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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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."

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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."

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]

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?

[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.

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?

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

Incoherent Award

[dcollins]

This is the single most incoherent story summary that I've ever read at Slashdot. Congratulations!

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

[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

[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

[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 :-)

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

[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

[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: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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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*

Free speech

[cfalcon]

Is unquestionably being threatened by such malarky as this.

We need to oppose this, stridently and unceasingly.

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".

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

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.”

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:That smiling lady was Barbra Streisand

[dthirteen]

mod parent up

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.

[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.

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."

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: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.

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.

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.

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...

[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:It's all nirvana's fault

[PartyBoy!911]

Report problems, make suggestions, or contact us at contact@adainitiative.org

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.

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'

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)

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.

[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.

[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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

Re:The Ada Foundation raped the conference

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppression of sexuality is the core goal of rape.

psychobabble

Re:Summary Dissection

[dcollins]

Lovely dissection. Thanks for posting this.

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.

Re:Ada is in good company

[HornWumpus]

Which is why we need to encourage Arab feminism.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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