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."
Plan to have panels about online harassment. Harassed into canceling those plans. Then reinstate the plans?
I don't know what the lesson is here!
First by cancelling the panels due to threats, then by reinstating them due to threats!
The lesson to learn here kids: threats works!
SXSW used to be about puking your guts out at 9am after an all nighter, then killing it at shows later that night.
Panels about online harrasment?!?
That is on par with assigning an ip to your bidet, logging in to FB through it, then posting updates while using it.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
They cancelled the panels due to harassment and threats.
They reinstated the panels due to several organizations saying that if the panels weren't reinstated, the organizations wouldn't show up to the event.
There's a bit of a difference there.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
[text on a screen] is a menace that has often resulted in real world violence
Oh, really? And where can we view these spooky words with magical powers?
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
An example would be Twitter who has banned people for claiming they posted doxs, or harassment like Leothepirate or Thunderf00t for example but allowed people like Quinn, Harper, Sarkeesian and Wu to run free, who've posted doxs, harassed people, or even sent their followers out to attack others. I think that's what they're talking about, the rules don't apply equally. If you're in the right kind of clique, you can do whatever you want.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's a matter of scale.
"Cancel {X} or we'll do violence to you!" vs. "Reinstate {X} or we're not showing up."
There is no crime committed by the latter.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If you're an adult, you got over being called names. Expecting others to sanitize your environment wherever you go is insanity.
That is, uses a colloquial term for a female genitalia to describe something bad.
And for being unable to take a fucking joke, I call you a dick. That is, I use a colloquial term for a male genitalia to describe something bad. Am I a misandrist now?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I know right, what a dick.
There were two panels that were cancelled. The one anti-harassment and one media corruption. It seems like the media boycott got the anti-harassment panel reinstated, but they don't have any serious problem with nobody caring about media corruption for some reason. It must be because the only ones that care about media corruption are all serious harassers like Anne Rice, The David Pakman Show, or KFC.
Whole day of panels on harassment
Oh right, they put together a whole day teaching people how to harass others online, gathering all of the most epic trolls from around the world to one location...
Obviously gathered for the purpose of a targeted military strike by forum moderators the world over.
Remind me to stay the hell away from Austin that day!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One can SET the table, have a SET of tools, or SET something down. These are unrelated meanings which happen to have the same spelling, mostly because English speakers prefer their words to be shorter than the Latin and Greek from which they derive.
PUSI-ll-animous is latin for cowardly. A long time ago it was brought into English as "pussy" (other origins are also possible, it was a long time ago).
Some time later, cat or pussy was separately used as slang for vagina.
Two unrelated meanings that happen to have the same spelling because pusillanimous is "too long; didn't say".
That's great. I'm a grey beard and I'm "in this mess." And going by your post, I've been here longer than you, especially since I remember writing out games that came in magazines to play them. I'm disabled, my back is broken in two places, and I do game as well. You know what happened when this all started up though? There was this tag called #notyourshield, where those SJW's started saying that a disabled minority like myself didn't exist. They told women that game they don't exist, they told other minorities they didn't exists. And to round it all up, when people proved that they did exist and didn't agree with them. They started calling people house niggers, uncle toms, and so on. Oh SJW's full of love and kindness right?
If you've been gaming as long as you have, then you'll remember the ye olde days when gaming magazines would shill out for corps, and people who were friends without disclosing it. You'll also remember when the internet started catching on, how everyone and their brother started launching their own site and become their own game reviewer. You'd have been in that bluesnews/voodoo3d/etc clique that existed at the time. You'll remember that those gaming magazines started dying, and were replaced by online sites.
And you jump a head, you'll remember the Dorito Pope among other instances of corruption, conflicts of interest, and collusion. You'll also remember saying fuck this, and a few years after that you'd start seeing the rise of Let's Plays and 'tube related reviews of games and being happy with them. And jumping to the present, unless you buried your head in the sand you'll have remember the number of authors on the big name sites getting caught shilling for their buddies indie games, authors shilling for xyz companies games and so on.
SJW's pushing 'diversity' or what they claim as diversity is only a small part. It's claiming to be the only voice that can speak for you, or me. If you don't want to be in this mess, that's fine. The game journo's and the vast majority of those who were in Game Journo Pro's created it. You're now seeing the fall out. Oh and a fun bit, look up people like Arthur Chu, Geordie Tait, or Randi Haper or Zoe Quinn. Who've either wanted to commit or openly support violence, or doxing people who don't follow their lines of belief.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm hopeful that one day this trope will be as unfashionable as the ones about women.
I hope instead that no one will care about your bullshit. Worrying about what name people get called is a sign that civilization had brought us to a wonderful place where we have no real worries, and as a sort of auto-immune disorder, we obsess on this meaningless BS. Get over it, and become happier. Enjoy this wonderful civilization and its fruits. You live better than 99% of everyone who has ever lived, stop searching so hard for something to complain about.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There is nothing unreasonable about faith. Faith is the understanding that you will not be able to investigate the underlying mechanism of the thing you are dealing with.
False. That's not faith. That's simply acknowledgement of agnosticism.
Faith is taking one more step and believing something without evidence. It's taking something you don't know and simply switching it to the category of something you do know without actually learning anything new.
Most people have to exercise at least a little of that every day, when even when discussing scientific topics.
Science involves a lot of guessing. I don't think any part of science involves believing something is true without evidence. There's a difference. Science is very clear about when things count as hypotheses/conjectures, and when they count as theories/facts/etc (hint: it's after the experiment).
but faith is not the opposite of reason.
No faith is not the opposite of reason, for the same reason that dogs are not the opposite of cats. That doesn't mean that they are not mutually exclusive.
Science and the scientific method was the outgrowth of quite a few people, particularly minor clerics, who eventually developed the concepts of Reason and the scientific method.
I find this claim to be rather dubious.
Preachers and such may certainly be irrational, but their job description does not make it automatically so, nor does faith mean that they disable their "reason" to accept it.
I think their job description does imply some irrationality. Maybe they are not being irrational, but their job certainly involves inculcating others to be irrational. I would not assume that every preacher practices what they preach. It's quite common for them to exposed as conmen, and conmen are certainly acting rationally.
It is eminently reasonable to accept that there is something out there that you don't understand and can't investigate which, nevertheless, may be true.
That is reasonable. To then go that next step from "Something can be true even if we can't prove it" to "Something *is* true even if we can't prove it" is not reasonable.
Certainly, the concept of things like atoms and smaller particles were an object of speculation without the ability to investigate for thousands of years before we could design experiments for them. I wouldn't have called those ancient philosophers "irrational".
It would have been irrational to say "Atoms must exist even though we have no evidence", even if it turned out to be true.
I can say "I know this next die roll will be a 6". That is irrational even if the next die roll is a 6.
But ancient philosophers were not basing their speculation purely on faith. They were using logic to come to those conclusions. They were evaluating the reasonableness of substances being infinitely divisible vs. there being some indivisible smallest unit.
Not all evidence is empirical. Other forms of theoretical evidence like logical and mathematical consistency, are also valid sources of evidence.
I would also like to point out that since discovering "the atom" we have discovered subatomic particles like protons and neutrons, and even smaller particles like quarks which compose them. We also potentially have yet another level deeper to go with string/M theory.
As logical as it may sound that there be a smallest indivisible particle, it may in fact be the case (as pointed out by Feynman and others) that there may not even be a bottom. It could be smaller and smaller sub-particles forever in an infinite regression.
My point is this: There is a big difference between saying
1. I don't have any evidence, but I think maybe X is true (agnosticism + hypothesis)
2. I don't have any evidence, but I know X is true (faith)
One of those is compatible with science and one is not.
If you're an adult, you got over being called names. Expecting others to sanitize your environment wherever you go is insanity.
This exact same logic works right back at you.