rape victims in asylums.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the ones that passed out from drugs are most likely lying, and just faked being passed out. They are pretty good at faking being passed out, even when things are done to them that make them bleed, but not flinch or say anything.

Re:What?

[unitron]

Also, you know - private group, no duty to 1st Amendment, they have the right to censor whatever they damn well please.

"“No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”

More like they want the right to make someone else censor whatever they damn well please in that someone else's private space.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

Awful things happen to people, in this world. That doesn't mean the rest of the world owes you a life-time of walking on eggshells

I'm not saying they do; I'm pointing out that wisnoskij is a self-absorbed prick for wanting to lock rape victims in "padded white room[s] in an asylum."

Repeat: I am specifically pointing out that the poster I replied to, wisnoskii, is a misogynistic prick.

For the love of Tux, would people please stop extrapolating this directed statement into a generalization!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you repeat what you just said? I don't think I understand you, and think you either don't have a point or are making a bad point.

Re:What?

[unitron]

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't discuss the topic in public.

“No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”

Are you quite sure?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people in general had issues with rape and sexual harassment, but to say that problem is equal problematic in all groups is going to miss the nature of the problem. There are some groups much worse than others, where sexual harassment is more likely to be openly flaunted instead of subdued or being rarely actually present.

Re:What?

[HornWumpus]

In total darkness not only is she hot, but you are handsome.

Beauty is just a light switch away.

Re:What?

[unitron]

How obvious something is depends upon the observer, and is not necessarily objectively measureable.

There are some women who see four colors instead of three (and ironically enough produce more children with color blindness). The majority of the population would disagree with them over what is or is not obvious. So which one is right?

Neither, it's not objective.

How far in advance did The Ada Initiative inform you that they wanted veto power over whatever was presented?

5 months? 5 weeks? 5 days? 5 minutes?

Re:What?

[unitron]

Perhaps if one were to begin the conversation with "Hey, guys, you know why ain't none of you gettin' any?", and then proceed to explain how their lack of maturity is not to their advantage.

Re:What?

[unitron]

Outrage is called for.

Maybe, I even think so, but not on the basis you suggest.

I think you missed seeing an invisible sarcasm tag on that one.

As in "Outrage is called for. Anybody know if Nancy Grace will quote us a bulk rate?"

Re:What?

[brain159]

Then don't go to that clearly-labelled session. Job done, next?

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

If you don't, I have to assume you can't.

You don't have to assume anything, and in fact you'd be wrong to assume that.

To the list of facts that you agree is true, let's make it more explicit by adding some more postulates:

1. Women do well, on par with men, in professions and communities where they are treated as equal participants. This has been demonstrated in a positive sense by things like GoGaRuCo, the Ruby conference where their call for submissions is evangelized heavily amongst female and minority Ruby communities, so that the submissions pool has sufficient diversity; when blind judging is applied to that submissions pool, then, the resulting mix of speakers shows the same diversity. In other words, when sexism is successfully filtered out of the process, gender becomes irrelevant.

2. Adding a sex talk to a conference at which sex is not a normal topic, among a community that historically has demonstrated that it's bad at treating women as equal participants, will tend to sexualize the atmosphere of the conference and will highlight, rather than diminish, gender issues. In other words, the few women present will tend to feel more scrutinized and on guard than usual, when they're already on guard because of how geek conferences typically go. They'll be treated less as equal participants, rather than more. They'll be tokenized. Instead of small talk about using arduinos, men will be talking to them about using GHB during sex or asking if they've ever fucked while high on coke.

3. In this specific case, the talk contained material that could trigger rape survivors, of which, statistically, there's likely to more than a few at the conference, even in their diminished numbers.

4. We don't need to sexualize every environment. Refraining from doing so has important benefits.

The shorter version of the Ada Initiative's position is this: technology is not essentially gendered or sexualized, and when you manage to treat women as equals by de-sexualizing things at conferences and in workplaces, women participate as equals. This has the effect of increasing female participation to where it would be, absent historical systemic sexism, and that's a worthy goal. I think they handled this particular situation badly, though not necessarily, but their overall program is worthwhile.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's up to the conference organizers to decide what the conference is about. However, they chose to consult the Ada Initiative, and they chose to act on their recommendations. So, effectively, the conference organizers deemed sex to be off topic.

Re:What?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Yes, and we address social/behavioral problems by not talking about them!

How the fuck do you expect to behave like this hypothetical 'functioning adult' you are talking about, without talking about it?

Lastly, if you want women to enter the IT/geek world, have parents hand girls screwdrivers instead of barbie dolls. Trying to blame the current IT crowd for an entire culture raising women that don't want to enter IT, engineering, or sciences is fucking ridiculous.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

go back and the academic work on this topic. people who reported being drudged and raped, when tested, in several formal multi year studies, did not have drugs in their system they were concerned about.

Re:What?

[im_thatoneguy]

I would disagree with that assessment. I've been to a lot of conferences and I find quotes like this enormously offensive:

Moreover, unlike some highly charged other topics in the technical world, it is very unlikely that your audience has a uniformly, or even widely-held, negative opinion of harassment and assault.

Fuck you ADA. They just said that the vast majority of geeks at technical conferences lack a negative opinion of harassment and assault.

I attended a tech heavy school that was 80% male in my program. I asked fellow female students if they ever felt discriminated or harassed and all of the ones I talked to said they had a great experience with the school and didn't feel like they were being discriminated against. If the statistics of "25% of women of college age have experienced a rape attempt" are true then by that metric the school I attended was a safe haven from the rest of the world.

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

Man, are you ever a fucking piece of shit.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is good expectation that the Ada Initiative may have known Violet Blue was speaking at the convention, and that Violet Blue herself was the target of this action, not her talk.

Violet Blue is very vocally an opponent for a lot of the in-community nonsense that has been going on in the Atheist/Skeptic community surrounding Watson, Atheism Plus and the associated groups who seem to have an identical agenda of trying to shut out speakers that don't conform to what their ideas of the community should be.

I very much expect that the Ada Initiative likely targeted the talk with premeditation, without having to know about what Violet Blue was talking about.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of your gender or political affiliations... there's a word we use on the internet to describe that kind of attitude.

Butthurt.

Re:What?

[lessthan]

I read Ada's report on what happened and their reasoning behind their action. It was not "well argued." The gist of their argument is that talking about sex turns men into animals who can't help but rape women. Therefore, people shouldn't give public talks about sex. An offensive, irrational attitude that is dressed up in reasonable sounding words is still offensive. Also, it is quite clear, from their own words, that they asked to have the talk cancelled before knowing anything about it besides the title. How is that "reasonable?" It sounds like censorship to me.

Blue and the conference organizers did err in not providing details about the talk beforehand. While I find Ada's goals violently distasteful, I understand the reason behind their protest. It was really the conference organizers who messed up here. First, for apparently being unfamiliar with Blue's work (why ask her to speak if you found the subject distasteful?) and second, bowing to a rather heavy handed attempt at censorship.

Re:What?

[khallow]

Let me Godwin the hell out of this thread.

The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that.

There was a good argument for killing six million Jews too. It was based on lies, deception, and incredible delusion, but it was a good argument too.

At some point, rather than merely make "good arguments", we have to recognize that the harm from suppressing speech greatly outweighs any vague, hypothetical harm of the sort that the Ada Initiative claims to be protecting against.

Re:What?

[beckett]

it's supposed to mean that just because you have not been hurt in that particular manner, does not give you a right to be a sociopathic asshole about it to those that have.

utilizing the same terminology, what gave you the right to be a sociopathic asshole in response?

Re:What?

[beckett]

No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.

So what makes it OK to be an unholy prick to people who simply hold a different opinion than your own? earlier in this same comment page you called someone a "sociopathic asshole". If you can do nothing but namecall, then you are someone that does more damage to your own cause than forward it.

This implies a lack of comprehension on your part, or perhaps an inability to engage in high-level thinking. the person you disagree with may be "an unholy prick", but everyone else thinks your an idiot. - Hillary Clinton

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally anything might trigger someone (and there's a whole lot more people with PTSD out there than just rape victims, don't dare to ignore them in this). This means that everything and anything comes with a built in trigger warning (e.g. "this movie may show yellow roses") making the practice of explicit trigger warning questionable.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "everywhere" and they don't have to, at least not as part as the given organization. The more effective approach is to create a lot of organizations with absurdly narrow focus (check!) that can't be accused of creating any widespread hostility. Thus you get different (or "different") groups pushing a similar agenda on so many fronts that the effect is virtually the same. Suddenly, yes, pushing something out of one place turns into pushing it into small boxes that then can be locked and have the key disposed of. But hey, you can go into that box, weirdo, just don't expect, you know, any respect from anyone we can influence.

Re:What?

[shutdown -p now]

What business is it of Ada Initiative to determine whether the talk is "off-topic"? The topic is generally set by the organizer of the conference, and they have initially included the talk, which kinda implies that they were perfectly okay with its topic, until these guys came along and played the "or else I'm going to cry" card.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't come here for debate in the combative sense you're obviously expecting. I came here for discussion.

You must be new here.

So, how much do 5-digit UIDs go for these days?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we didn't ban anything. The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women

That makes perfect sense because women don't do sex and have no interest in it at all - sex is inherently anti-women.

So who blew it?

Valerie Aurora for being a nutcase.

I don't know if The Ada Initiative was supposed to be just a vehicle for her particular psychological hangups and obsessions or whether she's hijacked the organisation but I suspect that the direction she's taking TAI is surprising and at least slightly disturbing to the other founders.

Re:What?

[beckett]

Sexism, creeping, and acting like a hormone-fueled 14 year old are not going to be addressed by talking about "sex under the effect of drugs"

so why not restrict the conference to 15 and above?

Re:What?

[shocking]

Well, I sat down & listened to the talk (which apparently a lot of commentors did not) and sex was really only peripheral to the whole thing. It was more about the state of mind that people in the hacking community have, and the stresses and dangers that it has as a result. It spoke about mitigating some of that damage.

Re:What?

[retchdog]

this problem has already been solved.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the statistics of "25% of women of college age have experienced a rape attempt" are true then by that metric the school I attended was a safe haven from the rest of the world.

Their definition of 'rape attempt' is when a man look at a women and she feel uncomfortable.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed. The talk was actually being given by a woman, and according to her blog, the only mention of rape was a section on avoiding date rape drugs. So really, by blocking this talk, they kept rape prevention information out of the hands of potential victims.

"It is never for the victim to avoid the rape. Rapist should not rape." This is the feminist reasoning behind that decision. When feminism harm women, it is time to recognize the hate speech it is and ban it accordingly.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a man. I was raped in a public bathroom when I was six years old. It lasted for about half an hour. For about 15 years after that, I couldn't use a public bathroom if there was someone else in it. I kept walking into those bathrooms and trying, though. At 10 years old, I'd walk into a public bathroom full of strangers and do my damnedest.

Several people I loved or cared about have been raped. I was usually the one they came to to talk about it. Most of them were strong enough to go back out into the situations where it happened (bars, school, work, etc.)

I fully and heartily disagree with your supposition that we are all fragile bunnies who must be protected from words. The only thing that does is make more victims, and keep them victimized.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

we're not talking about a stealth attack with a rape trigger here.

we're talking about a talk with a title that makes it obvious it's gonna contain talk about sex. If you know that's likely to trigger your PTSD then don't go to the fucking talk (pun intended).

In other words if you willingly choose to go to a talk that is likely to trigger PTSD in you (it's not like onferences have only 1 talk at a time after all) then you also get to take full responsibility for your reactions, including any flashbacks.

If a survivor from a traffic accident (that say killed his entire family, and leaving him trapped in a carseat staring at the corpses for hours) chooses to go to a talk on traffic accidents you have the same issue.

In neither case is it a reason to ban the talk.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

most child molestation is non-violent as well.

This point is lost on these social retards, who lionize a man like Richard Stallman, who has gone on record as supporting an adult's right to have sex with a child.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

I'll let you figure it out for yourself.

Re:What?

[ElectricTurtle]

This is because if you look at the methodology of that study, they designed such that if women answered affirmatively that 'x thing happened to them' but also answered that they didn't believe they had been raped but were interacting in a consensual way, that latter fact was ignored/discarded if the study's designers own opinion differed. E.g. if x thing was considered by the study architects to be rape, then it was rape whether or not the woman actually experiencing x thing believed it was rape.

This is the fundamental reason why my mother rejects feminism and why my wife rejects feminism, its adherents routinely dismiss women's own thoughts and feelings about their experiences whenever they happen not mesh with the feminist agenda. If a woman believes she wasn't raped, that some form of consent was present in her own mind, it is not right for some external arbiter to decide they know better about a woman's own state of mind and ethical status/disposition. Many feminists act like they represent all women automatically, whether or not those women want such representation, and any who actively refuse to have these activists speak for them are labelled 'gender traitors' or 'victims of patriarchal stockholm syndrome' or what-have-you, because having a vagina means you must conform your thinking to theirs or else.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

Also, you know - private group, no duty to 1st Amendment, they have the right to censor whatever they damn well please.

"“No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”

More like they want the right to make someone else censor whatever they damn well please in that someone else's private space.

That's what I don't understand about this situation; were I the event coordinators, I would have been far more inclined to throw the group making a fuss out, than to deny an invited speaker the chance to give the talk they were invited to give.

Here's how I imagine it would have gone down:

Them: "We're not leaving, and we're going to make a big ol' stink if you don't accommodate us!"

Me: "OK, well, since you've decided to attempt extortion, and I don't take well to being threatened, I'll make you a deal: I will refund your entry fee, revoke your passes, and have security escort you off the premises; OR, I can call the police and have you arrested for attempted blackmail, assault (FYI, just the act of making threats is legally considered assault), trespassing, and any other legitimate charge the cops think will stick. Your call."

If they want to try and sue me for exercising my rights as a business owner, let 'em waste their money.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presenter was a lady, not a gentleman, which makes it worse in my mind.

Re:What?

[Cinnamon Beige]

But they should NOT. That is ridiculous. If someone is so emotionally scared than a person of the gender that raped them, bumping into them in the conference is probably just as likely if not more likely to make them uncomfortable.

If you are a psychological wreck and need others to work around your weaknesses then go live in a padded white room in an asylum.

I'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.

I am rather certain I would be hurt, badly, by the person close to me who has been, if I walked on eggshells around her. I pay attention, and she knows I can recognize a panic attack even when it is not the dramatic shit Hollywood thinks all panic attacks are as both of us tend towards distinctly quieter ones.

The padded white room at the asylum will come with professional aid--people who are licensed psychologists trained in how to treat mental disorders, who can provide you expert & trained help. If somebody is really such a wreck that they need other people to work around their weaknesses, they need that level of treatment.

Mental illness deserves to be taken seriously, and that includes treating severe trauma disorders as being just as deserving much and & in as much need of focused, professional care as such things as advanced cancers.

Re:What?

[buybuydandavis]

So that Janet Jackson should have notified people in advance of her wardrobe "misfunction"?

Re:What?

[Gordonjcp]

HOWEVER - the actions of this small group of zealots does not excuse folks like wisnoskij, to whom my original response was directed, from their fucked up, narcissistic world view that apparently involves locking rape victims in asylums.

Good work on missing the point to an almost aggressive degree.

The original poster wasn't talking about "locking rape victims in asylums", he was talking about getting people who are so mentally and emotionally damaged that they are likely to commit violent acts and harm themselves or others simply because they hear a "trigger", and requiring them to have the psychological and psychiatric treatment that they so clearly need before they can be safe among the rest of society.

A bit like slashdot trolls, really.

Re:What?

[Hatta]

1. Women do well, on par with men, in professions and communities where they are treated as equal participants. This has been demonstrated in a positive sense by things like GoGaRuCo, the Ruby conference where their call for submissions is evangelized heavily amongst female and minority Ruby communities, so that the submissions pool has sufficient diversity; when blind judging is applied to that submissions pool, then, the resulting mix of speakers shows the same diversity. In other words, when sexism is successfully filtered out of the process, gender becomes irrelevant.

I can't figure out why you think that amounts to an argument that this talk shouldn't have taken place. Gender blind judging is a great idea that will increase the proportion of females, which will make these kinds of talks even more important.

2. Adding a sex talk to a conference at which sex is not a normal topic, among a community that historically has demonstrated that it's bad at treating women as equal participants, will tend to sexualize the atmosphere of the conference and will highlight, rather than diminish, gender issues.

In other words, "If we don't talk about it, it will go away". It would be nice if we didn't need to have these talks, but the problem exists and it's not going to go away if we ignore it.

In this specific case, the talk contained material that could trigger rape survivors

Who are in no way required to be present at talks that make them uncomfortable.

4. We don't need to sexualize every environment. Refraining from doing so has important benefits.

Sorry, whenever there are unattached men of child rearing age the environment will be sexualized. Pretending you can avoid this is naive at best. The correct thing to do is to encourage healthy mingling.

Men are not going to stop hitting on women at conferences. Nor should they be expected to. We have a biological imperitive to procreate. Expecting us to sit on our hands at a con only means we'll be missing out on opportunities to meet women with similar interests. Those opportunities will be taken by some other guy who thereby gains a reproductive advantage.

Geeks are smart, we can learn. If you tell us that maybe a secluded elevator isn't the right place to hit on a woman, we'll adjust our behavior accordingly. If you don't tell us that, it's not our fault if we accidentally creep out some female attendees.

The shorter version of the Ada Initiative's position is this: technology is not essentially gendered or sexualized

Human interaction is essentially sexualized. Trying to pretend otherwise is harmful to everyone involved, male or female. Gender equality means that we should respect both males and females. And part of respecting males is acknowledging that sex is a huge motivator for us, and that there is nothing wrong with that. And denying that females enjoy sexual attention from males isn't very respectful towards them either.

Is there actually more to this argument than "If we don't talk about it, it will go away"? When has that idea ever worked?

Re:What?

[jjohnson]

In other words, "If we don't talk about it, it will go away".

This is a hostile mischaracterization of my argument for the purpose of setting up the straw man you argue against below. Your interest in rigour does not, it seems, extend to avoiding fallacies on your part.

Who are in no way required to be present at talks that make them uncomfortable.

If you include talks that make a significant number of conference participants uncomfortable, this is counterproductive if your larger goal is to get more of those kind of participants.

whenever there are unattached men of child rearing age the environment will be sexualized.

Only if the men are immature twits incapable of taking their hands off their cocks for a couple days. Which is basically the problem in the geek community, for self-perceived reasons you articulate below.

Men are not going to stop hitting on women at conferences.

Agreed, but whether they do so in a way that respects women at conferences is the issue. And a big part of that is whether the women perceive that the men think, as you seem to below, that the women are there just so geeks can procreate. And whether or not they feel that way depends, in part, on whether the tone of the conference is sexualized. Have talks on using a rape drug as part of sex, and having booth babes and Slave Leias wandering around? They're going to feel like they're there so you can meet someone, not so a bunch of people interested in hacking can discuss hacking.

We have a biological imperitive to procreate.

My urge to procreate does not prevent me from not acting like I'm trying to procreate all the time. I'm an adult. I'm capable of having extended conversations or even work relationships with women that do not involve me trying to procreate with them. I have self-control.

Expecting us to sit on our hands at a con only means we'll be missing out on opportunities to meet women with similar interests.

So the cons are for you to meet someone. When you see women at cons, you're looking at them as targets, not as fellow geeks.

If you don't tell us that, it's not our fault if we accidentally creep out some female attendees.

Geeks wilfully ignore or argue with people trying to tell them how not to creep out women at conferences. Witness our discussion. At this point, more than enough bits have been spilled trying to explain to geeks why their community has absurdly low female participation, and your response is...

sex is a huge motivator for us, and that there is nothing wrong with that. And denying that females enjoy sexual attention from males isn't very respectful towards them either.

To borrow your tactic, in other words, "we're boys, we can't help ourselves, and you want it from us anyway".

I'm actually really offended by your argument, because it denigrates men. It's the old stereotype about how boys will be boys, and we're dominated by our balls. It's the old Victorian characterization of men as barely-contained cauldrons of lust, and women as pure asexual representations of goodness. It's bullshit. Men can have self-control, and women can fail to have self control and treat everyone else as sexual objects for their gratification.

Is there actually more to this argument than "If we don't talk about it, it will go away"?

That was never the argument. The argument is still that we don't need to sexualize everything, that we're adults and have self-control and are more than capable, as is demonstrated by mature men everywhere, of treating women as equal participants in what we do, rather than as receptacles for our urge to procreate. And when we succeed at that, that's when the women start coming around in decent numbers.

Re:What?

[koshatul]

No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.

The concepts of tact and compassion are sorely lacking from today's "civilized" society.

Reading the post from violet blue it seems she was offering to accommodate them rather greatly, including doing the presentation behind closed doors, but their argument was that they were at the conference and if she spoke at all it would be a big problem.

I agree we should be mindful of other peoples pain, but when she can't give a presentation on harm reduction (which could help prevent rape), it's gone too far.

It seems like it's more about exercising their muscle than actually preventing someone experiencing a PTSD event from a talk.

"Won't someone think of the children !?!?!?!", sigh.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

Totally right; I read the story, and the blog posts, and it's quite obvious that it was the Ada Initiative who was being the unreasonable party.

Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to read through the typos, but this story still doesn't make any sense.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad it's not just me. I thought I caught some illness that made me unable to read English

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I just gave up; most poorly written summary I've ever read.

Re:Huh

[NEDHead]

I was just about to write the same comment. I have no idea what this is about, or why I should care

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody gives a shit except the female blogger that obviously gets more exposure from controversy and the idiots that have an organization to defend against sex talks.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be new here.

Rape trigger?

[Hatta]

WTF is a rape trigger?

Re:Rape trigger?

[crazyjj]

Apparently a bunch of feminists in San Fransisco (but of course) are concerned that any *mention* of rape ("rape trigger") in a speech or presentation will send any former rape victims in the audience into flashbacks and convulsions, thus re-victimizing them.

Of course, the term "rape trigger" is *itself* a rape trigger. Which leads to an interesting loop.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GT66]

Any comment in the public sphere that can have the effect of making a rape victim "relive" the event. So basically, anything that can have the effect of reminding a rape victim they were raped is now a censorable "offense." Basically, as feminists like to USE situations to leverage their agenda, they are using this as an excuse to violate freedom of speech. Expect to see this strategy expanded and used more often as people begin to resist feminist hegemony. From Violet Blue's blog: "I found out a few hours later that I had been targeted by a feminist organization, The Ada Initiative. I learned that the woman who smiled at me while talking to the BSides SF organizer was Valerie Aurora, from the Ada Initiative. I also learned that what happened with my talk wasn’t a case where someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as a survivor of sexual trauma or abuse, which is how it was presented to me. Instead, it was an organization that had planned to get my talk removed. I wonder, if I had offered to omit the section about GHB from my talk, which they did not know about, would the talk have been permitted by these people and the threat of problems for the organization lifted? "

Re:Rape trigger?

[Ardyvee]

Because nobody can leave until the talk is over... This seems like a case of somebody not wanting the talk but not being honest about it. There were many more solutions that just "Don't give the talk".

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should remind you that the talk was massively off-topic to begin with and should have been pulled, but not for the reasons stated. This whole thing is just retardation.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trigger: An event, phrase, or otherwise "trap" for someone who has been in an extremely traumatizing situation to subconsciously dredge up that memory. Example: A talk about the effects of GHB in technical terms may be a trigger for someone who was raped while under the effects of GHB may cause them to remember details, thus causing them *more* problems.

now, the fix for this is to say "I GOT 99 PROBLEMS: YOUR TRIGGERS AINT ONE OF THEM. Got a problem? Find another place to spend an hour."

CAPCHA: uncouth. Fitting.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suffer from combat related PTSD. It sucks, I get triggered all the time. I especially don't like the filled to the max hallways at defcon, I have had more then one panic attack from that. I don't like the hackers that wear leather and combat gear around thinking its funny or cool, it scares the shit out of me at cons. I know they are kids, they mean well, and no one is trying to hurt me. Unlike the drunk guy who gets in my face for no reason, their actions are not malicious.

Most of the time I am able to keep my shit together and no one knows how I feel on the inside. This is my trauma, my probleme, to think that others should change to satisfy me is pure stupidity. I am the one that needs to recover and be able to move on in my life, so I do it. Victims of crime are in the same position, if you have triggers, you need to be in weekly counselling until its resolved. Pretending that its OK and if others would just not trigger you will ruin your life. No amount of activism will ever heal the wounds you have.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the term "rape trigger" is *itself* a rape trigger.

Most likely not, and to keep repeating that is kind of a load of BS. Just because some idiots abuse or otherwise use such sensitive topics for ulterior motives doesn't mean the original issue was complete BS. In other words, just because some people use the idea of rape triggers as a way to push through other things, or because some people go over board white knighting the issue, doesn't mean the concept of a rape trigger is BS and should be disregarded in all cases... just use some common sense and/or don't be an ass about things that are clearly inappropriate in some contexts.

I've had idiots claim that I am not allowed to remove comments from a blog on my own server because it violates their freedom of speech, and that the first amendment means I must allow them to post whatever they want on my web server, without any prior contract, or else they could take me to court for it. That doesn't mean I proclaim that the idea of freedom of speech is all BS being used by people trying to push their own ulterior agenda on others. I just acknowledge that the issue is real, even if different than how idiots portray it.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing is ever off topic, this isn't an international academic conference, its a scene con.

Re:Rape trigger?

[pavon]

Yeah, this is a horrible summary especially considering all the useful links in the original submission are blocked at my work. However, the Ada Initiative link that the editors added explains the situation well.

The gist of it is that people attending this conference were expecting it be about computer security. One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present. The conference organizers *asked* the Ada Initiative what they thought about this, and they told them it would make the women at the conference uncomfortable, so the conference organizers canceled the talk.

Looking past all the sociology/feminist terms, this is what it boils down to. The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things, and be treated like professionals. Putting sex on people's mind takes the focus off technical things, and onto sexual things. It does so regardless of whether the talk is pro-women or not. It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. It will take what should be a comfortable professional environment, and make it less enjoyable and welcoming.

There was nothing wrong with Violet Blue's talk in general, if it was given in an appropriate setting, and people attending knew the subject of the conference. But springing it on people when they are trying to avoid people thinking of them sexually isn't cool.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

...loop....

Sounds like The Ada Initiative is doing some poor programming of its members.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the whole fucking problem, isn't it?

Feminist LOVE to reduce men to their body parts. Just don't you dare reduce a woman to her body parts!

Fucking hypocrites.

CAPTCHA: slippage

Re:Rape trigger?

[drinkypoo]

Of course, the term "rape trigger" is *itself* a rape trigger.

Most likely not, and to keep repeating that is kind of a load of BS.

I note that neither of you has produced a citation on this subject. Intuitively, however, I would expect the phrase "rape trigger" to be as valid a rape trigger as any other phrase. We're talking about triggering rape, why wouldn't that idea trigger negative association?

just because some people use the idea of rape triggers as a way to push through other things, or because some people go over board white knighting the issue, doesn't mean the concept of a rape trigger is BS and should be disregarded in all cases

Straw man. No one said that.

I've had idiots claim that I am not allowed to remove comments from a blog on my own server because it violates their freedom of speech

Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.

Re:Rape trigger?

[greg1104]

Somewhere between your straw woman and the other bad summaries floating around is reality. He's the important part from the presenter herself:

"In the talk I do cover ‘date rape’ drugs, and I explain their actions and how they’re dangerous."

Seems like a pretty legitimate way to trigger a rape flashback to me. It's appropriate for an information security conference only in that drugging people is a pretty effective way to get secrets out of them, and one that probably isn't considered as much as it should. If someone isn't sensitive enough to realize that even approaching that discussion is tricky, due to well known concerns over the same drugs being for rape, they really shouldn't be talking about it at all in front of an audience.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because their founder, Valerie Aurora, lives there?

Re:Rape trigger?

[DG]

Amen, brother.

DG

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

For the love of humanity, mod parent up. People need to be responsible for addressing their own difficulties, not force all of society to acquiesce and adopt arbitrary strictures to make sure they don't possibly ever cause somebody to remember something nasty.

So, all you whiny feminists, unless you are willing to be sensitive to people like this AC and ban all pseudo-military accouterments from all fashion forever etc. then you can STFU. That is of course if feminism wasn't already based on double standards run amok.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Kreigaffe]

I'll throw a reply under here since I have no mod points hoping that it makes the above post more visible.
This guy's got it right.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ultranova]

WTF is a rape trigger?

Something (a picture, words, etc.) that can cause a rape victim a flashback. The problem is that this could be potentially anything (including, as another poster noted, mentioning rape triggers), so while it might make sense to worry about this is in places like rape victim support groups, it's an odd thing to worry about in a hacker conference.

Also note that this is hardly a concept limited to rape victims, but could potentially extend to anyone who has suffered trauma (traffick accidents, school shootings, suicide of loved ones, war, bullying, disease, etc.), yet I don't see anyone worrying about causing them flashbacks. Thus the more cynical side of me wonders if the concern over "rape triggers" is really driven by concern for others, rather than being yet another tool to justify lording over what they may or may not discuss.

Re:Rape trigger?

[phantomfive]

One woman was giving a talk, and other women were upset because it was about sex. Now they are discussing, blaming, and working through emotional issues. This sort of stuff is annoying.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being trapped in a large house with Ao Oni.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be annoying, but really - it's life.

Sometime you're going to have to "work through emotions" - even if you don't recognize it as such. That you'd be annoyed that others have to work through emotions seems to indicate to me that you don't have much empathy. Perhaps spending a little *more* time on understanding emotion and empathy, rather than LESS, would be a good thing for you.

But, as a friend of mine said recently.... "Unless they've asked the question, they're not ready for the answer."

So no, you're probably not ready for the answer. I hope you will be, sooner rather than later. IMO, your life will be richer for it.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not just a mention, however assuming the press release is correct and the only information available about the talk at the time they objected to it was the identity of its presenter and the title, along with its presence in a security-oriented convention, their assumption that rape was likely to be a major part of the topic seems at least vaguely justifiable.

FWIW: people I've talked to who use the term tend to mean more than a mention -- usually, a description of rape that goes into more than surface level detail is what they mean. VB suggests she was going to go into detail about the effects of date rape drugs, particularly GHB, so the talk may well have ended up going that far.

Re:Rape trigger?

[phantomfive]

Sometime you're going to have to "work through emotions" - even if you don't recognize it as such

Sure, please deal with those emotions privately instead of dragging all the rest of us into the drama.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intuitively, however, I would expect the phrase "rape trigger" to be as valid a rape trigger as any other phrase. We're talking about triggering rape, why wouldn't that idea trigger negative association?

Maybe try talking to some people who has been through rape or attempted rape? They are mostly not some fragile constructs that will fall apart at the slightest mention of a word "rape," and do move on with life. But there is a big difference between a simple phrase, versus some of the frequent and all too common discussion of rape as if it is some joke, some minor non-consequential thing. And it is not that some survivors don't have a sense of humor about such things... but there is a limit far some people will drag stuff on, sometimes just to be a callous jerk about things. Anyway, the point is that context matters a lot, and just saying "rape trigger" should be a trigger is kind of missing a large part of the point, or just a disingenuous distraction from any actual discussion of such issues.

Straw man. No one said that.

crazyjj has made multiple posts, including saying in another one:

"rape triggers" (a term so silly that it could only have meaning in San Fran, Austin, and Portland)

Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.

If no one cares what idiots have to say, then why is this discussion even happening? If the Ada Initiative's handling of this was idiotic, and misusing rape issues, wouldn't that mean no one should care about what they are saying then? If there is merit to how they addressed this, then wouldn't that mean no one should care about all those dismissing them for idiotic reasons?

That was supposed to be an example that people could relate to a little more than maybe rape issues. The problem of taking what idiots say about a serious issue as to mean the issue is not so serious in general seems completely relevant and on-topic based on some of the replies this story has gotten so far.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

CCC is not "an information security conference". Please do educate yourself. It's a hacker conference, with same broad meaning of "hacker" and hacker culture as covered by Stephen Levy, ESR and others. It covers a lot of different topics, including social life, politics and culture. But, apparently, mentioning sex, even in context of "take care out there", should be a no-no.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

It may be "your" problem. [Negating the fact that *we* sent you to war and you were doing your job in service for all of us - at least those in the USA. (I'm assuming you're a US combat veteran.)] ...As a start, I hope I've widened your thinking in how it's NOT really just _your_ problem. Lots of us contributed to _your_ problem, and you ought to be reasonable in letting some of the blame flow to others too.

---
But, for discussion sake - lets just *assume* it really *is* all your problem.

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage? I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind. Or an elderly person's problem for being elderly. But still, we make allowances for these "problems" and treat such people with dignity and respect. We make changes to how we'd interact with the world to accommodate them, and make them feel as comfortable as possible.

That's not to say that one can't go overboard on accommodation - because you certainly can. But, in general, in the world, we rarely do TOO MUCH for those who need our help and consideration. If there's an error, IMO, in the world, it is that we have _too little_ empathy and care for the perspectives of those outside our gender/race/ethnicity/social-group/family etc. The number of times we have too much empathy? Pretty damn insignificant IMO.

---
So, while I recognize your desire to stand up on your own two feet and I know that you want to succeed on your own - please realize that you need care and love from those around you too. It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to.

I wish you the best in your recovery. IMO, care and love from those around you and being realistic in viewing your responsibility in your "problem" is key in finding the best resolution you can.

-Greg

Re:Rape trigger?

[phantomfive]

No, looks like the feminists thought the talk was a "How to rape" guide, based solely on the title. They mentioned this to an organizer, and the message got lost in transmission; the message the speaker heard was that any mention of rape in any way was bad.

Re:Rape trigger?

[greg1104]

Each BSides is a community-driven framework for building events for and by information security community members.. That's where I pulled that it should be considered "an information security conference". Regardless of what you think the events are about, I was responding to how they market themselves. Please do assume some people might actually RTFA.

You also seem to be confused about sex vs. rape in a way such that you really shouldn't be talking about the two in public. I don't know exactly what the agenda of the people protesting the talk was about. I can see how it could be offensive to a rape survivor though, even as a straight white guy who doesn't worry about that at all for my own sake.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if someone was abused by a clown do we ban clowns from circuses? What the hell is wrong with people?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Ardaen]

For the love of humanity, mod parent up. People need to be responsible for addressing their own difficulties, not force all of society to acquiesce and adopt arbitrary strictures to make sure they don't possibly ever cause somebody to remember something nasty.

Not the best way to put it, but there is some truth there.

So, all you whiny feminists, unless you are willing to be sensitive to people like this AC and ban all pseudo-military accouterments from all fashion forever etc. then you can STFU. That is of course if feminism wasn't already based on double standards run amok.

I was with you up until you started the name calling and the bigotry against feminists.

Yeah, sure, some may have double standards and some may be ridiculous. This is true of any group of people. This does not mean that all feminism is a double standard or that everything under the umbrella term feminism should be summarily dismissed. By that logic any group or cause can be ignored.

Re:Rape trigger?

[wytcld]

How are you going to have a flashback to an experience under a drug that specifically robs you of any memory of the occassion? How can you have a flashback to a state when, consciously, you weren't there?

Re:Rape trigger?

[xski]

Yup, some folks simply don't want anyone to have the conversation at all. Be amazed.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you need a trigger warning before you mention that it may be a rape trigger. For those that are especially sensitive, you may need to issue a warning notification or even a notification tip.

Unfortunately for some people, just the tip is enough to send them into full-blown rape trauma.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ceoyoyo]

Most date rape drugs are favoured for that purpose because they make the victim compliant and often cause some amnesia, which means victims are less likely to have PTSD. On the other hand, by far the most popular date rape drug, alcohol, often increases the likelihood of violence. Despite the dark alley fantasies, a large proportion of rape also involves drunk idiots at social gatherings. So if you want to avoid triggering rape-related PTSD, ban alcohol.

No? I agree. Recovery from PTSD (and many other mental illnesses) doesn't involve sanitizing the world, it involves learning how to live in it again.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?

I think the difficulty here is "yes, it is too much to expect" is the only correct answer. You can ask the rest of the world to be nice and be disappointed with the rest of the world when they aren't, but somewhere, someone's going to fuck up your day for the lulz.

Being prepared for that is the correct answer.

Re:Rape trigger?

[hedwards]

Trigger wasn't chosen by accident to describe the phenomena, it's a rather quick change for most people that are that sensitive. But, such a person would be using exceedingly poor judgment attending a talk of that nature, alone, knowing about their sensitivity.

But yes, there are many other options that could have been exercised, some of which could even have been exercised at the last minute. Posting a notice that people sensitive might want to steer clear should have been at or near the top of that list.

Re:Rape trigger?

[hedwards]

Except it's not legitimate at all. A person that sensitive would be wise to steer clear and let other people get their information.

We're not talking about barring such talk where people are studying other things, or where people are being forced to attend. We're talking about an optional talk at a conference.

When all is said and done, allowing other people, to be raped because they didn't have the information to protect themselves is completely indefensible. And any rape survivor is going to choose to avoid the area if they're that sensitive to the topic at hand. The ones who don't, are generally asking to be triggered or lieing about the situation.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

so, so true.

what was GP thinking in claiming it was *his* problem? Other people want in, too.
The fact that GP is advising sufferers from PTSD to attend weekly counseling is just a way to take away the opportunity for other people to help too.

"Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?"
Of course not, I'm glad you took the opportunity to make this point, the GP seemed to have forgotten to include it in his post. It was all about how HE felt, and was HE was doing to get better. If he's *that* selfish, he's clearly not healed yet, and needs *lots* of consideration of others

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

GSloop: " *we* sent you to war and you were doing your job in service for all of us - at least those in the USA. (I'm assuming you're a US combat veteran.) ... Lots of us contributed to _your_ problem,"

Excuse me, you're too loose with the "we" and "us". Speak for yourself, I protested in the streets against the recent US belligerent wars. Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened the US in any way except in the preposterous rhetoric of the likes of Bush, Cheney and other criminals. The US is destroying those countries for the sole benefit of the tiny rich class who own oil and mining companies, not for "us".

I do sympathize with the veterans, most of them are relatively innocent, if they believed the propaganda, or were tricked into the contracts or whatever. Your post is sound on those points. But people need to lose the "we did x" convention of speech when referring to governments, it's a euphemism for atrocities.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

^ autism logic

Re:Rape trigger?

[greg1104]

Tell you what. I have some medicine here that will make you lose your memory for a bit. How about we get together, you pop some, and I'll violate you a bunch when it kicks in. You'll wake up with a sore ass but no other memory of the event, so it's fine, right? Afterward, I'll suggest you browse Slashdot to remember how we met again, and if you say you'd prefer not to I'll suggest you're not man enough to handle your PTSD.

One of the reasons women get so touchy about this subject is the sort of completely insensitive attitude you're presenting here. Also, the idea that you can recover from a mental illness by learning how to cope is rather optimistic. It's like suggesting you can beat cancer by staring at it in disapproval.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

Feminists, as a class, are intolerant. Intolerance is like force, it's only wrong if you initiate it. I am intolerant of intolerance, and as such of feminists. I freely acknowledge this makes me a bigot connotatively, but not denotatively (pejoratively). I hasten to add that qualifying feminists as 'whiny' is not 'name calling' if, in fact, they are whining and that whining is the core of the issue at hand, all of which I believe are demonstrably true unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

I would recommend you look at this video ("Is feminism hate?"), which though a bit long, is very methodical in its examination of the intolerance that is at the core of feminism. If it piques your interest, I would recommend other videos by the same woman which precede it in the same vein such as NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That).

Re:Rape trigger?

[greg1104]

You should get a colonoscopy done. They give you medicine like Versed, so there's memory of the event itself afterward. Hint: you can still tell someone stuck a tube up your ass.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Eil]

This is basically what I came here to say... the talk Violet Blue had (somewhat?) planned to give is only barely related to security in general, and had nothing at all to do with computer security. Even if it's a good talk (and it very well may be), it still doesn't have a place at a computer security conference. Why the organizers even allowed it in the first place is beyond me. Apparently she's spoken on similar topics at other security conferences... I have to assume the organizers there only added her to their tracks to add some color and intrigue to the schedule. Get people talking, or curious, and sell more tickets.

I went to a talk called "Hacking Sex" at HOPE in 2008... it was only mildly interesting and ended up having nothing to do with hacking. It really just boiled down to, "golly gee, some people have weird fetishes but try not to hold it against them. And plz use condoms, k?" I don't think it really added anything to the conference at all.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it the job of the speaker to be sensitive to every single tiny thing that may affect someone in their lives? Should we stop talking about trespassing at conferences because there might be someone in the audience who had a sibling killed during a house break-in? Don't attend the damn talk.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

I realize now some time later that in my sleep deprived stupor I reversed 'connote' and 'denote' in my above writing. I apologize for any confusion my apparent dyslexia may have caused.

Re:Rape trigger?

[atari800]

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage? I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind. Or an elderly person's problem for being elderly. But still, we make allowances for these "problems" and treat such people with dignity and respect. We make changes to how we'd interact with the world to accommodate them, and make them feel as comfortable as possible.

---

This is a bit of a fallacy when put it in the context of the actual issue that we are talking about. You think that "Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy..." means that a presentation at a major conference should be completely cancelled (30 minutes before it was to begin) because one person walked up to the guy in charge and said "I won't like one part of this presentation because I have some personal issues that relate to that small part, and it will make me uncomfortable"

That is not "taking some care to have some empathy", that is insanity!

Do you seriously think that was a reasonable accommodation, like helping a blind person cross the street?

   

Re:Rape trigger?

[greg1104]

Technical conferences are not the appropriate venue to discuss every problem in life. If I went into one of the database conferences I attend and found out a talk was on molesting cars, I would be offended and raise my issue with the organizer, especially if I were also presenting at the event. No amount of you telling me that my car will be broken into if I don't explore how to molest it myself first would change my mind. Now, if the conference's stated goal was "Expert tips for cornholing your Kia", well people wouldn't have very much right to complain.

There is an implicit social contract for what is and isn't appropriate for any particular venue. You don't seem to think the right call was made on this particular conference, and that's fine. However, I object to your assuming your viewpoint is the only correct one. If the organizer's position is "rape is off limits", and the presenter says there's a little rape...that is a legitimate complaint then, isn't it? It is the sort of thing that should be disclosed with much better notice than it appears to have gotten in this case.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a rape trigger?

In the case of the Security Bsides meeting, a rape trigger seems to be political correctness run amok. Or perhaps it is just a convenient means of censoring something else Violet Blue's presentation?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Slashdot Parent]

One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present.

This is disingenuous. Nobody can claim that they thought Violet Frickin' Blue was going to present about Wi-Fi security.

If they didn't want a talk that included sex, they shouldn't have invited her to present. None of the subject matter should have surprised anybody because she planned to give the exact same talk that she gave last year.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, an "in San Francisco" sarcastic comment. Are you 50 years old and a Rush Limbaugh fan?

Oh, a "how dare you denigrate San Francisco" comment. Are you 20 years old and living in a commune? You're as bad as the OP. Besides, everyone knows that SF is well-known for being devoid of cultural eccentricities.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Peristaltic]

Sure, please deal with those emotions privately instead of dragging all the rest of us into the drama.

I came here voluntarily after reading the summary... who dragged -you- here?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely sure I can put a label on the fallacy you've made by comparing a person suffering from PTSD from an elderly or blind person other than to point out that being elderly or blind are not things that are (generally) treatable, whereas PTSD is. The people I know who have PTSD or other panic related disorders I work to be sensitive towards and not trigger them, I also believe that 'not acting like a dick' can generally reduce the likelihood of triggering a member of the general public.

However, not acting like a dick is far removed from 'not wearing fatigues' or listing to MIA's (or others') songs that have gunshots in them in such a way that the public can hear them (blasting your stereo is often a dick move, watching a youtube clip of the song is a crowded, boisterous environment without headphones isn't).

So you're right, for veterans we may all share some amount of responsibility for the injuries they've sustained, but comparing those injuries to blind or elderly persons dilutes your point.

Re:Rape trigger?

[nebular]

The thing is Violet Blue's topics are about sex. That's what she talks and writes about. It wasn't that the organizers didn't know she was going to talk sex, that's what she was invited for. Also the organizers didn't ask the Ada Initiative their opinion (They had other things to deal with) Ada told them their opinion and basically made it clear that if the talk went on, they would make things very uncomfortable for them. Win-win for Ada: if the talk went on, they get to cause a stink and get publicity, if they stop the talk, well they're doing their job.

Shame that the organizers didn't think to say "Hey Ada, here's Violet Blue. Why don't you talk for a bit and figure something out."

This was not only a hacker conference, but also a conference. Men and women will be there and social situations will happen. People will have sex. Talking about it isn't a bad thing.

From Ada's website, I found that they imply that Techie males are more likely to sexually harass and/or rape women (which in and of itself is rather offensive, but since I haven't seen the math I'll allow the possibility). If that is the case, would pushing the discussion of sex to purely social banter reduce the jokes, comments and actions? I think it would make it worse.

What we need to do in society is talk more about sex. Stop making it a taboo and controversial subject and people will be able to deal with it better

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

I was also against the wars - perhaps not for the exact same set of reasons you are, but very against in any case.

However, without speaking for you - I *do* consider myself responsible for the acts of my country - at least in part.

I pay taxes, I vote, I remain a citizen of my country.
I don't believe I am responsible for all the blame, but I'm not free of it either.

It's too bad you chose to post anon - I think a good discussion could occur.

But in summary - yes, the country I love and support did [and does] horrible things. I almost certainly could do more to stop it.
[For example, one could lead a armed insurrection. It's not something I think would be beneficial or even justified - but the point is that virtually no-one has done everything possible to stop the bad actions this country has taken. Even you, even me.]

Thus, I share some of the guilt and blame.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage? I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind. Or an elderly person's problem for being elderly. But still, we make allowances for these "problems" and treat such people with dignity and respect. We make changes to how we'd interact with the world to accommodate them, and make them feel as comfortable as possible.

There is a difference between providing braille descriptions of paintings to blind people in a gallery and closing the gallery to avoid upsetting blind people who cannot see the paintings.

There is a difference between providing access ramps to public buildings for people in wheelchairs and outlawing all stairs because it reminds paralyzed people that they cannot walk.

There is a difference between providing phones with big buttons for old people with bad eyesight and declaring that smartphone screens are too small and exclude the elderly.

Please tell me that you understand such differences. I agree that overall we lack reasonable empathy and we could all be a little more understanding in general at no real cost to ourselves, but that is not what this is about.

This is a talk. If you are bothered by anything in the talk then you can stand up and walk out. Even better, if you expect to be offended by the talk, you can just avoid it altogether. No one is forcing you to attend.

The current societal trend towards bending over backwards for every hypersensitive person is truly a dangerous one. The more we do it, the more there is an expectation that it be done and the more people increase their demands for it. There is no right "not to be offended", and free speech is meaningless if such a provision is attached to it. I take no stance on whether Blue Violet's talk was appropriate for the context or not (and I'm inclined to believe that this issue has been blown out of proportion by her because she seems to be yet another vapid self-promoting internet celebrity), but getting it tossed to spare the sensitivities of people who didn't even need to be there is unacceptable.

If you have been the victim of a horrific event then I sympathize with you. I will not bring it up in direct conversation with you and I hope that you find a way to heal and move on with your life. You should nevertheless try to understand that it is you who is broken even if it is no fault of your own (as this post's grandparent poster does), and you should not attempt to force others to adapt to you, especially in matters in which you have chosen to involve yourself. If you have rape triggers, don't watch movies that involve rape, don't attend talks that mention rape, etc.

If we go down this path, we will end up at the end of the spectrum where it is reasonable for rape victims to request that talks be given twice with the second session given only to women because men are "rape triggers" and they must be sequestered to avoid evoking traumatic memories.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

I appreciate that you've posted non-anon. It seems few are willing to actually stand behind their beliefs.

---
As far as the source of the article. I am confused about the actual content of the talk. But, provided I understand what occurred, I think I disagree with the decision. [To cancel. Yes, that's right: disagree.]

But my points here are not about agreement [or not] of the actual decision. It's more about: How much should I be understanding and accommodating to needs I don't much understand - even if I feel they're excessive.

Because, perhaps even often, we feel someone else's needs are excessive when in reality - if the roles were reversed - we'd have the same position as the person we're opposing.

Because, far too often, we lack empathy for those around us, for those we don't identify as "like us."

Do you seriously think that was a reasonable accommodation, like helping a blind person cross the street?

...since I'm unclear of the actual facts of the case - because I'm unsure what happened, and because I was responding to a poster who seemed to feel his "problem" should be his alone, and because I see this lack of care and empathy in so many ways in peoples lives. ...because I think it's at epidemic levels here in the United States. [Lack of empathy for those not "like us."] ...for all those reasons - I thought it was incredibly important to highlight that lack of civility, honor, and empathy. I thought if one were to err on one side vs another - that in that case, I'd err on the side of being "too" accommodating, "too" empathetic, rather than not enough.

Was the harm from not having the talk greater than the harm that might have been done by glossing over victims of sexual violence? I really don't know. But I do know that by reading a lot of what is up-thread - that really caring about the sensitivities of the victims of sexual violence isn't, by any standard, universally in evidence here. [Along with respect for Women etc.]

Ergo, perhaps a good reason to push hard on the boundaries the other way.

-Greg

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should stop being a bigot yourself. Saying that other people express bigotry when your own posts screams 'HEY, I AM A FUCKING BIGOT' is pretty.. off.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Hatta]

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage

The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.

After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?

Yes. We've got our own problems to deal with, it's not all about you.

I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind.

Depends on why they are blind. I'll have a lot less sympathy if it was because they drank too much moonshine.
I have a lot less sympathy for a Vet with PTSD when they volunteered for the military than if they were drafted.

Life sucks, get a helmet.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Hatta]

the country I love and support did [and does] horrible things

Then why do you love and support it?

Re:Rape trigger?

[aaaaaaargh!]

However, as others have pointed out quite convincingly already, if you're the victim of a date rape suffering from PTSD with flashbacks, it's a good idea simply not to attend a talk titled "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits" rather than complaining about it and/or preventing it from being given.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I appreciate that you've posted non-anon. It seems few are willing to actually stand behind their beliefs.

Or maybe we just can't be bothered to create an account.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the equivalent of calling someone who criticizes Israel 'anti-semitic'. It is a deliberate ploy to control and shut down debate.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that this could be potentially anything

Could be anything, but there are somethings much more likely than others. If you have a good reason to discuss such things, then go ahead, but in many cases, it should be kind of obvious what might be more likely to be problematic, and to avoid that without good reasons (not saying the talk was not a good reason...).

Yet I don't see anyone worrying about causing them flashbacks.

Have you not been around someone who has had to deal with death or other trauma? People are sensitive around them all the time. Although people are also usually much more open about such problems. Also, a lot more people have had to deal with such things themselves, so while there are plenty of jokes and talk of death, especially considering video games, it sometimes gets handled differently than jokes and talk about rape.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this is a case of "hope for the best, but plan for the worst"? I can imagine that once you expect people to be accommodating, you're going to be unpleasantly surprised much of the time ... which could make you pretty bitter, and you'd maybe miss the few really wonderful rays of sunshine that poke through.

Hope things go well for you, AC.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Rape trigger?

[khallow]

Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.

If no one cares what idiots have to say, then why is this discussion even happening? If the Ada Initiative's handling of this was idiotic, and misusing rape issues, wouldn't that mean no one should care about what they are saying then?

They did more than just say idiotic stuff. They suppressed someone's speech because of that idiocy. That's actually harmful.

That was supposed to be an example that people could relate to a little more than maybe rape issues. The problem of taking what idiots say about a serious issue as to mean the issue is not so serious in general seems completely relevant and on-topic based on some of the replies this story has gotten so far.

It wasn't a good example. We don't care what idiots say on the internet because it doesn't affect us. The "rape trigger" people could someday be trying to censor our speech, not just weird people in San Francisco. They crossed the line from idiocy to harm.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

Do you really want a discussion, or is this just a mindless troll attempt?

Perhaps you'd like to ponder what those words mean, and consider that they have some significance other than the facile way you apparently are interpreting them.

Do you love your parents? For most, the answer is yes.
Do you agree with everything they do?
Do you disagree with everything they do? ...Probably somewhere in the middle.
Do they make bad decisions sometimes? Harm people sometimes?

Again, for most, they aren't angelic beings or absolute devils.

And yet you still love them.
And yet you still help them.
And yet you still try to help them do better.

[sarcasm] But they do horrible things! Then why do you love and support [them]? [/sarcasm]

Clear enough?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to ask you to avoid mention of "Ada Initiative", as that is a free speech suppression trigger for me.

Seriously, I don't mean to diminish people who really do have some kind of PTSD, but we cannot bubble-wrap the world in order to completely avoid potential 'triggers'--the heckler's veto cannot be allowed to stand.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... they really shouldn't be talking about it at all in front of an audience"

According to whom, and by what authority?

I strongly suspect the answers are "fans of censorship" and "by the power invested in them by their self righteousness and zealotry", respectively.

Re:Rape trigger?

[atari800]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will agree that there is a serious lack of empathy within our society for most of these kids of issues/people.

I was focusing really on the practical decision to cancel the talk, against the will of the speaker, and all of the other people who wanted to attend. I think that the talk did not need to be canceled, and the people who have very serious emotional responses to these situations know that about themselves, and would just avoid the talk or walk out. But that is the practical part of this, and I agree that some people (including me) tend to focus that those parts, leaving no room for thinking about what can and should be done in these situations. Compromises can be made, like giving full disclosure and proper warnings _before_ subjecting people to situations that are going to be painful for them. Also, simply recognizing that this is a very real problem, for a lot of people. That goes a long way.

-Mark

Re:Rape trigger?

[ceoyoyo]

You're being an idiot. You're not being sensitive, you're being patronizing, and you're contributing to real harm being done.

At no point did I say date rape was okay. Quite the opposite. Now, if you're not so stuck in your self righteousness that you can't engage in rational thought:

Discussion of date rape drugs is not more likely to be a PTSD trigger than discussion, or the existence, of any number of other things including rape, violence, drunk idiots or sex in general. Just to be clear for people (like you) who like to put words in other peoples' mouths, that doesn't make date rape, non-date rape, drugging people or violence against anybody in any way okay.

The Ada Initiative seems to agree with me. Their complaint wasn't actually about the discussion of date rape drugs, it was about the discussion of sex in general. Lots of other people have posted the quote here. They may have a point - perhaps Violet Blue's talk was off topic at the conference she was at. However, since she was invited, it seems the organizers didn't think so. While I suspect the AI was actually using rape as an excuse to get a speaker they dislike banned (which I find abhorrent), their claim is that discussion of sex can trigger flashbacks in women suffering from rape related PTSD. This is certainly true. Their solution was to demand the talk be pulled. That's not a good solution.

PTSD flashbacks (and not just with rape-related PTSD) can be triggered by literally anything. A random sampling of some I've heard: loud noises, dogs, baseball, churches, classrooms, street lights, motorcycles, men with dark hair, etc. Some of those ARE from rape victims. Probably not the ones you think.

As with many mental illnesses, an important criterion for the diagnosis of PTSD is that it interferes significantly with normal life (http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/dsm-iv-tr-ptsd.asp). So guess how you recover from such a mental illness? It isn't by sterilizing the world. It's by developing strategies to deal with your illness and get back as close as possible to living normally. In fact, guess what the recommended treatments are for PTSD? Counselling and support groups (i.e. talking about it) and, in extreme cases, desensitization therapy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/). To refer back to your post, the only way to recover from a mental illness is to develop strategies to cope with it. Those might involve drug therapy (to reference your silly cancer simile) but far preferable, especially for disorders like PTSD, are non-drug therapies like counselling, support groups, etc. Avoidance is often a symptom of, and may even contribute to a mental illness. It does not treat it.

Having said that, it's quite understandable that someone with PTSD might prefer not to be exposed to easily avoided triggers in public. It seems that Blue knows that, and suggested moving her talk to one of several more restricted venues, but those suggestions were refused.

Violet Blue, by the way, is a trained crisis counsellor (as am I). As far as I can tell, Valerie Aurora is not.

It looks to me very much like Valerie Aurora and the Ada Initiative used (and I chose that word specifically, with all the disgusting connotations it has in this context) rape victims generally to further a political agenda and specifically to muzzle a speaker whom they dislike.

On a personal note, one of the most rewarding interactions I had as a crisis counsellor was with a woman the night before she was scheduled to testify against her rapist. She was dreading facing him and was in crisis at the thought. We talked about her experience, her feelings about testifying and not, and what she was likely to gain or lose from either decision. When we finished she had come to the conclusion that she was a hero, both for facing her fear and helping make sure her attacker didn't get a chance to hurt anyone else. She knew it would be difficult, but she was sure she was capable of doing it.

Re:Rape trigger?

[The_Revelation]

Well, if the Ada Initiative's mission was to plaster 'RAPE' all over every single Internet technical news site, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminists, as a class, are intolerant.

Only of bigotry.

Intolerance is like force, it's only wrong if you initiate it. I am intolerant of intolerance, and as such of feminists. I freely acknowledge this makes me a bigot connotatively, but not denotatively (pejoratively). I hasten to add that qualifying feminists as 'whiny' is not 'name calling' if, in fact, they are whining and that whining is the core of the issue at hand, all of which I believe are demonstrably true unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

What a surprise that a self-described bigot dislikes people who are against a pervasive form of bigotry in our society.

Get over yourself, you're a shithead without a single valid thing to say against feminism.

Re:Rape trigger?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Hey asshole, men get raped too. The situations you describe may be avoidable, if people are allowed to talk about the warning signs, what to look for, and what to do if your in the middle of the shit.

But instead fuckheads like you, yes you, think that hiding what is occurring because you don't want to hurt the people it's already happen to, GET MORE PEOPLE HURT.

It makes about as much sense as...

"We shouldn't talk about hacking in front an audience, because Bob got his server hacked and we might set off a SHAME TRIGGER", regardless of the fact we'll save 50 other people from getting hacked.

Problems with a society are never solved by hiding them.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the whole fucking problem, isn't it?

Feminist LOVE to reduce men to their body parts. Just don't you dare reduce a woman to her body parts!

Fucking hypocrites.

I've slowly come to understand and accept feminism over the last ten years or so. And the more feminist I get, the less I like body-part insults directed at either gender. The ones aimed at females are more of a problem in our society as it exists today, because our culture assumes masculinity is a good thing and femininity is a weaker, lesser thing, and therefore calling a woman a "cunt" involves a lot more assumed misogyny than the misandry implied by calling a man a "dick". However, neither is in any sense a good thing, and I'm trying to avoid both.

So fuck off, you dishonest piece of shit. You don't want to be a feminist? Then don't pretend to speak for us.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to sound sexist or anything, but these women need to wash the sand out of their vaginas

Re:Rape trigger?

[Ardaen]

Women as a class are not treated as well as men in our society. I'd quote some statistics, point at some examples or data but it's pervasive enough and well enough studied that I should not need to. You'd have to be wilfully ignorant or very young to be unaware of this. True, things are improving, and are far better than they were. But this does not mean things are fair.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

There is no central government of feminism. No group of leaders that decide global feminist policy. It's an umbrella term. As soon as you start quoting individuals to explain why feminists are all one way or another you've crossed into the realm of prejudice and bigotry. Some are intolerant yes. Some aren't. Unsurprisingly people who feel mistreated aren't always fair, they are often angry. It's funny that you claim to be against intolerance but then say you are intolerant of all people who subscribe to any ideology aimed at establishing equality for women.

You are prejudiced. At least some of these prejudices are unfair and harmful. I know this about you by one simple fact, you are human. On this issue I'd strongly suggest some introspection. Maybe after getting some sleep.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that you can't just decide on people's behalf what's good for them. Yes, these people running the conference can control the presentations, but limiting presentations to what people feel is comfortable at mother fucking DEFCON seems weird to me. The militant feminists who swung this censorship took advantage of a perfectly reasonable move toward being more inclusive of women to push their agenda, which, as with all extremists, has more to do with controlling people than it does with promoting healthy discourse.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

Wow, vapid ad hominem, what a great way to demonstrate your superiority. Did you even look at the videos, or are you afraid of any contrary opinions? That question is rhetorical, of course you are.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

So tell me, if men are so well treated, why is that men account for around 80% of all homeless? Why is it they account for more than 90% of workplace deaths, and rising? Why do men account for more than 80% of suicides among most of the adult age spectrum? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear how good men have it over the slamming of all their coffins.

With regard to your general 'feminism isn't a monolith' argument, watch the videos I linked to, since you obviously haven't. They address the subject far better than I can ad hoc with no sleep.

(And I don't deny some prejudice sourced in my humanity, but that cuts as equally to you as to me. You might as well disparage somebody for breathing.)

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once sucker punched and had my nose broken. Then as I fell down to one knee, my head was kicked and stomped with hard-soled boots. This was 11 years ago and I still get nervous in public places and experience discomfort and flash backs with television violence that was similar to that which I experienced, or when people say things similar as well.

I just deal with it. I have no other choice, really.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I replied to another post with this, but replying to yours is much more relevant, in my opinion:

I was once sucker punched and had my nose broken. Then as I fell down to one knee, my head was kicked and stomped with hard-soled boots. This was 11 years ago and I still get nervous in public places and experience discomfort and flash backs with television violence that was similar to that which I experienced, or when people say things similar as well.

I just deal with it. I have no other choice, really. I wasn't in combat, at least, it was more like 1 way combat, with me on the receiving end. I don't know what it's like to be in battle, but I definitely empathize with you regarding going places and having things remind you of the incident(s) and leading to fear and anxiety.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.

After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?

Citation needed. +1000

I'll try not to be contemptuous, but it amazes me that you make such sweeping statements and apparently have taken no steps to actually do some research to back up such ideas.

Even if we just assume that "aversion" therapy is the one and best approach to solving someone's phobia [it's probably not the best approach for PTSD] - treatment would be a "with consent" kind of thing.

That you'd suggest/imply that we subject victims of any kind of abuse or trauma to repeat said trauma without their consent in an effort to HELP them, seems beyond the pale.

Clearly the argument was - whether you agree with it or not - that victims of sexual trauma/violence would be, without their consent, subjected to re-injury. And you're going to actually make the point that we should not avoid it, because it *might* conceivably help them? [And I can anticipate you're going to throw in the "in a safe environment" as your escape. And in a crowded room of males who seem to often have boundaries issues with sex and women - that's a safe environment, and with consent? Sheesh.]

Perhaps that's not what you're claiming, but seriously, If it's not, then this discussion has veered way off the topic of either the initial thread, or even the subthread here about treating people with dignity, respect and empathy.

A safe environment isn't in a room full of men, many of whom seem incapable of anything other than "that effing bitch just needs to get the f out of there." - referring to either Violet Blue or the hypothetical women who would might have been wounded by the talk [depending on which half of seemingly 40% of the responses here have been.]

You're far from the worst, so perhaps you deserve a break, but damn - I really can't believe many of the offensive, uneducated, unknowledgeable and uncaring and frankly offensive posts I've seen on this thread - from the top down.

Re:Rape trigger?

[phantomfive]

Post-traumatic-slash triggers. Please have some respect.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

Hopefully you'll come back and read this.

Thanks for the effort at reconciling our divergent views. [Not that you care what I think, but I say - "Good work."]

I've actually watched substantial parts of VB's presentation she linked to in her response to this episode, and I have to say - I'm not sure the two sets of content are the same. The title of the presentation would seem to indicate different, but perhaps the title is intended to be edgy and mysterious.

I have to say, I tend to fall, reflexively, on VBlue's side. I've read some of her writings and come across her in the past and tend to view what she's done with no prejudice. So, given all that - if the two talks were similar - I'd again have to say that I think someone over reacted.

But that often happens. I wish it wouldn't and I'd say a vigorous apology to VBlue would be a minimal level of effort that should be required.

I'd probably tend to asses the blame as 80/20 or 70/30 - but again I don't consider myself adequately in possession of the facts to really judge.

Better pre-talk clarification on what the content is would be helpful. At least this way, everyone knows what's coming and can adjust accordingly.

Re:Rape trigger?

[mirability]

" The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things" Ugh, so tired of people speaking for "the women". I am a woman. I like technical conferences, I think about non-technical things at technical conferences and have gone to non-technical sessions at technical conferences. If they want to ban such sessions, they need to think about that beforehand. I for one would not support such a ban. Did anyone ask all the women attending the technical conference if they wanted the Ada Initiative to represent them? I would like to say that I do not want such a prudish and sexually compartmentalizing organization representing me. " It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. " Really? How do you know this? As far as I know, people at conferences are still people and still think about sex no matter what.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Ardaen]

Yeah, that 80% figure? I can make up numbers as well. I can even get them from resources I agree with, even if they aren't backed up by good methodology. Getting good numbers in this area is difficult, but it tends to be closer to 60% male. That doesn't mean women are doing better however. There are certain situations like sex for housing that women are more likely to get into. This does not mean they are doing better.

But yeah, you're quoting skewed numbers and arguments straight from masculinist propaganda. The bad kind of masculinist, the sort that is pretty much a mirror image of what you accuse all feminists of being. Also it's the kind of stuff a troll would dig up with a few simple Google searches. Silly me, don't feed the trolls.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

It's funny you accuse me of making up numbers at the same time that you accuse me of quoting numbers from "masculinist propaganda". It can't be both. And since you disrespectfully and lazily dismiss me out of hand with an assumption of bad faith making only the vaguest reference to the possibility that methodologies involved could be questionable, I'll let this lie here, since I have a feeling that if I did a lot of work writing up defenses of the aforesaid methodologies, you'd lazily dismiss those out of hand too with another assumption of bad faith.

Just remember, on the internet it's not important to convince an interlocutor, it's the audience that matters. You may be too lazy to look at the videos I referenced, but others may not be, and they won't look at them with the dogmatic prejudice of a convinced zealot. A lot of fence sitters are waking up, and the more your ilk ignores the substance of arguments to engage in things like genetic fallacy ("it's invalid because it comes from x!") the more those fence sitters will look askance at your dogma.

The last few years have seen a growing movement substantively criticizing modern feminism, and the words and deeds of mainstream feminist activists are no longer being given a pass and/or languishing in obscurity. You can be as lazy and dismissive as you want, in fact, I encourage it so people can see the inherent weakness of what you espouse. The audience is listening, let them see and judge for themselves.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

he wasn't namecalling, he was adding a qualifier 'whiny' which isolates the subset of feminists he's adressing. If the shoe fits wear it, if not move on, nothing to see here.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, the reason a trigger phrase/situation is unwanted is because it brings back memories you can't deal with. As long as you haven't learned to deal with those memories you, you need to first seek help (or work on it on your own if that works for you), and second avoid situations where you know you're gonna be triggered. Once you learn to deal with the memories, they will still be unpleasent, but they won't be disabilitating.

As far as the article is concerned: if you know a talk is gonna be given that's gonna trigger a memory you're not prepared to deal with, then don't fucking go the talk. (according to the article, the organiser was approached _before_ the talk by someone claiming to be a rape victim who woul be triggered by the talk. Off course turns out it wasn't a random audience member but an ADA activist come there specifically to get the talk banned)

Re:Rape trigger?

[databeast]

as one of those folks who's been attending Defcon since the 90's, and find the odd bit of pseudo-military gear damn useful for being on their feet for extended hours during a four day conference (only a small part of me finds it cool any more, and I never thought it funny), I'd be happy as hell to talk with you, and introduce you to many of the other folks that I know wear the same - because I think we'd all agree that we have an obligation to you as a fellow attendee to make you feel welcome and safe, and we welcome your input on how to do that. True, it's your problem, but that doesn't mean that other folks can't accommodate you if you give them a chance to do so - I think most of us would be more than glad to have the opportunity - you're part of our community and we have a responsibility to look out for the interests of one of our own. This is of course, the exact opposite of what happened with the censorship of the talk at BSidesSF. Sure, we don't *have* to change to to satisfy you, but many of us might /want/ to, given the chance. Discourse and cooperation are the best tools here.

Re:Rape trigger?

[AmiMoJo]

So tell me, if men are so well treated ... Why is it they account for more than 90% of workplace deaths, and rising? Why do men account for more than 80% of suicides among most of the adult age spectrum?

It isn't because women treat men badly. With workplace related deaths it is because more men work in construction, not because women force them to but because construction is a very sexist industry and doesn't attract many women to it.

With suicides it is more to do with male culture and pressure it puts on young men than anything to do with women. Unless you are saying young girls are driving them to it?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Hatta]

Did you happen to notice that my post was a question?

Re:Rape trigger?

[AmiMoJo]

It doesn't work for PTSD. The only way to deal with it is to process the experience in a controlled way, not to become desensitized to the flashbacks.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Hatta]

If my parents did anything I truly felt was horrible (say instigating a war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people as some sort of dick waving contest), I'd take them out of the equation myself. I would hope that they would do the same to me. I'd do the same to the US today if there was any way for one man to overthrow a country.

Are people perfect? No. Should you love them despite their imperfections? Yes. But there's a big difference between minor personal flaws and outright evil.

Re:Rape trigger?

[gweihir]

And this is completely the wrong approach. Hacker talks deal with risks and dangers. If sex comes into the picture, it is completely obvious, "rape triggers" could be present and anybody fearing them would immediately know the risks. The title of that task was clear enough.

Now, if you stop talking about risks and dangers, because some people may be to incompetent with regards to risks and dangers to protect themselves, you are making the problem much, much worse and cause a lot of very serious other problems. Rather obviously so. It is also terribly, terribly insulting to anybody recovering from such a trauma, as it removes their freedom of choice and instead treats them like children unfit to make their own decisions.

As to Valerie Aurora, this is just a conventional bullying attempt by her, which unfortunately was successful. She is one of these not too bright people that believe her own issues are so important that the whole world should dance to her tune. Completely unacceptable, of course. (Side note: I take the "not too bright" from her technical writings, which I am qualified to assess on merit. I tend to think by now the there "kernel hacker" credentials are either faked or that she was never really good at it.)

Re:Rape trigger?

[gweihir]

You are wrong. Completely wrong in fact and this is obvious to anybody who does understand IT security and espionage. The human angle is very important, as any competent IT security expert knows. Processes and adherence to them, group-dynamic effects, coercion, also by management, and yes, in a bit wider scope, possibilities for extortion and bribary. Sex obviously belongs in there, just look at the history of sex and espionage (which is more and more something that involves IT). One of the typical ways IT security fails is by ignoring these human factors.

It is polite to warn people whenever a talk or presentation involves sex or drugs. But a strong hint in the title is quite enough. And anybody sensitive to "rape triggers" has a responsible to check possible talks he/she is going to attend for tasks. Hell, you can even politely ask the presenter directly before. Expecting "technical conferences" to turn into a "no human angles" zone because some (really stupid) people may inadvertently think they are, is completely the wrong approach and excluding human angles would to tremendous damage to all things involving hacking and IT security.

Re:Rape trigger?

[dr_dank]

It all boils down to the aim of the conference. A 100% tech-content conference wouldn't be the place for this kind of talk. A hacker conference, which encompasses the social/cultural aspects of hacker-dom as well as technical topics would fit right in.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Loser4Now]

"Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?"

Yes. It really is. People have their own shit they need to deal with, and can't manage the internal baggage of the world. Expecting them to be able to recognize, at a glance and without any knowledge of every -other- individuals' unique and snowflake like bullshit, and then choose the appropriate response (oh, they want to talk about it, oh, they want me to ignore it, blah blah blah) is waaaaaay to much to ask.

"It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to."

Here's my problem with your statement: Yes, we should be willing to help others deal with their emotional baggage by not saying or doing shit that's going to cause them to have a nervous breakdown. But from my understanding of TFA, this isn't an "ought not" situation. This is a "being physically barred from doing" situation. That's the opposite of an ought not. That's a can not.

Incidentally, why the hell are you telling someone what is or isn't too much for him to want? It's like the whole tone of your post is YOU defining what others "ought" to feel, in addition to YOU defining how they "ought" to act.

The world is a big place with diverse people who have the inherent right to choose for THEMSELVES how they feel and act. If some of them abuse that and cause others to confront their own bullshit existence, then it is their RIGHT as individuals to make that choice (standard caveat about their fist and your nose). Westboro OUGHT NOT be pricks, but they have every right to be, and you trying to censor them makes you MUCH worse than they ever could be.

Re:Rape trigger?

[gweihir]

Indeed. That you can keep your head in fact of such a problem speaks highly of you.

I think the key-part of your statement is "Pretending that its OK and if others would just not trigger you will ruin your life.". No problem was ever fixed by avoiding any and all actions that could trigger it. That only creates far larger problems.

The Ada people just make the problem worse, possibly much worse. And while I do not think they are directly malicious, I do think they just do not care enough about the individuals affected to really try to find out what the effects of their actions actually are. They have no inhibitions to exercising power regardless, their political agenda is far more important to them than the effects of it on mere individuals. That I _will_ call malicious.

Side note: Looking a bit at what Violet Blue does and the talks she gives, I conclude that she is a pragmatist that deeply cares about people. That somebody like this is the natural enemy of an organization entirely caught up in a political idea of how people should be is not a surprise, as people like Violet Blue demonstrate daily how wrong it is to focus on politics and forget the individuals affected.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

Your entire perspective is shaped by feminism-inspired gender exclusive blame. When the poster to whom I responded talked about how bad women have it, the implied cause was, of course, those evil, evil men who comprise half of society. Of course it's never considered how women might possibly be contributing to negative effects on their own gender, being the whole other half of society (and marginally *a majority*), because one of demonstrable fundamental tenets of feminist theory is that women are always victims and men always victimizers. When women harm women, it's still the patriarchy's fault. When men harm men, it's still an 'unintended consequence' of the patriarchy. Every kind of "gendered" harm is explained as being a product of the nature of "the patriarchy". Women who harm women are conceived as puppets of some inexorable, omnipresent but imperceptible patriarchal conspiracy force with no agency/choice of their own in their actions, and no responsibility/culpability for their outcomes. Women are always innocent, and men always guilty (which contributes to the current trend in the justice system that women routinely receive less jail time than men for the same crimes).

So, I'm not saying that men's problems are necessarily "women's fault" the way feminists says that women's problems are "men's fault". Men undoubtedly play a role, socially, in their own problems as a gender, but feminism irrationally dismisses that women possible play a voluntary role, socially, in their own problems as a gender. Furthermore, the extended problem is that while anybody who works to improve women's lives is lauded, people who work to improve men's lives are villified. There have been a few efforts to establish men's shelters for abuse, but they can't get funding under the same government programs as shelters for abused women because they're not women, and feminists are part of an active resistance to their inclusion (because men can't be victims of women). Feminists want everything for themselves, and if any men have the temerity to ask for similar services, they are portrayed as patriarchal chauvinist abuse-apologists who are "stealing from women". It's a disgusting, sexist double standard.

What we should be trying to achieve is a society that works on its problems without assigning blame to entire genders or phantasmal gender conspiracies, where each individual can be considered to be choosing to act for their own reasons and held equally and objectively accountable for their actions' effects, whether positive or negative.

(I might add, by the way, that I cringe at the term "men's rights" so often used among anti-feminists. Just as I dislike "women's rights" or "gay rights" or what-have-you. We are human beings, we have human rights, the end. I accept NO special rights, privileges, benefits, reverse/positive discrimination/sexism/racism, quotas for any gender, race, religion, age etc. You're a human, I'm a human, we're all fucking humans, and if we don't have equal access and equal consideration, we're acting/being acted upon in an unethical manner. It all needs to stop, and I oppose such things no matter what direction they come from, no matter how good the "intent" behind them is.)

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Aurora was a rape trigger? Can we stop her from using her name in public, just to protect people from every possible trigger?

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Viet Nam Vet. Assume I have PTSD and my therapy dog helps me get through the day without eating my weapon.
Now assume that a woman who was raped lives in the my neighborhood, and the sight of a dog is a 'Rape Trigger' for her.
Should she be able to dictate that I can't walk the street with my dog. Can she dictate that my town is a Dog-free area she
will never encounter a 'Trigger'. This whole idea is nuts. To the idea that a Security conference is not a proper place for sex
discussion, I would suggest that such a talk could prevent 5-10 people from getting date raped by warning them how to
protect themselves against date rape drugs. Security is process of identifying attacks and learning to guard against them.
This is Security by Obscurity, which never works..

Re:Rape trigger?

[Shirley Marquez]

I disagree that feminists, as a class, are intolerant. I will accept that there is a branch of feminism - a dysfunctional one to my mind - that is intolerant. Please don't tar everybody who believes in equal rights for women with that brush.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Checklist]

I am with and good for the name calling-what else do you call idiots

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

So the whole country, including all it's people are "outright evil?"

When I say I love my country - I mostly mean many of the good people I meet who are my fellow citizens. But you have to narrow that down, like much of your other postings, to vary narrow black-and-white caricatures.

Further, there *are* good things this country has done, along with it's evil. I'm not sure our place in the standings of good/bad world forces is particularly higher or lower than any other. But as in much the rest of life - you applaud the good and work hard to mitigate or change the bad.

But go ahead - take the most absurd and narrow view and expand it to truly inane proportions.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

With strong implication that it was sound, reasonable fact.

"If you eat cyanide, it will decrease your appetite won't it?"
Yes, perhaps it will. It also has substantial, nay catastrophic side effects.

Your statement, while not as inane, uses the same veneer of "question" to imply benefit.

If you can't or won't see that, I guess I can't help you.

Re:Rape trigger?

[GSloop]

Can you point to any statement I made that showed I supported "censor[ing]" them?

Can you point to any case I made that said we ought to force people to behave a certain way?

Perhaps I missed it somewhere?

-Greg

Re:Rape trigger?

[gweihir]

I beg do differ. I think what is actually going on is that the term "feminism" is misused by people with actually a completely different agenda to such a large degree that actual feminists cannot really use it anymore to describe themselves. Misandrists, women that are just pissed that _they_ are not the ones doing the oppression, women lusting for power, women that blame men for their self-caused misery, hanger-ons, men that hope to get laid by calling themselves feminists (stranger strategies have worked), etc. all misuse the term "feminism" today. These are all not feminists, their goal is not equality of the sexes.

However, "people calling themselves feminists are generally intolerant" is a statement I can fully agree with and can support from personal observation, including comments from women that used to think feminism was the answer but then noticed how corrupt the use of that term has become.

Re:Rape trigger?

[ElectricTurtle]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but seriously, watch the videos I linked to above ("Is feminism hate?" and "Not all feminists are like that"). They really highlight how mainstream this kind of thinking is, espoused by feminist senators, MPs, high court judges, NOW leadership, etc. Feminism as an ideology is a particularly fertile ground for 'no true Scotsman' fallacy because it lacks a defining document or founder (vs. for example Marxism). However its mainstream, doctrinaire form can be identified by the number of books a feminist author sells, or how much power they wield within an organization or government (see above). I'd really like somebody to comment on the content I've referenced...

Lastly, to reiterate slightly what I just said to AmiMoJo, I don't believe in rights for women or any delineated subset of humanity. I only believe in human rights. The problem with groups like feminists who militate only for women's rights is that it perpetuates an "us vs. them" mentality that frequently causes harm to the "other" (men) while simultaneously excusing/justifying it as deserved. I refuse to advocate purely for "men's rights" on the same grounds, and I see a lot of similar attitudes among some of the less enlightened in the "men's rights" community who necessarily see women as some kind of opposition to be overcome. That should not be the case, there should not be gender identity power blocks fighting each other over what should be human rights. Real equality cannot ever come from an interest group, it must be collaborative/cooperative from the start.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the hackers that wear leather and combat gear around thinking its funny or cool, it scares the shit out of me at cons.

I get combat gear is a little dorky.

but leather?

get a life.

Re:Rape trigger?

[AmiMoJo]

because one of demonstrable fundamental tenets of feminist theory is that women are always victims and men always victimizers

That's not what feminism is at all. It is simply the idea that men and women, while different, are equally valuable and should be equally valued.

What you misunderstand as some kind of conspiracy theory is merely feminists pointing out that some problems affecting both genders are as a result of extreme masculinity. It isn't blaming men, merely pointing out that the established system has this unfortunate bias. When feminism got started we didn't even recognize PTSD in soldiers, and doctors basically tried to bully them into snapping out of it. Men are not to blame for that, it was simply the state of the medical profession at the time and the mostly male doctors whose masculine bias refused to consider it as anything but weakness and un-male behaviour. You have to differentiate between the attitudes of individuals or institutions and blaming 50% of the human race for something.

BTW, the reason we say "gay rights" is because currently gay people have fewer rights than other human beings. You are correct in stating that there should just be human rights, but the problem is currently gay people are excluded from them so "gay rights" refers to giving that group equality. Again, no conspiracy, just a shorthand way of stating something.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the thing I pull on my rape gun.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's not what feminism is at all. It is simply the idea that men and women, while different, are equally valuable and should be equally valued.

Reading through this sub-thread I found it really striking how ElectricTurtle's position on feminism is so similar to the typical islamaphobe's position on islam. In both cases they insist on defining the entire group by the characteristics of the most extreme of the people who apply the same label to themselves - regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the group disavow those extremists.

I think you will find ElectricTurtle to be completely incapable of accepting any other definition of feminism than the one he promotes. If he's at all like those islamaphobes, he's spent a significant amount of time and energy constructing his own persona as being in opposition to his definition of feminisim. So much so that he will react to any dispute over his interpretation of what feminism means as a personal attack because to accept any redefinition would be a personality shattering event for him.

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what feminism is at all. It is simply the idea that men and women, while different, are equally valuable and should be equally valued.

Reading through this sub-thread I found it really striking how ElectricTurtle's position on feminism is so similar to the typical islamaphobe's position on islam.

Which is appropriate, as I find it really striking how the people disagreeing with ElectricTurtle's position is so similar to Islamic apologists, who stubbornly defend Islam (feminism)

In both cases they insist on defining the entire group by the characteristics of the most extreme of the people who apply the same label to themselves - regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the group disavow those extremists.

In both cases, they (the apologists/people disagreeing with ElectricTurtle) will say how "a majority" are peaceful moderates who disavow extremists, regardless of the fact that extremists (Islamic or feminist) are still out and about (refer to the stats ElectricTurtle mentioned on male issues), while the so called moderates remain passive. This has been pointed out by ElectricTurtle and others as "NAFALT" (Not All Feminists Are Like That). The so called moderates may SAY they don't support the extremists, but when it comes time to ACT, they fall way short.

As pointed out, whenever males want to do something to address males issues, they are denied, as evidence by responses such as yours who attack the messenger's character rather than his message.

I think you will find ElectricTurtle to be completely incapable of accepting any other definition of feminism than the one he promotes.

Takes one to know one. The feminist apologists are incapable of accepting any other definition of feminism than the positive nice sounding one they promote (such as the one from GP, which you quoted)

ElectricTurtle also brought it up here. You basically are replying to him with bad faith. You don't even treat him as somebody capable of rational discussion. Thus I say it's quite appropriate if ElectricTurtle responds with similar (lack of) respect

Re:Rape trigger?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In both cases, they (the apologists/people disagreeing with ElectricTurtle) will say how "a majority" are peaceful moderates who disavow extremists, regardless of the fact that extremists (Islamic or feminist) are still out and about (refer to the stats ElectricTurtle mentioned on male issues), while the so called moderates remain passive.

That's the thing about being moderate, you have a life of your own that keeps you busy unlike the extremists who make their extermism the center of their life. Your argument is like saying that all white people are white supremacists since there are still white supremacists "out and about."

Re:Rape trigger?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Takes one to know one.

What? If anything it is the reverse - extremists see everybody else as an extremist even when they really are not. Not unlike how extremely religious people frequently can't grasp that atheism is not a religion.

So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[crazyjj]

So, AFAICT from the summary and blogs, this was some hippie slap-fight between a bunch of feminists over "rape triggers" (a term so silly that it could only have meaning in San Fran, Austin, and Portland) in some presentation?

And isn't the term "rape trigger" ITSELF a rape trigger?

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that now I want to rape something

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, AFAICT from the summary and blogs, this was some hippie slap-fight between a bunch of feminists over "rape triggers" (a term so silly that it could only have meaning in San Fran, Austin, and Portland) in some presentation?

And isn't the term "rape trigger" ITSELF a rape trigger?

In Sweden, you will get jailed for mentioning a rape trigger, if you are a man.

Just look at what happened to Julian Assange. Two feminist groupies threw themselves at him, but when they found out he had sex with them both in two days, they went to the police and reported him for rape because his condom had burst open.

And yes, Sweden loves San Fran and the gay community especially. Remember, in Sweden, you will get a state-sponsored sex change if you want, and the Royal Princess herself hands out awards at the QX Gay Galas.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of sounding off like an idiot, you should read the response by Ada to the controversy. Ada foundation was perfectly reasonable in making a recommendation they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.

http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-problem-with-discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/

When the talk was canceled, there was only the title to go by:

From the link:

Background

The computer security conference BSides SF (held in San Francisco on 24â"25 February 2013) invited Violet Blue [note: sexual imagery at link] to give a talk, subject to be determined. The title of the talk was listed on the conferenceâ(TM)s online schedule as âoeTBDâ until a small number of hours before the talk, when it was updated to âoesex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploitsâ

In computer security jargon âoevuln[erabilitie]s and exploitsâ are respectively weaknesses in computing and related systems, and ways to take advantage of them in order to break into or âoepenetrateâ the system. The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape).

The abstract of the talk was not available until after the decision to cancel the talk, and does not reflect the same topic as the title of the talk suggests.

Or, are you a right-wing republican rapist? Yeah, your comment is just as stupid.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[crazyjj]

I don't say this often, but no, I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one who sounds like an idiot on this one.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[greg1104]

Luckily I have a car analogy for you. First question: do you know what a tail pipe is?

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Yomers]

See, those triggers are working!

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Mr. Slippery]

Ada foundation was perfectly reasonable in making a recommendation they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.

Ada Initiative confused a hacker convention -- which, as hackers are a subculture, includes cultural elements -- with a technical conference. They got upset about a planned discussion of sex and drugs in that culture.

Ada Initiative Mega-Fail.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Antipater]

To summarize the Ada Initiative's argument, "You should never talk about sex, because if you do, you'll give women traumatizing rape flashbacks and turn all men in the audience into pathological rape-machines. Especially techies, because everyone knows techies are super-rape-happy already. So no talking about sex."

I hate it when I have to agree with people who think "feminist" is a dirty word, but in this case Ada's "Think of the children!"-esque rationale just seems absurd.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Trepidity]

Someone ranting about "hippies", and angry about the existence of San Francisco, Austin, and Portland (which are presumably grouped together as hippie cities or something) is pretty easy to peg as an idiot.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to dispell the stereotype that UID's are in any way proportional to intelligence.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, Sweden loves San Fran and the gay community especially. Remember, in Sweden, you will get a state-sponsored sex change if you want, and the Royal Princess herself hands out awards at the QX Gay Galas.

You're completely off base here probably because you're unaware of the general feminist consensus on trans women. Keep in mind that The Man Who Would Be Queen and The Making of the She-Male are feminist ideas (the latter written by a feminist and underscoring the point of my post here).

Feminists love reducing men to their body parts, and that includes trans women. Feminists love to call trans women "she" no matter how appearances might have gendered the person. Once it comes out that somebody who has a female name, looks and acts like a woman, and has lived as a woman for god knows how long was born with their reproductive system on the outside, all hell breaks loose. The trans woman becomes a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The WHOLE problem with this feminist hypocrisy isn't even that it's a matter of reducing non-"Womyn" to their body parts, but that it's privileging a body part that the trans woman may or may not have and probably hasn't had for some time over the body part between her ears.

Now, here's something else. Most trans women end up being lesbians (attracted to women) because it turns out that gender and sexual orientation are fairly separate. However, it's even worse for trans women who have absolutely no attraction to women and have relationships with men. What feminism does is privilege a body part that doesn't really matter over the body part that does (the one between the ears) and then proceed to draw the conclusion that not only is the trans woman "really" a man, but that she's going about as the female gender with the intention of raping women in the bathroom, despite the fact that she isn't even interested in women!

To get back on topic, what happened here is just yet another thing on a very long laundry list of feminist hypocrisies. I'd recommend the book Whipping Girl by Julia Serano for more information despite how much I disagree with her proposition that feminism can be changed to be a philosophy of gender equality. Feminism is at its core a philosophy of gender hegemony and female privilege (which most females have the privilege of being unaware they have), and feminists are no better than the "patriarchy" they dislike.

As I've said before while logged in, feminism is a philosophy of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too gender "equality," but one can only make sense of it by reading an Orwellian meaning into the word equality: all genders are equal, but some genders are more equal than others. Probably the most salient way to illustrate this is the feminist proposition that boys should be forced to live as girls for a week out of the year and forced to cook and clean for the family. Cooking and cleaning are LIFE SKILLS THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KNOW. Yet present feminists with a boy who might LIKE having a week out of the year where he can be a girl, and they completely implode. Feminists want to castrate men except when a man might want to be castrated because the stuff between his (her?) ears is just a female as theirs.

Compare and contrast Bosom Buddies and/or Mrs. Doubtfire with the 2010 Alice in Wonderland and/or Elizabeth Swan from Pirates of the Carribean. A girl can do anything a boy can do but better, but first she must become a boy in order to do it. Yet a man is always a man and hopelessly comedic when living as a woman. I don't know about other trans women, but I've never had problems setting my boobs on fire while cooking. Feminist shoot themselves in the foot every time they portray a role model for young girls that involves becoming a man. One would think that they've never once heard that born women DO REALLY sometimes take testosterone, grow their own beard (not some fake one that gets ripped off to reveal that the hero is really a woman) and live as men.

tl;dr don't associate tr

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Trepidity]

There are two interpretations of this comment:

1. You previously held a stereotype that UIDs are inversely proportional to intelligence, i.e. lower UIDs correlate with greater intelligence. Perhaps this is because old-school Slashdotters are a better breed than the rabble that signs up these days. However, you found my post rather poor, which surprised you, as I have a low UID and you expect posts from low UIDs to typically be of high quality.

2. You previously held a stereotype that UIDs are proportional to intelligence, i.e. higher UIDs correlate with greater intelligence. Perhaps this is because too many years on Slashdot damages one's mind, so low-UID users who are still around can be presumed to have suffered the ill effects of 15 years of Slashdotting. However, you found my post surprisingly excellent, of a calibre you did not think was possible from such a low-UID user.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

they were ASKED to make given the limited information that was available to them.

Reports about that are conflicting.
The BSides organizer says he was aproached by the ADA initiative. http://bsidessf.org/home/13747344

When the talk was canceled, there was only the title to go by

Which would have made the appropriate reaction to ask for more information, not to suggest cancellation right away. What happened is an abuse of power by the Ada Initiative.

Violet's talk should've hat its abstract published and a trigger warning could have been added.
But it should not have been canceled.

There was very very little to gain from cancelling it right before it was supposed to happen. This did not help women's participation in tech spaces. It just means that a probably pretty awesome pro-woman talk by an expierienced sex educator didn't happen, feet got stepped on, people got hurt, drama ensued.

PS: The Ada Initiative does a lot of awesome work, but this isn't it.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I see, hyperbole is now idiocy.

shame on you.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminists love to call trans women "she"

Oops.. should have been "he."

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should quote the part of their response where they say that. And I'm not being sarcastic as they DO say that.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It starts with the reverse discrimination we face in primary school. Then it rots and we get sick from it when we're forced to read articles like My Hair Is My Accomplishment. (As a male friend who had long hair told me once when I was growing my hair out and was having trouble stomaching that article, hair IS an accomplishment!) Not to digress too much, but females have the OPTION to have long hair. It's entirely their CHOICE. When one is born male, one doesn't have that choice until one moves out and gets a Room of One's Own.

I'm reminded of the diplomatic dinner in Star Trek 6 where I think Kirk mentions something about having humanity, and Chancellor Gorkon's daughter replies with, "Humanity. If only you could hear yourself talk." It seems it takes someone born male (even if that person lives as a female) to think about these things thoroughly. The Ada Initiative are the ones being reactionary idiots. I only wish feminists could hear themselves talk.

A lot of times I wonder for all the females who love to trot out Ada Lovelace, how many of them would even understand her Notes?

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't say this often, but no, I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one who sounds like an idiot on this one.

Maybe your first post on this thread, or even if you'd stopped after the second post, but by now it's pretty clear you're wrong this time.

Another poster said it best:

Someone ranting about "hippies", and angry about the existence of San Francisco, Austin, and Portland (which are presumably grouped together as hippie cities or something) is pretty easy to peg as an idiot.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Sounds like someone needs to give the Ada Initiative a "creeper card", for creating a hostile environment, making people uncomfortable around them, and harming the community.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

they went to the police and reported him for rape because his condom had burst open.

Well... that, and the rape. But it's okay, we know what you meant.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole that considers itself insightful commentary has ALWAYS been idiocy.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminist a dirty word? No, they're ENEMIES and doubly so against women.

Feminists care as little for women as socialists do for social justice or religions do for honest faith: not at all. People need to stop being played so we can rebuild our societies and evade final destruction.

And if that won't happen --if that can't happen-- then those of us who see must prepare to build new societies on our own.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks sweet. I wish you all the best. You really should visit Stockholm. Trans women are accepted and cherished by the very large gay and lesbian community there, and while they are lower in rank than straight women, they will rank above straight men. You will feel welcome.

The feminist hypocrisy is getting to the point now that they even attack each other , splitting into submovements of the Right Faith. It's surprisingly like the downfall of communism in the 1960-1970s.

Julian Assange has now been tracked down harder by Sweden than Sweden does even with convicted murderers on the run.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Score Whore]

According to this link:

http://www.securitybsides.com/w/page/35868077/BSidesSanFrancisco

It was the Ada Initiative that initiated the issue. For them to say they were approached leaves out their initial email saying they were willing to discuss the "problem."

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Score Whore]

It may be worth pointing out that the issue didn't happen at CCC. While Violet Blue was giving a similar talk, it was a different conference.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because no sexual assaults have ever occurred at a tech conference. Recently. Like in the past 2 years or so.

Your summary is ridiculous, it really should be: "you shouldn't spring a talk about sex, sexuality or sex in which one of the participants is inebriated/incapacitated on people that expect to hear talks about technology"

I think you too readily agreed with antifems on this one. Maybe the article was a trigger for you.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[metrometro]

This bears little resemblance to what actually happened.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[GameboyRMH]

Actually it wasn't his condom, apparently:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/assange_case_police_report/

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't talk about sex at a computer conference because all the nerds will be traumatized because they are still virgins.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's "Rush Limbaugh"! Maybe he's 50 years old! Maybe he lives in Alabama! You and your silly fucking comments are entertaining to the point that I look forward to them. Next, if you follow form, you'll segue into a faux-intellectual post about something.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't say this often, but no, I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one who sounds like an idiot on this one.

haha, you pissed off the PC-brigade. Good on you.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry it was number one.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[yndrd1984]

Chancellor Gorkon's daughter replies with, "Humanity. If only you could hear yourself talk."

Azetbur: "Inalien..." if you could only hear yourselves. "Human rights." Why, the very name is racist.

So you could say "Feminism, the very name is sexist."

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hacker conferences are practically safe havens compared to book conferences(rapetastic), comic conferences(more half naked women than any conference outside of the AVN), video game conferences(almost as bad), PAX(dickwolves!), or just about any electronics related conference ever.

Less people get raped at hacker conferences than at rape-survivor conferences.

Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

To summarize the Ada Initiative's argument, "You should never talk about sex, because if you do, you'll give women traumatizing rape flashbacks and turn all men in the audience into pathological rape-machines. Especially techies, because everyone knows techies are super-rape-happy already. So no talking about sex."

Similar bullshit is going on in the atheist community where PZ Myers and Ed Brayton decided that it is rape when "a guy at an atheist convention was chatting up a girl and asked her to bed, she said no, and that was the end of it" and they're pressuring atheist community organizations to kick out people who disagree as not-real-atheists. People like Richard Dawkins.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the hell is this mish-mash of a summary even telling me?

So what is this about?

[pavon]

Considering that the link to TFA is NSFW, and the other links are blacklisted at many sites for security reasons, it'd be nice if the summary actually explained what the presentation was about and what the objections to it were rather than jumping into their opinion of the situation and assuming we all know WTF they were talking about.

Re:So what is this about?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFM. TFA is OK. Main page isn't.

Re:So what is this about?

[Anonymous Coward]

The link is perfectly safe for work.

Re:So what is this about?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read the link under "The Ada Initiative responds that such talks do more harm than good." It's SFW and it contains the counterpoint to this biased/revisionist submission.

Here's the text of TFA:

"
What happened with my Security BSides talk

It had been decided months ago that I would give a talk at Security BSides San Francisco. The subject of my talk was up in the air until just before the conference started, and the organizers were okay with that, but to not inconvenience or surprise the organizers, I decided to present the same talk I had given at Security BSides Las Vegas in 2012. I submitted the talk description just before the conference began, and it went on the website immediately.

This is the talk name and description:

sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits

What drugs do to sexual performance, physiological reaction and pleasure is rarely discussed in - or out of - clinical or academic settings. Yet most people have sex under the influence of something (or many somethings) at some point in their lives.

In this underground talk, Violet Blue shares what sex-positive doctors, nurses, MFT’s, clinic workers and crisis counselors have learned and compiled about the interactions of drugs and sex from over three decades of unofficial curriculum for use in peer-to-peer (and emergency) counseling. Whether you’re curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it’ll at least give you great party conversation fodder.

I put this talk together for BSides LV knowing it would be seen at the same time as Defcon, which is reputed to be a con with lots of parties and wild behavior. The talk is structured with harm reduction methodology, the act of giving the talk is an act of harm reduction for the community, and also gives me another opportunity to tell the hacking/security communities about what harm reduction is.

I have presented talks about sexuality at tech conferences all over the world, and I make it clear each time that my talks are not technical and that they are about issues that affect the culture to which I am presenting.

This is the third slide in my sex +/- drugs talk:

I arrived at the Security BSides venue half an hour before my talk was set to begin, and I tracked down the main organizer to get connected with the speaker wrangler. I found him next door at DNA Pizza, where he was talking with this person. I apologized for the interruption, the organizer told me where to wait, and the woman he was talking to smiled at me. I smiled back.

The organizer came into the LockSport Lounge around 10 minutes later and asked if he could speak with me. I asked Eric Michaud to join me.

The organizer said, “So, I need to ask you: is there any rape in your talk?”

I said, “Is there any WHAT in my talk?” I was shocked.

“Well, there’s been a complaint about your talk.” He continued, “It’s from someone who is a rape survivor and they said they will be triggered by your talk if there’s any rape in it.”

“No, no, there’s no rape in my talk. I talk about human sexual systems and the effects drugs, including caffeine and alcohol, affect the performance of these systems and the dangers of mixing different things. What’s going on here?”

He replied, “Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and they’re a rape survivor.”

“Okay. In the talk I do cover ‘date rape’ drugs, and I explain their actions and how they’re dangerous.”

Then he said, “Do you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then it

Re:So what is this about?

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, well, if you tell 'em it's not, it will get more hits.

Re:So what is this about?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is ambiguous. TFA is not NSFW, but the root page linked to in TFA is.

Re:So what is this about?

[DrVomact]

You clearly have a future as a surrealist writer in the tradition of Franz Kafka. Oh you mean this isn't supposed to be fiction? Never mind, most people won't know or care if this really happened or not. In fact, I'm not at all sure that this thread isn't itself an exercise in surrealist humor. The topic of your alleged talk is delightfully absurd, as are the reactions of those feminist Ada programmers. I wonder if I should go to one of these "hacker conferences"—they're clearly very literary. No, my life is itself surreal enough without such enhancement.

Re:So what is this about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scratch her eyes out, Violet!

"harm reduction is a psychological hack"

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh.

Revisionist summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual title of the talk was "Sex +- drugs: known vulns and exploits".

That was the entirety of the information given to the Ada Initiative. It's easy to see how such a talk would look off-topic and possibly containing rape triggers.

http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-problem-with-discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/

Re:Revisionist summary

[nicoh]

because shooting first and asking questions later is always the right thing to do.

The Ada Initiative, while its heart is in the right place in encouraging women's participation in STEM, is going to garner a lot of resentment if it is interpreted (as it looks like is happening here) as the arbiter of all content which concerns women. That's unreasonable. There are people who see the current state of the "trigger-warning" issuing "anti-oppression" culture as a bunch of a concern trolls. Which, as it turns out, is one of the best social engineering hacks.

Re:Revisionist summary

[btm]

That was the entirety of the information /gathered/ by the Ada Initiative [executive director]. They were a third party and could have asked for more. Also, I don't see anywhere in their blog post that they indicate that the organization would have had a different opinion given the talk abstract.

> The Ada Initiative has, since its founding, recommended strongly against including off-topic sexual content at technical conferences.

It sounds like a pretty broad and clear policy to me.

Re:Revisionist summary

[fuzzybunny]

> while its heart is in the right place

One of the most dangerous creatures in human society is the well-meaning idiot.

Re:Revisionist summary

[Anonymous Coward]

> is going to garner a lot of resentment if it is interpreted (as it looks like is happening here) as the arbiter of all content which concerns women

They were asked for their opinion, they gave it. The conference organizers made the final decision, not the Ada Initiative.

Re:Revisionist summary

[NatasRevol]

Depends on *their* definition of off-topic. Which is the whole problem.

Is date rape drugs in the hacker world off-topic? Not if it's being used to hack into places.

Re:Revisionist summary

[ElectricTurtle]

I like how they encourage women's participation by preventing women from speaking. If only they worked harder at keeping women from participating, maybe more women would be encourage to... participate... oh wait, that's completely stupid.

It's funny, my wife and I have been involved with some local skeptical groups (on her initiative, I might add) and some of the women already involved there started to side with the emerging Feminism+ ... *cough* I mean Atheism+ nonsense, and they started to push out people who they thought were 'discouraging women from participating' by not agreeing with everything they said about how great feminism necessarily is. The result? My wife became discouraged about participating and resigned as an assistant organizer.

These people aren't concerned with women participating, that's just the whitewash for their political goals. What they want is women to participate ONLY if they agree with what they say and will parrot it in one expansive echo chamber. Dissent will be shamed, expelled, and crushed. These people are the enemies of an open society and should be opposed whenever possible.

Re:Revisionist summary

[CanHasDIY]

> while its heart is in the right place

One of the most dangerous creatures in human society is the well-meaning idiot.

Indeed; hence the adage, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Re:Revisionist summary

[frank_adrian314159]

What they want is women to participate ONLY if they agree with what they say and will parrot it in one expansive echo chamber. Dissent will be shamed, expelled, and crushed.

To be fair, this is true of almost any group. Try promoting Socialism at a Libertarian meeting or Free Market ideology at a Communist Party gathering or Atheism at a Tea Party or your anti-evolutionary leanings at a medical convention and see how welcome you're made to feel. Self-selection is the order of the day and is quite hard-wired into our brains.

Re:Revisionist summary

[Altus]

That is not exactly the story that is being told. I can't say what is true but the claim is that they would make a big deal out of this if the talk went on. That is not the same thing as giving their opinion.

Re:Revisionist summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The conference organizers made the final decision

...under a veiled threat, mind you.

Re:Revisionist summary

[ElectricTurtle]

Actually, with some of those groups, while dissent might be shamed it would not be expelled. I've been to a few libertarian groups and nobody was pressured to leave, let alone kicked out, for simply having an opinion that didn't conform. That's because libertarians fundamentally value an open society where each person is entitled to their opinion (but must also be willing to take criticism for any public expression).

In science groups dissent is usually respected, especially if there is supporting evidence, though some may be mocked for more outlandish hypotheses. However there too, a degree of openness for repeatability and transparency is fundamental to scientific exchanges and advancement.

Some groups are predicated on control and dogma that will accommodate no correction or competition even to be expressed. Disagreement for them is not enough, anybody who says things they don't want to hear must be silenced completely and ostracized. If these people had complete political power, history teaches that they would just as likely execute or work to death anybody who had the temerity to disagree.

People can, and should, politely disagree, but anybody who demands that others be silenced and expelled is an enemy of open society that should be treated as such (I might add, not by being silenced, but by being exposed and ignored, the only ethical course for opinions which should naturally fail in the marketplace of ideas among adults).

Re:Revisionist summary

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between blocking some active involvement and expelling people though. Many of those groups you discuss are quite happy to have dissenting people around and in the audience of presentations hoping they might learn something, some people are even happy to have them around for idle conversations (or a select few for formal debates) on the hope both people learn something. But how many of those groups and how often would they let someone with dissenting view give a presentation or be part of a program at some organized event?

I've seen some crazy ideas at science conferences before, but typically they are limited to poster presentations where there is pretty of room for growth, and not say talks where there is limited time.

So there is a difference between saying someone is welcome versus saying they are welcome to come to the podium. Unless I missed something here, in this case it falls in the middle, as Violet Blue was not allowed to give her talk, but was allowed to stick around and participate in other things at the event.

Re:Revisionist summary

[Anonymous Coward]

> is going to garner a lot of resentment if it is interpreted (as it looks like is happening here) as the arbiter of all content which concerns women

They were asked for their opinion, they gave it. The conference organizers made the final decision, not the Ada Initiative.

That sort of depends who's story you believe. One story has it that they gave a lot more than opinion and included veiled (or not so veiled) threats should the conference organizers choose not to follow their advice. I'm not saying which story is true, I'm saying there's two wildly conflicting tales here and I doubt it's so simple as you make it out to be.

Re:Revisionist summary

[unitron]

That is not exactly the story that is being told. I can't say what is true but the claim is that they would make a big deal out of this if the talk went on. That is not the same thing as giving their opinion.

Our opinion is that our ability to make your life a living hell outweighs your ability to not let yourself be pushed around.

Re:Revisionist summary

[unitron]

The conference organizers made the final decision

...under a veiled threat, mind you.

Veiled?

I somewhat hesitate to use the more "jagged" of the two words that mean entirely unclothed in conjunction with this particular issue, but I think it much better describes the threat.

Re:Revisionist summary

[unitron]

It sounds more as though the problem is the lack of a universally agreed upon definition of "technical conference", and just how much and what kind of "and some other stuff" one might reasonably expect at one nowadays.

The BSides website, to me, is unhelpfully vague.

A little help here?

[fustakrakich]

I ran this through Google translate and still couldn't figure it out..

Are you people doing this on purpose.. to make me doubt my sanity?

Re:A little help here?

[khallow]

Subject shows resistance. What does Alpha say?

Re:A little help here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it has something to do with Homestuck?

Re:A little help here?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understand, a bunch of stupid bitches are acting like stupid bitches. Feminists are trying to censor a professional slut who's built up a niche audience among geeks by writing about technology and then throwing a bunch of porn into the fray.

In the end, both the feminists and the professional slut are probably happy with the outcome, as it's brought attention to both.

I hate it how women bitch and moan about not being well represented in geek culture and then when they get involved they pull this type of shit. It's like they're just baiting us to be misogynistic. I couldn't care less about either side of the debate. It's obvious that Violet Blue was only scheduled to speak because she has a sex blog and occasionally writes about technology. Not because she's technically knowledgeable (from what I've gleaned, she knows less about science and technology than the average /. geek). The Ada feminists are so absurd they're not even worth dissecting.

The whole 'harm reduction' talk would have been a lot more interesting if the speaker was intelligent or insightful. If Noam Chomsky was talking about it rather than Violet Blue, we'd be having an interesting conversation about it here on /. Instead, we're scratching our heads about what all this bullshit is about.

Re:A little help here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most insightful post on this story.

Re:A little help here?

[Anonymous Coward]

where do you think you are?

Are you on "The Internet" again? Do you remember what we said about "The Internet"?

Wrong from the get-go

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a "hacker community".

rape trigger? etc

[CKW]

What's a "rape trigger"? ( Remember, sfw link or explanation. That's why I'm asking, I can't go read the one MAIN link that the entire story is about. )

Without a definition of this word, the entire article/post is ... hard to follow and not worth my time pondering over. Heck, most people won't even be able to guess at what "harm reduction" is, nor have any idea what the Ada Initiative is.

If you're going to use "technical terms", you need to define them. This being the internet, maybe, oh, I don't know, some kind of hyper text system?

Mwahahaha

[CanEHdian]

From Wikipedia:

The Ada Initiative is a non-profit organization that seeks to increase women's participation in the free culture movement, open source technology and open culture.

So women's "participation" in the "free culture movement" and "open culture" is having expressions censored? How many women feel represented by this "Ada Initiative" now?

Re:Mwahahaha

[ElectricTurtle]

Women are encouraged to participate only so long as they express "approved" opinions vetted by groupthink organizers, because an entire gender must necessarily be a monolith with no dissent. We should go to Susan B. Anthony's grave and hook up what's left her to a generator, since it's probably spinning hard enough to power New York City.

Re:Mwahahaha

[gweihir]

Indeed. This is basically a fascist organization that does not tolerate any discussion of the "truth" (which they believe they have) and does try to suppress all opinions they do not like. As an effect, they are preventing women from going into science and technology.

Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

That description desperately needs some editing. One should know what TFA is about after reading the description.

Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days?

[FooAtWFU]

That's a little tendentious. The police and military are ostensibly designed to protect the general population. I mean, I'll respect your concerns about police oppressing people instead of protecting them, but if you go so far as to call them "bad guys" per se I'm not convinced that you're not just bringing a pre-existing political prejudice to the table...

language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know what language this article is written in?

He replied, “Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and they’re a rape survivor.”

What the heck does that mean? Rape is serious; but how does one not survive - wouldn't it become a homicide?
Obviously those phrases are part of a culture the general populace (at least me) is not accustomed to using/hearing,
and certainly (probably) mean much more then their parallel English meanings.

I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't remember those terms/colloquialisms coming up at the last meeting...

CAPTCHA = disagree

Re:language anyone?

[jjohnson]

but how does one not survive

By committing suicide. The suicide rate among victims of rape jumps significantly.

Obviously those phrases are part of a culture the general populace (at least me) is not accustomed to using/hearing,

And it would be really beneficial if people like you and geeks in general were exposed to them.

Rape victims often suffer PTSD. People who suffer PTSD can suffer from things that trigger their PTSD response--like a rape victim who sees a rape scene in a movie, or a veteran who hears fireworks and relieves Fallujah. It's a common aspect of PTSD, and as we become aware of it, it's becoming common in some areas, at least, to warn people of triggers in your essay or blog entry or whatever to give them a chance to duck out.

Re:language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's written in hippie. Fortunately my mom was hippie and so I can understand most of it. Translated into English, it reads something like:

Radical feminists succeeded in banning a presentation at the "Security BSides" conference in San Francisco by claiming that the presentation included references to rape, which would presumably force rape victims in the audience to relive their own rapes.

I know it still doesn't make much sense, but that's what it says.

Re:language anyone?

[fuzzybunny]

> And it would be really beneficial if people like you and geeks in general were exposed to them.

I'd love to, but they're stupid triggers. I have PTSD from dealing with stupid people all day long. I don't need triggering. It's insensitive and hurtful.

Re:language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape victims often suffer PTSD. People who suffer PTSD can suffer from things that trigger their PTSD response--like a rape victim who sees a rape scene in a movie, or a veteran who hears fireworks and relieves Fallujah.

That's just a wrong word, then. We don't call a veteran's PTSD triggers "bomb triggers", because a bomb trigger is something that triggers a bomb to explode. As bad as PTSD episodes may be, they are not as bad as bomb triggers. A "rape trigger" would be something that triggers a rape, i.e. something that causes it to happen. I can see the political shrewdness on the part of organizations such as Ada in the mislabeling.

Re:language anyone?

[drinkypoo]

It's a common aspect of PTSD, and as we become aware of it, it's becoming common in some areas, at least, to warn people of triggers in your essay or blog entry or whatever to give them a chance to duck out.

A well-written essay will do that simply by being an essay. The introductory paragraph will give the reader a clue as to what kind of material follows.

In any case, we can't take all the rape triggers out of society because there will always be another trigger. I have various friends around whom I cannot play specific albums because it's the music to which they were raped. The problem with the idea of trying to avoid triggers is that they are individual-dependent. We all know that depictions or discussions of rape can trigger a reaction in people, at least, all of us who care even a little bit about other humans. But pretty much anything can do that. Maybe the problem isn't the trigger, but the societal surroundings that affect how victims deal with their problems.

Finally, I don't want anyone to believe I'm trying to diminish the actual problem. I was never sexually abused, but I was the target of systematic bullying and violence basically from the day I set foot in Del Mar Middle School, throughout my career at Branciforte Jr. High, and until the day I left Harbor High School. I didn't even get summers off since I was so regularly in summer school. I still sometimes have dreams about it. I can imagine that someone who had been subjected to still worse abuse might have still worse reactions. But I'm pretty sure that suppression of discussion is not the answer. It's just pretending the problems don't exist, and when you do that, you can't address them.

Re:language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to, but they're stupid triggers. I have PTSD from dealing with stupid people all day long. I don't need triggering. It's insensitive and hurtful.

I had a family member who committed suicide. Perhaps we can have jjohnson's post stricken from Slashdot? After all, I wouldn't expect to encounter such a horrible topic on a Slashdot article that's about hyper-ridiculous feminist censors.

Dear people who were raped: It sucks that you were raped, but people aren't going to stop bumping uglies, nor stop talking about bumping uglies, and I hope to hell they don't stop talking about how safely to bump uglies. HTFU.

Re:language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd support banning fireworks on the 4th of July, as it might "trigger" that veteran?

Re:language anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that make me a young male survivor? Because the suicide rate is pretty significant there too...

Hey hackers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who had the skills to get a real job, got one. Why don't you have these skills yet?

Re:rape trigger? etc

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ada Initiative response linked at the end of the TFA summary provides a SFW answer to your question: http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-problem-with-discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/

Incoherent Award

[dcollins]

This is the single most incoherent story summary that I've ever read at Slashdot. Congratulations!

Re:Incoherent Award

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to say. Weird grammar, no explanations, lots of unknown (to me) names, and what content there was seemed like a it would have been rambling and hard to follow even given enough context.

Re:Incoherent Award

[drinkypoo]

This is the single most incoherent story summary that I've ever read at Slashdot. Congratulations!

You must be new here.

Re:Incoherent Award

[Anonymous Coward]

and I thought it was just me...

Re:Incoherent Award

[dcollins]

You don't have to speculate, you can just compare user IDs.

Re:Incoherent Award

[drinkypoo]

You don't have to speculate, you can just compare user IDs.

No, you cannot. UIDs can be given away, or they can be forgotten. I had a five-digit UID, but I have forgotten the login credentials. Who cares anyway? A bad idea is bad no matter how many digits are in your UID.

Nothing will ever make them happy

[borcharc]

In short the Ada folks believe "Simply put, even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk about sex is likely to have negative effects on women at a technical conference."

They have a complete lack of understanding of hacker culture, take one or two relatively minor, usually unreported, incidents out of a group of 10k+ people in a weekend and us it to drum up hate and a paycheck for their founder as they push their specific agenda. There concerns are not hacker specific issues that affect women, they are the same women's issues that have been out there for years. Their "initiative" is widely rejected by women who are long term attendees at cons. And that is what defcon and others are, cons, not technical conferences.

Their choice in venue (cons) has a very low rate of incidents compared to the general population. They have caused far more incidents of things that may be considered sexual harassment as backlash for their bizarre behavior. At Chaos Communications Congress 29 this group handed out "Creeper cards" to men who in their sole judgement did something offensive. The folks at the con responded with their own form of "anti-feminist" cards. Their surprise at this response reiterates that they don't understand our culture.

If there are incidents where someone is assaulted then call the police. Someone keeps proposition you at a bar? Tell them to go away, then call the bar's security, have you ever been to a bar? With defcon, the move to the more traditional strip hotels from the AP has brought in loads of Vegas trash. Pimps, bro's, etc roam the hotel and proposition every girl there for "shopping for sex" or other pimply schemes. No girl is safe in any Vegas venue from these guys, welcome to Vegas. If Vegas trash keeps hassling you, ask the passing group of hackers for help, they will solve it for you without any expectation in return, that's our culture.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[TheDarkMaster]

well ... For most feminists, the simple act of you approaching one of them is already a unacceptable and threatening attitude, punishable with death. (Unless you're rich and beautiful as a film actor)

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Women don't consider undesirable men to be human. So being forced to interact with an undesirable man due to social conventions brings about the same feelings in women as stepping in dog shit. Revulsion and resignation and resentment that something like this could happen to her.

And remember for most women 80% or more of the male population is considered to be undesirable, interchangeable, and totally disposable.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[mjwalshe]

and at a Conference I was at in Liverpool a pimp pulled a knife on one of the attendees unfortunately the delegate I knew who was x 2Parra and is a member of "THEM" (aka the territorial SAS) wasn't in the room. And then there was the time at another conference the entire mixed religion delegation from NI walked into a Unionist Bar by acident - as they said everyones name changed to Billy or Wilhelmina for the afternoon.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Their surprise at this response reiterates that they don't understand our culture.

That you can say that reiterates that you don't understand the issue, and neither do any of the knee-jerk reactionaries handing out "anti-feminist" cards without even trying to see it from the women's point of view.

They have caused far more incidents of things that may be considered sexual harassment as backlash for their bizarre behavior.

Jesus, you really are a fucknut aren't you?

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't get it... these types of groups all work the same way. Turning minor incidents into claims of systemic problems... all to raise their profile and get a seat at the top tables for "consultation" on the invented problem.

See also "Atheism+" and the skepchicks. They went too far and made too many unjustified, unsupported and frankly crazed accusations and made themselves look like completely foolish hysterics.

Textbook feminist group tactics. Thankfully more people seem to be onto this these days - as the internet is very good at tracking their antics and countering them with facts.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[drinkypoo]

You really don't get it... these types of groups all work the same way.

No, you really don't get it. These types of groups don't cause sexual assault or sexual harassment. Only the perpetrator of such an event can do that. See, "inviting" such an action is in the eye of the beholder. Or, again, perpetrator. Because whether it is actually invited is in the eye of the victim, and it always has been, and it always should be. If you don't like that, don't make statements or actions which are potentially offensive that are directed at an individual whose reactions you don't know.

This is not to say that you can't express yourself, but frankly even perverts tend to have a no-squicking rule: you're not permitted to do things at [many] parties expressly for the purpose of grossing out other people. If someone is grossed out by what you're doing, that's their problem, you can do more of it. But just doing it specifically to gross someone out is rude. It comes down to a judgment call made by the host. And a conference has a host as well, and they have to make a decision about what type of expression they want to foster in their space.

This of course is all distinct from government censorship, which is a whole other thing that we're not even talking about, and frankly, should avoid talking about in this conversation. I just wanted to mention it so that you didn't think I had forgotten it.

Textbook feminist group tactics.

On one hand, I agree with you that there is an air of that in many people's attitudes about this event. On the other hand, having read TFA and related materials I believe that this particular talk had no place at this conference, and that removing it was the right thing to do. On the gripping hand, this should have been accomplished much sooner. And if I had another hand, it would point out that Violet Blue will probably be lower on the list of potential speakers for such conferences in the future, and that this is probably a fitting thing.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you tell hackers they cant do something, they will dedicate their day to doing it, just to spite you. It doesn't matter what the something is. The use of logical fallacies to attack them just makes them laugh and double down as in their mind, they are demonstrating how stupid you are with each response you give. Ask a phreaker how they respond to threats or even the police calling them on their burner DID or cell. Its not pretty. Ask Steve from the Motel 6 in Conway Arkansas how trying to stop some phreakers tricks went. When they switched their attention to him and harassed him for three straight years, mocked all police efforts and then made the police officers targets of their relentless harassment. This went on until they became bored. Trying to be a tough guy doesn't go over well with hackers.

You don't understand the mindset you are dealing with. You are out of place, these cons are for like minded people. This is no different then a group of atheists showing up at a evangelical church and making hay about their practices. The divides between hackers and the Ada folks minds is that severe. You will encounter nothing but resistance and hate, something you likely desire.

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[TheDarkMaster]

Woo... I earned a flamebait! We have at least one feminist here :-)

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you _enjoy_ being wrong all the time?

Re:Nothing will ever make them happy

[Anonymous Coward]

* "No, you really don't get it. These types of groups don't cause sexual assault or sexual harassment. "

I never said they did... I just said that they blow minor incidents way out of proportion to further their own ends... and that's standard practice for feminist/minority groups.

The rest of your message was built on this stupid mistake of yours and is duly ignored.

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question: Did you slip in to a coma in early 2001, and just now wake back up?

Wrong Talk

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

Violet was scheduled to speak about "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits", not about "Hackers As A High-Risk Population".

While I don't agree with the cancellation, this talk was more sexually charged (hence problematic) and much less on topic at a hacker conference than her talk at 29c3 was.

Re:Wrong Talk

[Joehonkie]

It is a talk about hackers as a high risk population. That is the subject matter. The title does not change that fact.

Re:Wrong Talk

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

Explain to me which part of

sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits
What drugs do to sexual performance, physiological reaction and pleasure is rarely discussed in - or out of - clinical or academic settings. Yet most people have sex under the influence of something (or many somethings) at some point in their lives.
In this underground talk, Violet Blue shares what sex-positive doctors, nurses, MFT’s, clinic workers and crisis counselors have learned and compiled about the interactions of drugs and sex from over three decades of unofficial curriculum for use in peer-to-peer (and emergency) counseling. Whether you’re curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it’ll at least give you great party conversation fodder.

is about hackers as an at-risk population. She did a whole talk about that at 29c3. There was very little sex in it. Very different talk.

The article suggests that she was supposed to repeat the talk she gave ate 29c3, which appears completely wrong.

Re:Wrong Talk

[Joehonkie]

Ah, the article was poorly written. My mistake.

Re:Wrong Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

"problematic" in this case means "I don't like it."

"sexually charged" content is not harmful. At all. We don't censor content for the Christian right, and we're not going to censor it for you either.

What is it about fundamentalists and sex?

Re:Wrong Talk

[drinkypoo]

"problematic" in this case means "I don't like it."

No, it's problematic because it doesn't match the theme of the conference, and because very real secondary effects of its inclusion might well reduce the value of the conference for other attendees.

"sexually charged" content is not harmful. At all. We don't censor content for the Christian right, and we're not going to censor it for you either.

Who is "we"? This is not censorship. This rectifies thematic dissonance.

What is it about fundamentalists and sex?

I am not a fundie, I like sex, I even like porn, talking about and/or/then having unusual sex, etc etc. And yet, I do not believe that this talk was a fit for this conference. I see this event not as a case of censorship, but merely as an object lesson as how not to select speakers for a conference, and how not to handle the situation as it develops. And, as usual, many bored nerds on slashdot and elsewhere are attempting to dramatize the situation all out of proportion to serve their sense of self-importance. There was a situation, it has been resolved, the principals are not crying about it half as loud as the slashbots, and thus it is unlikely that any principles were seriously compromised.

What is it about Anonymous Cowards and nonsense?

Re:Wrong Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Do tell, what's the theme of a hacker convention? Note that CCC is not "technical conference" or "information security conference" or "technology expo". It's hacker conference with same notions of "hacker" as, for example, here.

"This is offtopic for a tech conference!" is just an excuse relying on listeners not being familiar with CCC and hacker culture. "This was just organizer decision!" seems to be an excuse too, if you believe Violet Blue's post (quote: “No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”)

Re:Wrong Talk

[ceoyoyo]

Maybe she changed the title so that victims of rape would have more warning not to attend the talk if they felt they might be sensitive to such material?

The Ada Initiative

[invid]

Did anyone else think this was a group for advancing the use of the Ada programming language?

Re:The Ada Initiative

[Dan East]

Well, that's the nearest thing to a reason I can think of for this garbage to be on Slashdot.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[quietwalker]

Disclaimer: I think it's silly, but I'll try to keep my personal opinions restricted to parens.

A rape trigger is apparently anything that could cause negative feelings in a person based on their experiences with rape, or sympathy with those who have been raped. (as opposed to the norm, I guess, which is everyone is pro-rape?)

So, talking about rape is an obvious rape trigger. Talking about being powerless is a rape trigger. Talking about sex is a rape trigger. (even loving, consensual, romantic sex.). Talking about drugs, or the role of women in society, human rights violations - all rape triggers.

Like the warnings before TV shows, some groups prefix their discussions (usually men-and-sex-are-pure-evil feminist blog entries) with a list of potential rape triggers (the list, by-the-by, is also a rape trigger). In this way, the person who is sensitive to these triggers (and more likely, those who are attention whoring and overly-sensitive to those who are sensitive) may avoid the discussions.

(This post is also a rape trigger, due to it's content)

Re:rape trigger? etc

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ada Initiative should stop responding to every post as AC.

Triggers

[hhnerkopfabbeisser]

Triggers are not an invention of SF Hippies or Feminists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Feel free to google "trauma trigger" or "PTSD trigger" for more.

That you've never heard of something and can't wrap your head around it immediately doesn't mean that is must be bullshit.

Re:Triggers

[cfalcon]

It's convenient that historically censor happy groups have finally found some fashion in which they may claim to be harmed by speech itself.

"Motif of harmful sensation" was removed from wikipedia, but now the claim is that mentioning certain topics is the equivalent of the basilisk's gaze. I'm sorry, but your right to swing your fist doesn't stop a mile away from my face because the motion triggers something in me. We can't have free speech if we assume people's psyche's are made of dust and the wind from an open mouth will cause them to blow away. Naturally, the censors have then logically produced the fact that we can no longer have free speech.

We must oppose such policies.

Re:Triggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Trama triggers can be anything.

The concept of "trigger warnings" is censorship disguised as compassion. If you have suffered trauma and need to avoid certain stimuli that's a personal matter and it's up to you to decide that maybe a talk about rape is not such a good thing for you to attend. Expecting others to somehow know that you will be caused serious distress by say, people in camo-pants (a common one for war related trauma) is not reasonable and is not a valid basis for outlawing camo-pants.

Re:Triggers

[Cinnamon Beige]

Triggers are not an invention of SF Hippies or Feminists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Feel free to google "trauma trigger" or "PTSD trigger" for more.

That you've never heard of something and can't wrap your head around it immediately doesn't mean that is must be bullshit.

The feminist/social justice activist usage is, as far as I can tell from sightings in the wild, "Anything that we think might be offensive."

Actual trauma triggers can be highly eclectic, ideosyncratic, and individualistic, and thus are not really something that can necessarily be predicted. (Smells, sounds, and sights that somehow recall the trauma are well-known categories, and really should give you a good hint.) Having them hit is not a pleasant experience, but neither is having somebody blithely assume that they already know yours & infantilizing you by making a show of avoiding what they presume are yours. (It is particularly bad when they are not only wrong but also horribly incapable of recognizing actual panic attack. Protip: They're not always dramatic.)

In some ways it's probably actually best if the claims are being used knowingly for censorship purposes; if it is in earnest, it comes off as rather like saying you understand how deprived a kid whose parents forgot to feed & clothe them was, because your parents got you the roan pony instead of the black pony you had your heart set on.

The fact that it is actually being used to suppress discussion of risk management--ways to lessen your chances of being assaulted, among other things--does seem to be getting ignored, and crossover of hackers who have focused on social engineering would probably be very beneficial. (Let's see, people who study why J Random specifically got victimized instead of some other random, and people who focus on practical manipulation of psychology...) It would be sufficient to ensure any actual rape survivor is able to choose not attend the talk. The fact is that they did invite Violet Blue--whom a brief check on reveals would be at least likely to choose such issues--and if the Ada Initiative had problems they ought to have voiced them beforehand, perhaps after the SanFran BSides where this talk was originally given.

TL;DR Version

[Anonymous Coward]

Violet Blue tries to present a talk about how not to screw yourself over if you decide to mix sex and drugs, just in case someone does something like that.

Ada Initiative doesn't like sex talks at tech-related conferences, Security BSides seems to agree. Talk gets cancelled. Well and good so far.

Why it's news: BSides cancelled the talk last minute, which is bad organization. Worse, Ada Initiative might be involved (my words, but it seems fair) in some shady shenanigans invoking the word "rape" to scare people and censor discussions about sex, which ironically will probably exacerbate the problem.

Re:TL;DR Version

[Pope]

Why it's news: BSides cancelled the talk last minute, which is bad organization.

If you read Violet Blue's post, or the copy posted above, you'll find that she didn't even submit a topic until the last minute:

It had been decided months ago that I would give a talk at Security BSides San Francisco. The subject of my talk was up in the air until just before the conference started, and the organizers were okay with that, but to not inconvenience or surprise the organizers, I decided to present the same talk I had given at Security BSides Las Vegas in 2012. I submitted the talk description just before the conference began, and it went on the website immediately.

So she's pretty fucking unorganized herself. The fact that the BSides organizers were OK with her not giving a subject in advance is pretty dumb.

Solution: men only conferences

[Rogerborg]

That way no wombyn can be raped, rape-triggered, demeaned, offended, creeped out or indeed involved.

Now, hush up and knit me a pie.

Re:Solution: men only conferences

[Zapotek]

It does feel like that's their real agenda isn't it? I mean, how is treating women like unreasonably fragile creatures who are unable to handle the mere mention of sex feminism?

Re:Solution: men only conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's time to take feminism's word about it. Maybe we get tired of arguing that women aren't unreasonably fragile creatures. Maybe feminism is right and they really are.

Re:Solution: men only conferences

[RazorSharp]

It does feel like that's their real agenda isn't it? I mean, how is treating women like unreasonably fragile creatures who are unable to handle the mere mention of sex feminism?

The most pathetic part is that men probably get raped more often than women in the U.S. *cough*prisonsystem*cough*

Ada is in good company

[Anonymous Coward]

These Ada people are no different from the extremist Muslims who will attack you for drawing their prophet (though presumably less prone to murder). They try to force the world to conform to their comfort or neuroses, rather than deal with their problems. They have no right to not be offended, and this is censorship.

Re:Ada is in good company

[HornWumpus]

Which is why we need to encourage Arab feminism.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[Anonymous Coward]

(This post is also a rape trigger, due to it's content)

It's well known that complaining about rape triggers is one of the most potent rape trigger triggers.

Free speech

[cfalcon]

Is unquestionably being threatened by such malarky as this.

We need to oppose this, stridently and unceasingly.

Wait...What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please translate this post into English???

That smiling lady was Barbra Streisand

[Anonymous Coward]

Have your talk censored at conference or a few thousand attendees, with a maximum possible venue attendees of a few hundred.
Post a slashdot article, describing said censorship.
Have tens of thousands read talk.

That smiling lady from Ada, was Barbra Streisand. Welcome to the Streisand Effect.

Re:That smiling lady was Barbra Streisand

[dthirteen]

mod parent up

Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker

[l0ungeb0y]

From the Ada Initiative's own statement on this:

Simply put, even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk about sex is likely to have negative effects on women at a technical conference.

More simply put: "Any talk of sex at a technical conference is bad m'kay, because a rape survivor might get offended."

Sorry, but covering the ears and mouths of others to suppress information YOU DON'T LIKE is against feminism since it presumes that women are too fragile to handle sexuality in a positive and adult manner, is sexist to men since it presumes that the mere talk of sex, no matter the content of message of purpose will push some men to rape or "give women bad sexual experiences".

And how many of these men would attend this fabled "Conference on Sexuality" where Violet Blue's talk would be "on topic"? I predict none.
So a chance to raise awareness, engage, inform and encourage healthy debate has been lost because one group with a very clear agenda decide that no one t a "Tech Conference" should be able to be so educated and informed on subjects they feel are harmful based solely on their own ideals.

The Ada Initiative should be wholeheartedly shunned by the tech circles who value freedom of information and freedom of choice for being counter to the very principles upon which their culture is formed. This is a culture based on curiosity, exploration, boundary pushing and self-education -- we don't need Ada Initiative telling us where or how to educate ourselves or dictating what topics are "safe".

Re:Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but I have a severe trigger that is activated by stupidity. The Ada Initiative's forceful censorship of this topic has resulted in a major case of PTSD, especially when I think that these people not only have influence over limp-wristed conference organizers but that they can vote and, worse yet, breed.

Re:Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker

[c]

Sorry, but covering the ears and mouths of others to suppress information YOU DON'T LIKE is against feminism...

It's also against history and plain common sense.

First, they're trying to censor something in the hacker community. Mere words can't explain how much "fail" is involved in that concept.

Second, history is pretty clear that if you want to solve social behavioural problems (which, I'm assuming, is the fundamental reason behind the Ada Initiative), anything less than honest and open communications, even about things which are uncomfortable to some, is going to backfire. Suppression gives you stupid shit like abstinence-only sex education, and appealing to reason and/or authority without using reason or having authority is just denying reality. Particularly if your subject population is resistant to overt propaganda and manipulation, which this one certainly is.

So, I guess the Ada Initiative can probably manage to get tech conferences to completely shun sex topics... as long as they don't mind that it's not going to do anything to actually reduce these "negative effects on women at a technical conference".

Re:Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

"First, they're trying to censor something in the hacker community. Mere words can't explain how much "fail" is involved in that concept."

This reminds me of American Dad episode where Stan put gun to God's head, then claimed he wasn't "too controlling".

Valerie Aurora of the Ada Initiative

[Anonymous Coward]

This individual obviously has mental health issues and make you wish such people didn't support the cause.

Technical conferences should be technical.

[pavon]

There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security, not some very weakly tangentially related subject, especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.

It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.

The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[beckett]

The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.

It's too bad that the talk was censored by Ada Initiative; otherwise the rest of the grownups could have made up their own minds on the subject instead of believing your opinion of a talk that never occurred.

extremely insightful that your idea of tangential, may be another person's epiphany. This is the exact purpose of a conference: to listen to new ideas, even if they are not in your narrow field of research.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[Anonymous Coward]

CCC is not "computer security conference". Your argument is invalid.

It's a hacker conference with talks on all kinds of topics, technology, politics, culture, society.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.

The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.

So...your logic is that a talk that was supposed to ameliorate pressing social issues should have been canceled simply because its audience is not being sufficiently informed about those issues at it is? "They're not used to being told that they are making mistakes with other people so let's not start now?"

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[B'Trey]

The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.

And, of course, that opinion is the only one that matters, so it's OK to lie and use whatever other cheap, underhanded methods you can use to impose your perspective on everyone else, right? "Rape trigger" is a convenient tool because it shuts down all further conversation.

A: "Rape trigger!"
B: "But I ..."
A: "What, do you support rape? What kind of sleazy, disgusting asshole are you?"
B: (slinks away)

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[lpp]

Except the difference here is that on Slashdot at least at some point someone actually reviewed the content being rejected. And in fact, "rejected" isn't even appropriate since it is still possible to review the full measure of the content since it is only hidden.

The equivalent in Violet Blue's case would have been if the con organizers had taken her up on her offer to do the presentation elsewhere or to video tape it and show it after the con but still make it available to those at the con. Instead she was never even allowed to speak.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[sesshomaru]

Yes, I ran into this when I criticized Anita Sarkeesian:

Female Cousin (knows nothing much about video games) puts up link to Antia Sarkeesian and how awful all the stuff that happens to her.

Me, comment, "I don't want to start an argument here, but I am not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian."

Her: "So, do you support rape threats against her then?"

Me: "Of course not..."

(Discussion degenerates from here)

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[FatLittleMonkey]

There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security,

Can you demonstrate that there was any kind of "consensus", outside of the mind of Valerie Aurora, that the talk was unwelcome. Her complaint seem entirely unilateral.

especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.

You mean, a few hours before the same talk at the previous year's con? Ie, 12 months + a few hours to raise the issue with the presenter. It's Valerie Aurora's objections (and apparent threats against organisers) that were last minute, not the talk topic. Aurora waited until the audience was seated for the talk to begin.

But your comment reinforces that Aurora's complaint was not based on any information, but solely on a title with the word "sex" in it. Likewise from her Ada Initiative statement: "The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape)."

Aurora assumed, without bothering to ask, that a woman (with training in sex education and experience in rape crisis counselling) was going to give an instructional talk on how to use drugs to rape women at the conference, and that the organisers were fine with that. To her that seemed a perfectly logical and "reasonable interpretation", so reasonable that she didn't need to talk to the presenter. Nor was contradictory information welcome, for bizarrely, as can be seen by her statement, she is still defending her actions, just as you apologists are still claiming that Violet Blue was the one in the wrong.

No. The only correct response by Valerie Aurora is "I made a mistake about something I care about and got angry, in my anger I hurt a good person, abused my position of trust in the organisation I founded, and harmed the community. I have thought long and hard about what I did wrong so I can hopefully do better next time. I apologise to Violet Blue and to the community...."

It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated professionally rather than as sexual objects. And in a crowd of socially awkward men who already find it challenging to interact with women without having sex rubbed in their face.

You don't even see how bizarre and objectifying (of both sexes) that comment is. The way to change a culture is to talk about it.

The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.

The hacker culture has long been associated with sharing drug knowledge/safety and other aspects of counter-culture. (Or rather, much of the hacker culture grew out of the West Coast university counter-culture movements.) It's where I've found most of my information about drugs over the last 30 years. Spreading information openly in the face of official censorship. The nature of the information is almost irrelevant, whether it's lock picking, or breaking out of plastic security cuffs, or culture jamming, or safe drug use, all are welcome... were welcome.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way the effect is the same: someone else is removing content before giving you the chance to make a decision for yourself.

If the issue is that how such a decision to remove content was made, that is not the same issue the grandparent seems to be addressing.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[nbauman]

It seems as if the Ada Initiative was using the same power dynamic to force the conference to ban Violet Blue's talk that rapists use to force sex onto unwilling women (by some definitions of rape).

Employer: "If you have sex with me I'll send you to that conference you want to attend so badly."

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[beckett]

how can they review the content of the talk before it is given? judging a presentation based on a submitted abstract is like thinking the Daily Show provides a good summary of current events.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[HornWumpus]

Browse at -1 you pansy.

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[beckett]

thanks, twat!

Re:Technical conferences should be technical.

[lpp]

That's rather the point. If they are concerned about the content, they can still review talk titles and summaries and judge from there. If they have a concern, they can inquire. What they shouldn't do is attempt to shut something down so that it never even sees the light of day.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[drinkypoo]

They certainly do come off as authoritative, don't they? But that's only one side of the story. Much of the misunderstanding comes from people who don't own a dictionary. They are permitting the legal profession to redefine words in our language, and then crying about how they're suffering as a result of the redefinition of those words which they've caused.

Some great quotes

[DNS-and-BIND]

"Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and theyâ(TM)re a rape survivor."

"Do you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then itâ(TM)s the same as rape, and thereâ(TM)s going to be a problem."

"No, theyâ(TM)re here and theyâ(TM)re not leaving. They told me theyâ(TM)ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk."

So, someone want to tell me the difference between this behavior and a bully's behavior? Oh, right, bullies don't have entire academic departments of major universities backing them up.

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Hatta]

Yes, the police and military are the bad guys and have been for decades. They are designed to protect the general population in the same way an electric fence protects cattle. Every war since at least Vietnam has had nothing to do with protecting people, only securing global hegemony. And the main purpose of the police is to keep the peasants from revolting. Notice how robust the response to OWS was, when the real criminals on Wall Street went untouched? Look at how willing the police are to ruin lives over a little Cannabis or how much respect the military has for basic principles of justice like innocent before proven guilty.

These are not honorable institutions with honorable goals, and none can be associated with them honorably. We live in an upsidedown world where the authorities who are supposed to protect us are in fact the greatest threat. Wake the fuck up already.

Irrelevant.

[LateArthurDent]

Triggers are not an invention of SF Hippies or Feminists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger

Feel free to google "trauma trigger" or "PTSD trigger" for more.

That you've never heard of something and can't wrap your head around it immediately doesn't mean that is must be bullshit.

I don't think the triggers are bullshit. I think avoiding certain topics because there may be some people in the audience that has gone through a horrible traumatic experience and may be triggered as a result is bullshit.

My grandfather was a WWII vet. Once I was watching Full Metal Jacket, my grandfather walked in during the training scene in which people were crawling below live bullets fired over their heads, one guy panicked, and got shot. My grandfather immediately got up and walked out. Later I found he actually saw someone die exactly like that when he was in training. There's no way I think his reaction was "bullshit" and that it wasn't a reminder of something tragic that happened in his life. However, to outright ban Full Metal Jacket in case any vets might see it and have a PTSD trigger is ridiculous, and the incorrect response.

Similarly, I have the deepest sympathies for anyone who was raped. I can't imagine what they've been through and understand their lives have been forever changed as a result. That said, if you're a rape victim and you think you might be triggered by the subject of a talk that involves sex, then you should be smart enough not to attend said talk. Asking instead for the talk to be banned so that nobody else can see it is an unacceptable response.

Violet Blue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we want really want hipsters and other dilettantes hijacking these conferences? Who nominates any of these social commentators about what's acceptable and what's not in hacker culture? Actually, fuck "hacker culture" and it's analysts. We'll just keep making and doing cool shit because we can, and because we want to - and these assholes can take their hipper-than-thou circle jerk somewhere else.

Blame the conference organizers?

[djlemma]

So, the organizers of the conference invited somebody to do a talk about sex.. and also invited a group that was opposed to any talk about sex going on at the conference. Oops.

Original Article

[wisnoskij]

So basically the presenter said she would hold the talk in a separate room in the after party, so that only the people who knew what the content would be and consented to see it would see it.

This was the response: “No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”

It's something that you should use in labels.

[Medievalist]

WTF is a rape trigger?

It's a (somewhat stupid and contrived, but at this point accepted) label that you can apply to anything that may cause post-traumatic stress symptoms in people who have been raped. It's like marking something "NotSafeForWork" in a sense - it's something that reasonable and polite people often do out of a sense of kindness and social responsibility.

Since a very large number of people have been raped, from all genders, races, religions, ages, etc. and most of them don't go around wearing big signs that say "I HAVE BEEN RAPED AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DAY GO BY WITHOUT BEING REMINDED OF THE DETAILS" it's courteous to note when you're going to present or link something that you think might bother rape victims. That way they can avoid it and nobody has to be censored or antagonized.

High tech is rife with trolls and misogynists, and there's also some feminists who are equally out of hand on another axis. But for normal people "rape trigger" means "don't go there if you don't want to be reminded of the realities of rape right now" - it's a labeling method.

Re:It's something that you should use in labels.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a (somewhat stupid and contrived, but at this point accepted) label that you can apply to anything that may cause post-traumatic stress symptoms in people who have been raped.

High tech is rife with trolls and misogynists, and there's also some feminists who are equally out of hand on another axis. But for normal people "rape trigger" means "don't go there if you don't want to be reminded of the realities of rape right now" - it's a labeling method.

Most "normal people" haven't even heard the label, and "trigger warnings" are often mocked among people who are familiar with them.

Society is not the Internet, and the Internet is not tumblr.

Re:It's something that you should use in labels.

[Medievalist]

Perhaps you misunderstood. My post provides a possibly useful definition intended for "normal people", so they will have heard of the label. Do you have a beef against helpful labeling?

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever even seen tumblr, although I've been on the Internet since Jon Postel's beard was a pup. So whatever that last bit was, I'm afraid it didn't even part my hair.

Summary Dissection

[guttentag]

The Ada Initiative's Valerie Aurora got Violet Blue's Hackers As A High-Risk Population (29c3 abstract) talk on harm reduction methodology pulled from the Security BSides meeting in San Francisco by claiming it contained rape triggers.

Linux kernel developer Valerie Aurora, who founded a women's rights and FOSS non-profit in 2011, apparently had something to do with pulling a Chaos Communication Congress talk in San Francisco by a controversial sex author (who has a long history of having posts deleted and accounts closed by everyone from Boing Boing to Google for every reason from her opinions to her name) because the talk might trigger flashbacks in rape victims. Am I reading slashdot or is someone watching Gossip Girl in the next room with the volume turned up too high?

It frankly asinine to object to work around hacker ethics as 'off topic' at such broad hacker conference. Is Appelbaum's 29c3 keynote 'off topic' for asking hackers to work for the 'good guys' rather than military, police, their contractors, Facebook, etc.?

Apparently the author of the summary is rebutting an argument he has failed to share with the rest of us... And using disjointed, broken English to accomplish this... And then asking for our opinion on Applebaum's keynote. Who the hell is Applebaum? Maybe I should know, but I don't care. What is this summary about?

Yes, obviously harm reduction is a psychological hack that need not involve a computer, but this holds for 'social engineering' as well.

The author answered his own question, a common technique to attempt to force opinions on people by asking a question so they open their minds to consider possibilities and jam an opinion in during the window of opportunity. It might have been more successful if the audience wasn't still busy trying to figure out what the author was talking about in the first place. Fail on multiple levels. I could be doing something useful right now, like brushing my teeth, but this is epically bad. It's like watching the aftermath of a train wreck. You just stare in amazement.

It's simply that hacking isn't nearly as specialized or inaccessible as say theoretical physics.

Random meaningless and false generalization about hacking. I think the author has even lost track of what he was saying... this could get interesting. Wait for it...

Worse, there is no shortage of terrible technology laws like the CFAA, DMCA, etc. that exist partially because early hackers failed to communicate an ethics that seemed coherent and reasoned to outsiders.

Apparently, terrible technology-related laws are worse than... something... perhaps this summary. Oh, and failing to communicate things in a coherent fashion is bad. Wait, was that self-flagellation on the part of the summary author?

I watched the YouTube video of the sex author's talk, and she's almost as incoherent as the author of the summary. Perhaps she makes sense to him, and vice versa. Or perhaps they are one and the same. After about five minutes of watching, I was trying to figure out what the hell she was talking about when she said something to the effect of, "so you can see what I'm trying to say." Translation: I can't express myself well enough to explain what I'm talking about, so I'm going to suggest that everyone in the room understands, and if you don't there must be something wrong with you. At that point I closed the video and was done with it.

Nothing to see here, unless you like drama about train wreck stories about train wrecks.

Re:Summary Dissection

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least I know I'm not the only one who was totally lost. Thank you.

Re:Summary Dissection

[dcollins]

Lovely dissection. Thanks for posting this.

Link to video (no youtube)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://mirror.fem-net.de/CCC/29C3/mp4-h264-HQ/29c3-5024-en-hackers_as_a_highrisk_population_h264.mp4

and other mirrors at https://events.ccc.de/congress/2012/wiki/Documentation#CCC-TV

Cut google from the loop, they already know enough about you!

Full disclosure?

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow like the idea to attend a hacker conference merely to teach those nerdy wannabe rapists that full disclosure is abandoned when sex and/or drugs are involved.

Quit with the Hyperbole.

[pavon]

Apparently a bunch of feminists in San Fransisco (but of course) are concerned that any *mention* of rape ("rape trigger") in a speech or presentation will send any former rape victims in the audience into flashbacks and convulsions, thus re-victimizing them.

No, they are stating the fact that it will make former rape victims extremely uncomfortable, and other women less comfortable as well, ruining what would otherwise be an enjoyable technical conference. The conference organizers agreed, and canceled the talk, since it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the conference.

Re:Quit with the Hyperbole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do read TFA.

The organizer said, “So, I need to ask you: is there any rape in your talk?”

I said, “Is there any WHAT in my talk?” I was shocked.

“Well, there’s been a complaint about your talk.” He continued, “It’s from someone who is a rape survivor and they said they will be triggered by your talk if there’s any rape in it.”

“No, no, there’s no rape in my talk. I talk about human sexual systems and the effects drugs, including caffeine and alcohol, affect the performance of these systems and the dangers of mixing different things. What’s going on here?”

He replied, “Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and they’re a rape survivor.”

“Okay. In the talk I do cover ‘date rape’ drugs, and I explain their actions and how they’re dangerous.”

Then he said, “Do you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then it’s the same as rape, and there’s going to be a problem.”

I told the organizer, “Wow, this really sucks - I know it’s not your fault. Well, how about if I shift the talk to a different room? We could put it on the smaller stage where the room has doors that close, or I could do it in the LockSport Lounge. Hell, I can even present it at the afterparty, it’s no problem. What is going to be easiest for you? It looks like you’re in a shitty position.”

“No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”

I paused for a minute. I said, “Okay. I guess I won’t give my talk, then. I don’t want this to be a problem for you, you’re in a shit position. It sounds like this person is going to make it into a bigger problem no matter what you do. It’s no big deal, don’t worry about it. Maybe I can do a video of the talk and BSides can have it as an after-con talk.”

Does that sound more like "agreed and cancelled the talk because it's offtopic" or "didn't mind the talk, but got threatened into cancelling it" to you?

Re:Quit with the Hyperbole.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is starting to look like a game of telephone... where we have what she said that the organizer said that some other person said...

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[drinkypoo]

The police and military are ostensibly designed to protect the general population.

It has been shown time and again that the military are at greater risk of committing certain crimes, like domestic violence. I don't trust anyone more likely to engage in domestic violence to help ensure domestic tranquility. It has also been shown that cops commit crimes at about the same rate as the general population — they are the general population. We have the term "paramilitary" for a reason, to describe guys who aren't really military. When cops describe citizens as "civilians" you know they are pieces of shit who think they're better than other people without justification. They are civilians.

In the end, though, the determination of whether the cops are the "bad guys" is based on whether you think your government is serving your needs. If you're part of the 8% or whatever of the world that has a job keeping them above the poverty line, pays all their taxes and is generally happy with the status quo then the cops are probably the "good guys" to you. They're maintaining a system that's working for you. But for the vast majority of the world's population, the system is not working. It is not serving their needs, they are living in poverty and sickness, their so-called human rights are denied them, and the police maintain the status quo. The police are helping to keep them in poverty by upholding the law. To the vast majority of the world's people, the cops (and military) are the bad guys.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[Anonymous Coward]

I have bad experiences with people being stupid, can we please start using stupidity trigger warnings so that I don't have to have my pwecious feewings hurt when someone spouts off with batfuck, shit-flinging idiocy on /.?

Accuracy in trigger warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

Trigger warning: Ableism, sexism, genderism, speciesism, any-ism, rape, the color teal, operating systems, the sight of a penis, human beings, the sun coming up in the morning, small dogs that yap incessantly.

Seriously, get over yourselves.

It's all nirvana's fault

[PartyBoy!911]

Let's see what kind of rape flashbacks this triggers ;-)

Rape Me Lyrics - Nirvana

Rape me
Rape me my friend
Rape me
Rape me again

Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?

Hate me
Do it and do it again
Waste me
Rape me, my friend

Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?

My favourite inside source
I kiss your open sores
I appreciate your concern
You're gonna stink and burn

Rape me
Rape me, my friend
Rape me
Rape me again

Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?

Rape me!
Rape me!
Rape me!
Rape me!
Rape meeeeeeeeeee!

Re:It's all nirvana's fault

[PartyBoy!911]

Report problems, make suggestions, or contact us at contact@adainitiative.org

Re:It's all nirvana's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop there? Call them at 415-401-0353 or send them letters, they list Valeria Aurora's residence as their HQ: 1117 Geary Blvd, Apt 311. San Francisco, CA 94109 on their public record tax filling (form 990).

Contact their sponsors, let them know how you feel: Leonard Richardson, Sumana Harihareswara, Ceph Distributed open source file system, Google employee gift matchin, JS Community, Microsoft employee gift-matching, The Linux Foundation, Atlassian employee gift matching, O'Reilly Media, Dreamwidth, Linux Australia, Dreamhost, and Puppet Labs.

Ask why they gave gifts totaling $132,217 in 2011 to this group, let them know you wont support them if they support hate groups. Use their tools, polarize them, cut off their funding. Valeria Aurora claims to work full time and takes a full time salary, is this a lie? Does she work elsewhere? Watch them closely, find ways to attack their 501(c)3 status. Is this whole non profit a scam to allow her to go to cons and live off her well meaning corporate sponsors?

Re:It's all nirvana's fault

[ElectricTurtle]

I prefer the Richard Cheese version.

Re:It's all nirvana's fault

[ElectricTurtle]

Drop those dox AC. Considering that rabid feminists like Greg Laden try to get anybody fired who disagrees with them, turnabout is fair play.

both overtly and subtly unhelpful, Ada Initiative.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason they tried to get the talk pulled was that they think talking about sex at hacker conferences does more harm than good.

The way they accomplished censoring the talk was not to argue this reason. It was to find an individual woman to claim she's a rape survivor who will be triggered by the talk and explicitly threaten to make it into a big deal if the organizers don't cave.

These are totally different reasons. It's also concerning the discussion was last-minute, to cripple the organizer's decision-making ability. This is "bad faith" and has many problems, even aside from obvious ones like:

  o that they might be wrong,

  o that talk selection should be transparent,

  o that conferences should be safe spaces not bastions of deep self-censorship,

non-obvious prooblems such as:

  o It's now much harder for any survivor of anything to ask for space or extra consideration because they'll be suspected of political motives

  o It fertilizes seeds of misogyny by doing something some men will consider shitty, and presuming to do it on a sharp gender line---in fact, the only reason their attack succeeded was because the organizer perceived this line and gave them extra fear/attention/cowtowing---when the truth is many women do not agree with their original position, or they do agree but would not agree to further their goal by acting in bad faith.

  o It completely hijacks the entire conference into a gender politics discussion. It's an important discussion to have, but there is a lot of support and interest in this kind of discussion already so that this is a counterproductively disproportionate hijacking. When it becomes impossible to hear the real substance of the conference over all the genderwar crap on Twitter, I fear people will react with reflexive disgust and start to ignore anything gender-related. It will also, unfortunately rightly, discourage some women from joining because they don't want to be involved in this war but rather to tinker with electronics or programming or political organizing. This is a big step backwards from how I saw these discussions evolving in the timeframe 2002 - 2008 when I perceive lots more women became involved in a normal, peer-like way instead of an agitating edge way or fan/follower way, thus making a more welcoming space for ones that follow. I think this could roll things back, and women will be perceived as screamy, unreasonable, and selfish rather than sincere by default even though this perception is totally unfair based on many women who have been newly joining the conferences up until now.

Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[emil]

...with a man that you don't trust. Some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. A study (only of rape victims that were female and reachable by phone) reported detailed findings related to tactics. In 47% of such rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes. Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars.

One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.

For one-third to one-half of the victims, ... symptoms continue beyond the first few months and meet the conditions for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. In general, rape and sexual assault are among the most common causes of PTSD in women.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/rape-and-violence-against-women-crisis

• nearly two thirds of all women killed by guns are killed by their partner or ex-partner
• Spouses are also the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the US
• Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of male violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[wisnoskij]

That is very much what here talk was about, but specifically for the hacker culture, of course.

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[Anonymous Coward]

These statistics sound like absolute nonsense. One in six? Doubtful. Very dubious.

Oh, wait. Their definition of "rape" must have come from one of these rare nutty feminists who think that everything is rape.

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[PlusFiveTroll]

These statistics sound like absolute nonsense. One in six? Doubtful. Very dubious.

Oh, wait. Their definition of "rape" must have come from one of these rare nutty feminists who think that everything is rape.

>One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted...

Key word is attempted, and what the definition of that is. On the subject of attempted I can believe it very much for the weaker forms of getting pushy with a woman. Most of the time the guy that does the attempt does it with no one else around, and is trusted by the woman before that point. The same guy will get away with attempting it with many woman because they are so unlikely to report it and very little is done about it.

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[yndrd1984]

Rape is very serious violation of a person's rights. That's why I hate it when people lie about it for their own advantage:

One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.

You get this by asking "Have you ever had sex when you really didn't want to?" and "Have you ever felt pressured to have sex?". Then you report the women who had sex because "well, it was our anniversary" or felt pressured because "he kept asking" as victims. No crime was even attempted, but politicians have some good talking points, and you get more funding to research the 'crisis'.

For one-third to one-half of the victims, ... symptoms continue beyond the first few months and meet the conditions for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder.

According to a group of students using a checklist (listing technical terms they don't really understand) to pretend to be doctors?

nearly two thirds of all women killed by guns are killed by their partner or ex-partner

And more men are killed by guns than women. [#whataboutthemenz, right?]

Spouses are also the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the US

I'm pretty sure that one got debunked along with the "Superbowl causes spike in ER visits by women" meme.

Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of male violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined

Again, you're using 'facts' from a political site.

And that last point is the real issue. You're using context-free 'factoids' chosen and reworded by political consultants to have the largest emotional impact possible as if they were the results of objective, peer-reviewed scientific research with clearly explained methodology and valid comparisons to similar things. This is the liberal version of Fox News - tons of spin, maybe a bit of fact, but no real fact-checking.

You simply aren't going to be able to help to prevent or lessen the impact of something if you use BS as your source of information.

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[TranquilVoid]

One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.

Something's off here. The proportion of affected women should increase as they age because "since 14" covers a wider and wider age range. College age is pretty much the youngest age of "woman".

One (unlikely IMO) explanation is that rapes today are far more frequent. Another is that the definition of rape changes significantly between women of different age brackets. If this is the case then the statistics are a bit blurry*.

* What is clear is that rape is disgustingly common.

Re:Ban drinking and home occupancy...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.

This is insane. So basically women who go to college are 150% as likely to be raped as a woman who doesn't go to college.

So is there a relationship between intelligence in men and a tendency to engage in rape? Are college women really just engaging in much riskier behaviors, or are college men really just that much more violent and disgusting? Either way, seems like this data suggests there *is* a behavioral component to rape and there *are* activities, situations, etc. to avoid if one wishes to reduce their risk of being raped.

And clearly, there is a major problem with our cultural ethos where people are thinking rape is going to be OK, and then actually raping people.

Well and more than that

[Sycraft-fu]

If you have triggers, then you have mental issues that need to be dealt with. Pushing it aside is NOT healthy. If something traumatic happens to you, there will be mental consequences. You need to work through those. That means counselling, confronting, understanding, etc. If you don't, you'll never fully heal. The mind isn't like the body, you can't just leave an injury be and hope it heals on its own. You have to work on it.

So never mind telling others they have to change, if you ever want to truly recover, you have to deal with the mental scars the trauma has left. Just pushing it aside won't do it. IT is still there, lurking, festering.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the context in which I've heard the word "trigger" is a warning for people likely to be triggered to avoid a talk or situation. It's a form of courtesy or empathy or to keep track of it---part of the value is to let these people have a better time, and another part is a chance to briefly mention that awful things are still happening.

I've never seen it used as a reason to censor something until now.

Talk wasn't about 'harm reduction'

[kaldari]

The talk was about sex and drugs. Why is this critcical fact not mentioned in the summary?

Re:Talk wasn't about 'harm reduction'

[kaldari]

Apparently the talk also included discussion of the use of date rape drugs. That seems like another relevant fact that was not mentioned. I understand that the summary writer may not have agreed with the removal of the talk, but they at least explain why the hell the talk was actually objected to.

Re:Talk wasn't about 'harm reduction'

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, it was objected before there was even a mention of date rape drugs, or that according to author it was about staying out of harm's way. That's relevant and somewhat recolors the picture too.

He replied, âoeSomeone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and theyâ(TM)re a rape survivor.â

âoeOkay. In the talk I do cover âdate rapeâ(TM) drugs, and I explain their actions and how theyâ(TM)re dangerous.â

Then he said, âoeDo you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then itâ(TM)s the same as rape, and thereâ(TM)s going to be a problem.â

Re:Talk wasn't about 'harm reduction'

[Altus]

The phrase "harm reduction" is most often used in the context of sex and/or drugs.

"Walking on eggshells" is a red flag

[karlandtanya]

It is a terrible thing that somebody has a traumatic experience.
If you're walking on eggshells around that person, you're part of the problem.

PTSD represents a bona fide injury and needs to be treated.
If you have an injury, the injury is almost always not your fault, but your recovery is absolutely your responsibility. In those cases where it is your fault (deliberate self-destructive behaviour), you have another problem, which is also not your fault. But dealing with it IS your responsibility!
This is a practical, not a moral judgement--nobody can make you deal with your issues. There's truth to the old punchline "the light bulb has to want to change".

Because there is a behavioural component--sometimes including denial--in psychological injury, the injured person may need some external help to get them started. But, even in this case, the injured person is responsible for their own recovery.

Demanding that the world re-arrange itself so that you can continue in your injured condition is NOT dealing with your problem.
Complying with such demands is--on a personal level--classic codependent enabling behaviour, and does not help anybody.
"Codependency" is not meaningful on an institutional level. The harm to the injured person, whether enabled by an individual or an institution, is exactly the same.

Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.

Somebody who goes out into society and tells everyone "please don't talk about these things because it sets me off" is NOT dealing with their problem.
Rather than doing the painful, humiliating and frightening work on themselves, they're assuming the role of director and staging the world to suit themselves.

Even if it would work for one person (it doesn't), there is more than one psychologically traumatized person in any given place. It's simply not practical to ban everything.
"I was locked in a tiny room. If only there weren't all these closed windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I was abandoned in a big train station. If only there weren't all these open doors and windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I'm an alcoholic. If only there wasn't booze everywhere, I wouldn't get drunk."
"I'm a compulsive gambler. If only there weren't internet cafes on every streetcorner, I wouldn't gamble."
"I fought in a war. If only people wouldn't slam doors, I wouldn't have these flashbacks."

If only the world would re-arrange itself to suit my particular trauma, I could be comfortable in the world NOW, instead of after I've worked for my recovery.

Re:"Walking on eggshells" is a red flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about taking a white and black approach to things, spoken like a true geek, totally isolated from the world.

It's so easy to say all these things, as if recovery is always an easy, quick, direct and certain process. It is none of these things, and there are always going to be people in various stages of dealing with these things. While there may be value in retreating to the technical world while dealing with trauma (or waiting for the proper time to deal with it), perhaps it's best to stay away from that world. There are too many people in that world like the OP...

Re:"Walking on eggshells" is a red flag

[bluegutang]

Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.

Don't work? Don't socialize? Are you serious?

Re:"Walking on eggshells" is a red flag

[karlandtanya]

Where in "Get yourself ready to go out there and live in the world and then go out there and live" did you find "Don't work, Don't Socialize"?
There are appropriate places for many stages of recovery; I cited (and you quoted above) several of them.

There are people who are so new in recovery and have no healthy coping tools. A casual conversation or some slight frustration often quickly becomes too intense to handle and they act out their feelings or withdraw. They break down and cry, scream, pound their fists (on objects or people), pick fights, sleep (or don't sleep) for long periods.
Inpatient treatment in hospitals or treatment centers provide a place where this behaviour is allowed, and managed safely while the patient develops the skills and healthy coping mechanisms they need. This sort of very protected environment is a temporary situation for all except the most severely mentally disabled. It is a transient condition only seen at the the very beginning of recovery.

"Splitting"--the all-or-nothing approach to which you allude is nothing more than resistance to recovery.
Your attitude is common to people in recovery. They often fight the process. It's also not an appropriate attitude if you want to recover.
Nobody expects a person to go directly from a severe injury back to full participation in society. Recovery is a process.

At later stages of recovery, when patients have acquired some tools in therapy and treatment, they may be able to go home--depending on what support network they have at home. Halfway houses also exist for the purpose of allowing a person to gradually re-enter society with a safe place to retreat if things get too tough.

Recovery is an ongoing process. A person may have years of recovery/sobriety/freedom from gambling--whatever you call it in your program--behind them, and still run across something that "sets them off" or "triggers old feelings".
The healthy response to that is to call your sponsor, go to church, talk to your therapist, meditate, or whatever it is you do in your particular program.

A less healthy response would be to demand that the world wrap itself in Nerf so you don't bump your head on a corner.
Enabling that attitude doesn't help the person in recovery; it slows them down. If you're doing it, stop.

Well, not what TFA says

[Anonymous Coward]

The picture Violet Blue's post paints makes your "we didn't ban anything" sound rather bullshittish.

...
He replied, “Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and they’re a rape survivor.”

“Okay. In the talk I do cover ‘date rape’ drugs, and I explain their actions and how they’re dangerous.”

Then he said, “Do you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then it’s the same as rape, and there’s going to be a problem.”

I told the organizer, “Wow, this really sucks - I know it’s not your fault. Well, how about if I shift the talk to a different room? We could put it on the smaller stage where the room has doors that close, or I could do it in the LockSport Lounge. Hell, I can even present it at the afterparty, it’s no problem. What is going to be easiest for you? It looks like you’re in a shitty position.”

“No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk" ...

Creeper Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do I go about getting some of these creeper cards? Is there just one design or is there a full set? Are they collectible?

Does anyone have t-shirts with Creeper Cards printed on them? I'll take a size large in black please.

twitters of the people involved

[Anonymous Coward]

https://twitter.com/adainitiative
https://twitter.com/bsidessf
https://twitter.com/violetblue

The ADA Initiative is basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the jackbooted thugs of the gender-equality-in-tech movement. Almost everyone agrees that the problem should be addressed, but ADAI's position is that it should be addressed their way, and only their way, and any attempts to address it in any fashion that isn't ADAI-approved are not only ineffective, but actually exacerbate the problem.

Regardless of your personal position on the matter, you are either with them, or The Enemy. If you're not in lockstep with them, you shouldn't even be allowed to speak (says them).

The Ada Foundation raped the conference

[wytcld]

Suppression of sexuality is the core goal of rape. The rapist percieves sexuality in the raped, and punishes them for it by directly assaulting it. That's precisely why priests rape boys, for instance. The priests' conviction that sex is evil makes them want to punish the emerging sexuality of the children in the most direct way. The Ada Foundation have appointed themselves priestesses of a new Catholicism. They have raped the conference.

Re:The Ada Foundation raped the conference

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppression of sexuality is the core goal of rape.

psychobabble

That crusader again....

[gweihir]

Some people perceive their own issues as so important that they try to force everybody else to see things the way they do. They become crusaders that increasingly lose contact with reality and do much more harm than good, for example by trying to suppress all discussion of the issue where they believe to have the absolute truth. They are never right as all real problems are not black or white but shades of gray and typically not too well understood.

Valerie Aurora is a prime example of becoming part of the problem by trying to force a specific view on others. Not really much better than any other not too bright bully. (The "not too bright" I take from her technical writings, which I am well qualified to judge on merit and I am not impressed.)

I can see where Ada is coming from

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving advice on the use of drugs during sex that would make enthusiastic consent difficult to communicate is problematic. Giving that advice to a group of people who already have problems with social awkwardness seems like a recipe for disaster.

Re:I can see where Ada is coming from

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving advice on what to do if you're on receiving end of those drugs is problematic too?

Ada Initiative seems to be coming from the title of the talk only.

Violet Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

If talking about sex at a security conference is considered inappropriate why the fuck are you inviting Violet Blue in the first place? Her whole job revolves around talking about sex. Just because she has an active online persona and is one of the SF "cool kids" doesn't mean that she has any place at the conference unless she's going to give a specific, technically interesting presentation. It might be safe to book Bruce Schneier with an open-ended talk but not this woman.

No. Just no.

[fyngyrz]

Sex is a perfectly ok subject at all times. It is a fundamental and ultimately healthy part of human activity. Arguing that it isn't puts you in the position of someone who is defective, or padding the room for someone who is defective.

If you're defective, you should get that fixed. Not expect the rest of us to modify our behavior.

Eventually, the path of "padding the room" leads to no discussion of any issues because someone might be sensitive to them. That's not the way of liberty; that's the way of the ultimate mommy universe, and it is fundamentally wrongheaded.

Liberty is not a condition where you won't hear uncomfortable things because everyone else is responsible for keeping you away from potential discomfort. It is a condition where you may hear anything, and you are responsible for keeping your own comfort. That's where a healthy human's center needs to be focused.

If you're not a healthy human, you should get that fixed, rather than inconveniencing the rest of us, either directly or via misguided advocates, however well intentioned they make think themselves. If you are one of those advocates, rather than one of the unhealthy, don't work on the rest of us to pad the room. Work on the unhealthy to bring them up to snuff.

Re:No. Just no.

[fyngyrz]

What puerile nonsense. Did I mention white, black, brown or any other racial marker? Did I mention male or female or neuter? Did I say there shouldn't be assistance for such fixing? Did I say that "us" was any particular section of the population other than healthy?

Re:No. Just no.

[aaaaaaargh!]

> If you're defective, you should get that fixed. Not expect the rest of us to modify our behavior.

This statement is the de facto definition of white male privilege.

If by "definition" you mean "whatever just fits my personal motivation for talking about 'definition' without really considering what the other person has said", then yes. That would be the wrong definition of "definition", though.

Re:No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex is a perfectly ok subject at all times.

If someone nicely asks me to not discuss a topic because it is uncomfortable to them, I try to accommodate their request if reasonable. If a coworker asks me to not talk about dogs, because their dog recently died or they recently got attacked by one, and my work has nothing to do with dogs, it is pretty easy accommodate that without much loss on my part. If a coworker asks me not to talk about electricity because their father recently got electrocuted, and I am an electrical engineer, then that is a different story, and I will tell them it is unreasonable for me to avoid that topic in such a work place.

Now, in many work places, with some cultural variance, there are topics that are implicitly assumed to be avoided, and it is considered part of professionalism. Sexual topics frequently fall here, and outside of certain work environments (e.g. strip club, medical related stuff, etc.), there is rarely any actual need to talk about it.

Now, regardless of whether the topic is sex or something else, or if the request to avoid it was explicit or implicit, you could decide to talk about it anyway. But if the only reason you are talking about it is because you felt like it and not because of any need, you can often come across as an ass, because you are to annoy other people instead of simply talking about something else. You talk of healthy human activity, well, health social activity frequently requires small comprises and figuring out what is appropriate to talk about when, and weighing that against the need to discuss such things, is part of that.

Otherwise, what you say isn't be specific to sex. Death is a rather fundamental part of human life, yet if you find out a coworker's spouse recently died and they don't want to talk about it at the moment, do you lecture them on how much of an inconvenience that is to you?

Re:No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heartily agree with your Libertarian principals. But....

The missing axiom is: In addition to being principled, we should be kind. If you disagree with that axiom then there is no further argument, and you have a good Libertarian map for governmental design, but may actually be a jerk.

If you want to be kind as well, you need to post some warnings for people with these sensitivities. Not government mandated warnings, not signs of some particular size/color/location. But make an honest effort for people with these issues, who go to a little research, to find which parts of the conference they can't enjoy and avoid them.

I have some tragedy in my past. Movies where the brave heroic woman dies a needless tragic death are movies I can't enjoy and don't want to pay to see. There's nothing poignant or interesting about them for me because I've lived it up close and there are no insights in these movies that I haven't considered a thousand times and need to leave in my past. I was completely blindsided by the (brilliantly executed) Million Dollar Baby, and it was a shitty evening. I'm not saying it's anyone else's fault but my own for not digging deeper to find out the "secrets" of the movie. But I can completely empathize with people who don't want to get randomly kicked in their slow-healing bruises.

The solution I propose is not censorship. It's fixing this: "I submitted the talk description just before the conference began." That's the causal issue from which the rest logically follow. If you're going to discuss date rape drugs, you need to announce it at a time well in advance of "just before the conference began." And that's it. If a conscientious person with sensitivities can dodge your talk then you're not being a jerk when you proceed to talk about whatever the hell you please.

Re:No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

'S all good and well, but it doesn''t apply to situation at hand.

It's not like she suddenly walked out on stage saying "And now we'll talk about rape". The topic was known and posted on website long before the talk even got close to beginning - that's how Ada got a shot at objecting to it in the first place. And if you believe Violet's story, they were not even OK with her doing the talk in a separate room later, promising to cause problems to organizer.

Re:No. Just no.

[fyngyrz]

I've no objection at all to being kind. Now, with that out of the way, how many warnings shall we post? Sex, check. Potential presence of homosexuals. Potential presence of heterosexuals. Possible presence of cross-dressers. Mention of mental disease. Mention of Asperger's syndrome. Democrats. Republicans. Libertarians. Peanut dust. Gluten in the snacks. Me, I'm allergic as hell to mango... so we gotta have a mango warning. Dairy products. Atheists. Theists. Funny names for projects (like "Ubuntu", for goodness sake.) A bee could get in the hall; got your sting kit? Someone might have the flu, or any number of communicable diseases. Might be someone in there with Turette's, complete with symptoms of random foul-mouthery. What if someone (OMG) breastfeeds? What if there's a streaker? What if someone lights up a cigarette or a cigar? What if they bring a spittoon and spit all through the talk? What if they won't take off their hat? What if they're armed? What if they're on a sexual offender's list? What if they're a convicted felon? What if they're (OMG) a congressperson? You want to rub shoulders with one of those????

Where does it stop? The answer is, it doesn't. People are going to interact, talk, etc., and it's ok that they do. It's not ok to muzzle them. For all your good intentions, it just ends up reducing the value of what people have to say. People like Violet Blue who had something to contribute, at least from her POV, and who get locked out by truly well meaning people with an agenda against speech. That's what the well meaning path leads to. It's not good. At all.

So while I'm not inclined to push something into someone's face, I'm even less inclined to muzzle someone else. It's very clear where the best path for society leads, and it isn't down coddling road.

Look, at some point people should become tough enough to deal with the real world. I maintain that it's not good to encourage people to be so weak that they cannot tolerate speech. You're not actually doing them a favor. You might think you are, you might have the kindest heart in the world and that's what's driving you, but you're not doing them a favor, you're creating and/or enabling a weakness that will not serve them well in any facet of society, anywhere, anytime.

Re:No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we not be black and white here?

The people in question aren't "defective". They were raped. A person with a leg chopped off by an axe murderer isn't defective. He has a permanent injury. That doesn't mean we go and outlaw walking in favour of hopping on one foot so that two-legged people have no advantage over one legged people. But you also don't demand that the one legged man crawl up a stairs on hands and knees or else be confined to a hospital bed.

You absolutely are an asshole if you refuse to ever modify your behaviour under any circumstances, and it is extremely unhealthy to refuse any accommodations to anyone. I'm guessing that you, like many, draw a bright line between visible injuries and less visible ones.

With all that said, I don't necessarily agree in this instance (I just don't have enough context for this particular situation).

Re:No. Just no.

[fyngyrz]

But you also don't demand that the one legged man crawl up a stairs on hands and knees or else be confined to a hospital bed.

I don't demand any such thing. I do demand he tolerate the existence of two-legged people, the mention of axes, cherry trees, and whetstones. Likewise for the raped individual; bad deal, no question. However, that doesn't make sex bad, relationships bad, or the gender that matches the one that did the deed bad. The deed was bad. Placing blame and/or responsibility on the people who didn't do the deed is defective behavior. Expecting the world to modify its speech because of some event in your life is defective behavior. This is worlds away from your ridiculous example of forcing a one legged man to crawl up stairs.

I'm guessing that you, like many, draw a bright line between visible injuries and less visible ones.

And you'd be 100% wrong. I recognize the injury. I do not recognize the world's responsibility to modify its speech because of an injury, visible or not. Furthermore, I would make a strong case that in doing so, one is making the injury worse.

Re:No. Just no.

[Alranor]

Sex is a perfectly ok subject at all times.

Then why do I get glared at whenever I start talking about it at a PTA meeting? /doesn't actually do that

Re:No. Just no.

[ElectricTurtle]

This is one of clearest, most epicly concise statements on this matter I have ever seen, and I commend you for it.

Re:No. Just no.

[ElectricTurtle]

It's the same thing with kids. I watch so many helicopter moms swoop in at the first sign that their kid is having difficulty and they solve the problem for them. Then they wonder why their kid isn't maturing or able to adapt to anything (by coincidence I was listening to a conversation between coworkers this morning corroborating this very phenomenon). Parents are a microcosm for society, and if there is too much coddling it produces weakness. Parents, like society, exist to protect their kids from the worst scenarios, but when my daughter runs into anything merely moderately difficult, I do nothing but give some advice and make her do it herself. Sometimes she whines or even cries about it, but after a few minutes of that she finally figures out that it's not going to get done without her own initiative and determination and ends up doing the thing about which she vehemently cried "I can't do it!" mere minutes before.

Re:No. Just no.

[fyngyrz]

Because American citizens are very, very sick.

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll respect your concerns about police oppressing people instead of protecting them, but if you go so far as to call them "bad guys" per se I'm not convinced that you're not just bringing a pre-existing political prejudice to the table...

You may find this useful: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

Your post contains wedgie triggers

[PhamNguyen]

Each time you use the word G**k, you validate the society prejudices that lead to violence against certain groups, especially minors, including violent sexual assault such as wedgies.

People who have experienced this violent sexual assault often re-experience their trauma when they are exposed to this kind of language, and the stereotypes you have used that promote anti G**k prejudice.

Your prejudice is so extreme that instead of objecting to the content of the talk itself, you are just as concerned with "discussing sex with a room full of geeks".

Attributing sexism in a community to the presence of G**k's is no more acceptable that attributing sexism in rap music to the presence of Black people.

Re:Your post contains wedgie triggers

[jbolden]

If I hadn't already posted, +1 funny,

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to stop including that last line if you want anybody to take you seriously.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[gumpish]

The conference organizers *asked* the Ada Initiative what they thought about this

Actually, per the link in the fine summary (emphasis mine):

Ada Initiative Executive Director Valerie Aurora was attending the BSides SF conference, and saw this update to the title of the talk. By coincidence, the Ada Initiative happened to have been put in contact with a co-founder of the BSides conferences (not BSides SF) a few weeks previously, to discuss a potential anti-harassment policy that individual BSides conferences could choose to adopt. When the title of the talk was updated, Valerie emailed the BSides co-founder with the title of the talk and an explanation of why it would be unwelcoming to women, with the intention of giving an example of situations which having a policy in place would help. The co-founder replied to the email and cc’d a BSides SF organizer, Ian Fung, which resulted in Ian asking Valerie for more information.

Later on the same page:

It is true that warning people of a potential bad effect of their actions is a common method of threatening people; that’s one reason why we wait for conference organizers to contact us first. If someone requests our opinion, as BSides SF did in this case, then it is more difficult to mistake sharing our expertise as threats.

Right. BSides initiated this exchange... so long as you ignore the fact that Valerie Aurora initiated it.

Re:Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[emj]

Right. BSides initiated this exchange... so long as you ignore the fact that Valerie Aurora initiated it.

Except founders of BSides had contacted them about the conferences before that, and that made it possible for Valerie to email them about this talk. So if you say "BSides contacted Ada ini. about womens issues at the conferences" then it's not a lie, and it's really not that much of difference.

For the record I agree that sex really should be off topic, there are just too many men that have to engage in locker room banter.

Re:Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[gumpish]

Except founders of BSides had contacted them about the conferences before that

Assumes facts not in evidence, or in newspeak, citation needed.

Ada's defense piece states:

By coincidence, the Ada Initiative happened to have been put in contact with a co-founder of the BSides conferences (not BSides SF) a few weeks previously, to discuss a potential anti-harassment policy that individual BSides conferences could choose to adopt.

(Emphasis mine.)

That's certainly more ambiguous than "By coincidence a co-founder of the BSides conferences had contacted the Ada Initiative a few weeks previously," which, if true, would cast the Ada Initiative in a better light in this matter. The fact that they chose to use the more ambiguous "put in contact with" suggests this is not the case.

==========

For what it's worth: Even if BSides did truly initiate their interaction with the Ada Initiative, that doesn't excuse their behavior.

If it was never their intention to allow presentations about sexuality, they should have documented that somehow and made that documentation available to potential presenters.

If, prior to their interaction with Ms. Aurora, the topic of sexuality was permissible, why did BSides reject the presenter's offer to move the talk to a small venue with no sound leakage and ample warnings about the content, thus presumably ensuring no one was exposed to content they wished to avoid?

I happen to agree that the content appears to have zero relevance to information security (the nominal purpose of BSides, not "hacking") and had I been in charge of booking presenters I would have rejected this presentation in favor of someone with more relevant material.

such talks do more harm than good

[hduff]

Show me the data or STFU.

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Anonymous Coward]

I say this knowing many people in law enforcement and even my uncle was chief of police before he retired. The fact is the police are not here to server and protect; They are here to gather evidence. And, sadly, most of the time that evidence is against you. If, in gathering said evidence, there is a side-effect of protecting someone (probably you from yourself) then so be it.

Left puritanism

[jbolden]

Well OK. First off Violet Blue is a very well known and well respected, especially in San Francisco, speaker on sex topics,. So we should first cut out any "they didn't know what she was going to talk about" or "they didn't know who she was".... Second, Violet Blue clearly is not an expert on network security and computers. Violet Blue is giving a talk about sex on drugs aimed for the age group of the hacker community. Harm reduction which is a concept from medicine could potential apply to IT security so it might be on topic, but they probably just skirting the line to create a tie in. Given we know who she is the talk is going to be: a well done sexually explicit sex-ed talk with age approp is going to be informative. The conference was going to have a spicy but informative talk to help make something memorable.

Third, I think the rape stuff is frankly nonsense. You can't function in American society being too sensitive to even tolerate the mention of sex. American society is loaded with sexual references. The idea that Violet Blue, who probably is outright experienced in rape counseling, can't handle a negative reaction is silly. OK so the real question is there are people who are uncomfortable hearing discussion about sex for much the same reason conservative Christians are.

So the real issue is, what should be our attitude about sex in business. People are all over the map on this one. Ada shouldn't have made this about rape.

Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

1st Amendment is there only to ensure that ONE particular government does not hinder what is currently universally recognized as a basic human right.

Just because there is need to ensure that a government will not hinder that right, does not mean that private groups or individuals are free to do so.
If you're not certain about it being so, try swapping in some other human right in there in stead of "right to freedom of opinion and expression".

E.g. A private group going around and hindering "right to education".
Or the "right to own property".
Or "right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law".
Or "right to life, liberty and security of person".

Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up already.

The truth shall set you free

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ada group forced themselves on Violet, the confrence and its attendants for their own pleasure. They raped in the name of rape. It is a well known horrible cycle that turns the victims into criminals, which they are perpetuating. I would say we should be angry but maybe compassion for their ignorance and hurtful actions is the better path. They are a group that needs our help love and understanding just like all of us. If we don't help the Ada group learn and grow they may forever be stuck, which would be a real travesty.

Record-setting submission!

[DrVomact]

This /. submission surely sets a new record for incoherence. I could not understand a word of it. True, the words appear to be English, but they don't combine into any coherent statements. Why can't I use my moderation points to mod down /. submissions? And, I'd like an "incoherent" category, please.

Rape victims have it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am traumatized by stupidity. I would be happy if I could apply Ada Initiative's (or more precisely Valerie Aurora's) approach to my problem.

Next time, don't just invite Violet Blue

[russotto]

Invite Dan Savage as well. If you think Aurora will cause trouble if you don't cancel the talk, imagine the santorum Savage will stir up if you DO cancel it.

Re:rape trigger? etc

[unitron]

I would think that some, at least, of the misunderstanding comes from the term "rape trigger" sounding like something that could induce one to commit rape, albeit in some sort of Manchurian candidate kind of way, which sounds more like bad SF (or earlier years physchological theory) than real life, but being previously unfamiliar with the term that's where my mind went first, to something which actually triggers the actual event.

Now if they'd called it "Sexual Trauma Memory Trigger" or something along those lines, it might be more immediately apparent what they meant.

Don't fuck Violet Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

She is an ugly bitchy San Franciscan who probably has AIDS.

Fuck the other Violet Blue, the cute porn star who was sued by the ugly Violet Blue.

100% inappropriate

[r00t]

Let's look at some other examples...

Conference: Consumer Electronics Show
Talk: Flavor stability in organic low-salt soy sauce
Verdict: inappropriate

Don't get it yet? OK...

Conference: Adult Entertainment Expo
Talk: Xenon isotopes in precambrian rock formations
Verdict: inappropriate

Not understanding yet? OK...

Conference: American Society of Microbiologists annual meeting
Talk: Efficient Rare-Earth-Free Phosphors
Verdict: inappropriate

Smithers!

[dotmax]

Get me the amnesia ray!

it should never have been scheduled

[r00t]

It's like having a talk about repairing stained glass windows at the Adult Entertainment Expo. It's 100% off-topic for the conference.

This calls for sexual segregation of geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things, and be treated like professionals. Putting sex on people's mind takes the focus off technical things, and onto sexual things. It does so regardless of whether the talk is pro-women or not. It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. It will take what should be a comfortable professional environment, and make it less enjoyable and welcoming.

So in short: men become geeks to compensate for their sex deprivation, women traditionally become geeks (historically, Vestals or nuns) to flee over-sexualized everyday life. In a sense, most male geeks are outcasts, while most female geeks are refugees. Both are fighting reality and they are incompatible with each other in their goals and their world view, because males continue to fantasize about changing themselves and having lots of sex, while females fantasize about changing the world, so that they can stay clear of sexual pressure.

Violet Blue, Risk and Harm Reduction

[lsatenstein]

What a load of crap.
Businessmen and startups take risks everyday. Not all risks are harmful to society. Sex is risky, you may cause the birth of an abnormal child.

Sex and hacking, is not sex and porn.

Why are we even looking at her presentations. What drivel and a waste of time

Call her out

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have gotten up on stage, waited for that woman to walk in, sit down, then simply state:

"This talk is not going to happen because of this woman (points finger). I invite her up here to explain why to all who are effected in this room."

Violet is a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe her name is new here, but I've been aware of Violet's work for years and this is what she does. Her whole schtick is to be sensational to get attention.

The idea that she'd go to a hacker convention and go totally off topic into areas people don't want to hear about (her life's work is discussing sex and drugs) is hardly surprising. It's what she does. It's all she does. She can't write anything that doesn't involve mentioning anal sex or weed or sadomachism. And she tries to tie it to any topic at hand, whether it's politics or science or hacking or whatever.

This isn't about feminism, this isn't about rape triggers. This is about a troll stirring things up. Everyone is offended and upset, and she got exactly what she wanted.

You have to love the irony...

[dobbshead]

That a feminist organisation was pivotal in preventing half the female speakers at the conference from talking.