Slashdot Mirror
SXSW Reinstates Panels On Harassment, Adds All-Day Harassment Summit (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: On Tuesday, the South by Southwest Festival announced that it had canceled a pair of panels about online harassment after receiving threats involving them. The cancellation generated a massive outcry, including threats from media organizations to withdraw their support for the festival. Now, SXSW has announced that they're reinstating the panels as part of an all-day summit dedicated to talking about online harassment. They said, "By canceling two sessions we sent an unintended message that SXSW not only tolerates online harassment but condones it, and for that we are truly sorry. The resulting feedback from the individuals involved and the community-at-large resonated loud and clear. While we made the decision in the interest of safety for all of our attendees, canceling sessions was not an appropriate response." They've scheduled more than two dozen speakers for the event, and they plan to stream it live online. "Online harassment is a serious matter and we stand firmly against hate speech and cyber-bullying. It is a menace that has often resulted in real world violence; the spread of discrimination; increased mental health issues and self-inflicted physical harm."
For all the control they seem to have over multiple media services (e.g. Twitter, Reddit, Fark, Gawker, etc.), they sure look like professional victims.
How about having a discussion about how those services have been used to harass and silence individuals that have defied certain narratives?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Well. Look. You could use some fucking common sense.
Threats of violence were made. People threatened asked for their safety to be protected. SXSW dropped the panels, which rather suggests they got scared or their insurers got scared. SXSW did what they felt they had to do because they felt they couldn't protect people from violence on site.
I'm guessing that to do this their security team -- or their insurers' risk assessment team -- actually looked at the credibility of the threats and decided on that basis. For fuck's sake, any idiot in the USA can get a gun, and this year someone with a job-related grievance SHOT TWO PEOPLE DEAD LIVE ON TELEVISION.
Either way, I don't think you can suggest that participants publicly pulling out of an event, or maybe a sponsor or two dropping their support -- I guess that sort of thing is what has persuaded SXSW -- is equivalent to threatening to harm someone at an event.
Unless you're alleging that the "SJWs" made violent threats -- I imagine we might insist in a citation or two in the national media -- then what the fuck do you mean?
Exactly why should they? To satisfy your sea-lion craving for citations?
Maybe it's being treated with confidentiality deliberately for security reasons, or policing reasons, or perhaps-the-person-who-was-threatened-doesn't-fucking-want-it-out-there-in-detail reasons.
Who the fuck knows? SXSW is a large organisation, though, and you are just one aquatic mammal. I'm sure the seriousness of it was gauged.
That's no big surprise. Europe never had any real comittment to freedom of speech, or political freedom either for that matter.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If I said Phil and Leo would you know their real names and how they played into this? The answer would be no.
Perhaps if they had put their money where their mouths are and promoted use of their real names when talking about RL issues.
You're not clouding your views based on who they might be, their race, sex, or anything else. You're basing the merit of their statements and ideas.
Come now, that's a disingenuous statement...because "Thunderfoot" was a Youtube personality!
And I know that many on the far left, especially in the social justice circles and modern feminism have a real problem with merit and meritocracies which they call sexist, sometimes racist, and I've even seen merit called homophobic.
It's easy for someone to claim something is a meritocracy, when it actually isn't in practice.
Reading your complete post, it sounds like clergy are required to utilize a surprising amount of reason when it comes to propaganda, not matters of faith.
"Persuasion and tutelage" are not matters of faith. One could also use reasonable methods to teach and proselytize remote viewing, but it does not mean that one also uses reason when it comes to their evaluation of remote viewing.
There have been apologists since the beginning that have endeavored to make faith a matter of reason (ie: mathematical proof of God's existence). What they end up with is neither faith nor reason.
Humans have a great capacity to be reasonable one moment and utterly lacking in reason the next. The fact that I'm a fan of both the Chicago Blackhawks and the Chicago Bears is a personal example. That I keep my kitchen hygienically clean and use best practices avoid food-borne disease, yet eat burritos from the lady with the prison tattoos and the food cart on Milwaukee Avenue is another example.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Misandry us going a bit far, but it is somewhat problematic. I'm sure you don't intend it to be, but it refers to men being led by their dicks, acting with little thought because they are horny. It's a lame trope that belittles guys, kinda like the one about bond women being dumb or women acting irrationally because they are menstruating.
I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC