Au contraire, from what I can tell that's all everyone is talking about; everyone is trying to work out what the actual reason could be.
We've looked at the official reasons given and seen that they are vague, disingenuous and unsupported.
We've looked at the contextual reasons and surmised that it's likely nothing more than a petty personal vendetta.
We've scoured around for historical reasons and found some incredibly unremarkable attempts at programmer humor which would barely raise an eyebrow.
There's plenty of things in this world that make us uncomfortable at conferences. Some people sneeze and cough unhygienically. Extroverts can occasionally make introverts feel awkward or unwelcome. Speakers make terrible dad jokes. Bad coffee is very discomforting. And most of us are able to accept a bit of discomfort and get on with life. That's the solution: a modicum of tolerance.
> Instead of addressing this point
We do know Crockford from many, many opportunities of seeing him as a speaker though, and from that uninviting him has no basis. As we can read in the statement he even spoke at the same conference last year without any problems.
Read this reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/51e2jb/nodevemb... which debunks that there were "many" people, and/or that those one or two who complained had any evidence at all.
In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races?
If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event.
My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them.
I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience.
(edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)
First the emotional part. I think you've nailed the emotional tone of whatever response the conference makes. We're friends here. We want you to feel safe and relaxed. Here are some things we've done to help you out if you don't feel that way.
But the emotional part only works inside a logical context. It can not exist on its on. Otherwise we're just swaying wildly in the wind, responding to whatever discomfort anybody feels anywhere. That's not workable.
So the question really becomes this: what is the minimal logical construct we can create in order to facilitate each of us being nice to others so that they can feel safe?
Reading the comments here, surely there are a lot of folks pissed off that they disinvited Crockford. And there had to be some folks who were pissed off that he was invited in the first place. That leads us to our first rule: no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed off. Therefore, people being pissed off cannot be a motivating factor one way or the other. Otherwise conferences just become big battles of who can get more pissed off.
How about this for a minimalist rule? If you are a conference speaker, and you are bothered by another speaker and are threatening to boycott the conference because of it, make your case in public. After all, if you're not going to show up, that's a public statement. So instead of putting all of this on the conference organizers and expecting them to sort it out, you get online and make the case yourself. You are the person who was invited to speak in public. You are the person threatening to make a public statement. You are the person causing this public furor. So go head and do that: make a public statement. Don't use somebody to do so in your behalf. That's not fair to the conference, the other speakers, or the attendees. (Or to rest of us, trying to sort through all of this to see if there's anything really there.)
Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be.
As someone who frequents gun shows you piqued my interest in determining how dangerous they really are. The numbers are hard to pin down. But I tried to be as conservative as possible using the available stats. So if these numbers are wrong, chances are they are incorrect in your favor.
The ATF stats state that there are approx 5000 gun shows per year and they generally have 2,500 to 15,000 [1] attendees. We could use the low estimate (2,500 * 5000) and it gives us 12,500,000 attendees. (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows).
Using the dailykos's stat stating that for three years there have been around 1 gun show accident per month gives us 12 per year. [2]
The chance the average person will be struck by lightening is 1 in 960,0000. [3]
The chance of dying in a fatal car accident in the US in a given year are 1 in 11,000 [4]
So, the chance of a gun show attendee who attends one show once per year getting shot (at a gun show) is actually 1,091 times smaller than the chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year. It's also less likely than being struck by lightening. It's important to not let media crazes influence your perceived risk of an event happening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States...
[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-s...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
(strikes have gone down in recent years: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml )
The gun show risk is far easier to control than driving risk and lightning exposure risk.
Avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot is like avoiding skyscrapers because of a terrorist attack, avoiding commercial airlines out fear of a crash, or avoiding swimming in the ocean because of sharks. All of these are statistically irrational.
I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational.
To now see that equated with 'avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot' is utterly unfair.
The statistic being what they are I'm no more inclined to visit a gun show than I'm about to visit a church when there is a mass or to visit a convention on tattoos, I have zero connection to guns, religion or tattoos.
That said I do know how to shoot but feel that America's love affair with weapons isn't helping at all, fortunately there is an ocean between there and here.
Your statement which started this whole statistical discussion was:
"I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons. Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be."
Had you said, "I just don't like guns", "I am not interested in guns", or "I can't stand the atmosphere/people/politics at gun shows or gun shops". That would have been the end of the discussion. That's an opinion you are of course free to have.
Since your statement implied you are not comfortable at gun shows because you perceive shows to be dangerous, I looked at the stats as generously as possible and determined the risk to be negligible.
Then in the comment directly above to which you just replied I said:
"I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational."
In other words, I understand that you have no interest in going to a gun show because you are not interested in guns and that is totally fine. Which is why you should have just said that instead of lobbing that silly canard my way.
But it is bizarre for you to tell me that I was being unfair for directly addressing and then refuting the rationality of your stated reason for not feeling comfortable at gun shows.
The question was about the latter, not about the former.
If someone were to say they don't feel comfortable around Scottish people because they commit more crime. I'm sure you would (rightly) have an issue with that and agree that it is indefensible.
#1) We're talking about on a given year here. and all my stats revolve around the risk of an event happening for a person over the course of a year.
#2) Multiple visits increase the odds of being in an accident. because it's impossible to know how many people attended multiple shows. I am looking at attendees as an individual visit to a gun show. The risk factor showing the odds of being in an accident at a single visit to a single show are more meaningful anyhow.
If you go to one gun show in a given year your odds are around 1 in a million for being involved in an accident. If you go to two your odds jump to 2 in a million.
Get it?
Regardless of the stats, I'm still uncomfortable around amateurs with guns. Comfort and rationality are not always aligned.
I didn't really expect to change your view. Education, familiarity, and practice often dispel the sense of anxiety someone feels around something they are not comfortable with. Learning to drive a car is one example of this.
It's my hope that through reaching out to people who don't feel comfortable around guns and dispelling misconceptions in an even keeled way helps show that we aren't a bunch of reckless crazy rednecks engaging in sophistry to prove a point. I think it's important for everyone to reevaluate their assumptions regularly.
Guns are dangerous, But if you are following the rules[1], it's nearly impossible to have an accident. The vast majority of legal gun owners follow these rules.
[1] http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Catego...
Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that we install lightning rods every twenty feet and legally mandate nonconductive clothing. Obviously you'd sympathize with them, but you can't base national policy on emotion. You have to look at the facts.
Value propositions are all ultimately rooted in emotional responses to propositions which cannot be objectively supported, and all policy is ultimately rooted in value propositions; you can't not base policy (national or otherwise) on emotion.
Regardless of that, some arguments are more rational/illogical than others.
As if the majority of the pro-gun ownership arguments aren't based on emotion.
People hunt (some for game, some for sport) and need guns. People get robbed and would like a gun to keep in the home for self-defense. Some people live in criminal ridden areas where being mugged is a relatively common occurrence, having a gun helps there too.
I guess you can't describe the 'real offensive' behavior after all.
It's one thing for me to say I don't like overt displays of racism and bigotry, or I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display. It's another thing for me to try to ban a gun show or prevent people going because I'm uncomfortable with some aspect of it.
Some people don't like spiders. I get it, although they don't bother me. But is it my problem to deal with someone's fear of spiders? Of course I wouldn't shove a spider in their face, but am I responsible for their terror if they see a spider in my garage? I am responsible for my feelings and how I react to them. I don't hold gun owners or Klan members responsible for how they make me feel.
"... I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display."
That is all I wanted to know. Thanks.
I guess regarding the search for facts/reasons/examples - I guess we're interested in trying to form a view as to whether that is an understandable position on the part of these 'other speakers'. No doubt there is a spectrum here. If it is just "person X doesn't like person Y because they hurt X's feelings once" that is quite a different thing to "persons X, Y and Z have been physically threatened by person A and fear for their lives".
"Some speakers" was from http://nodevember.org/statement.html and I used "a number of speakers" as being equivalent to that unknown but small number. I wouldn't say "many speakers" though (British English).
I am also curious about the actual number - and also the number of supporters or allies not directly involved. It is quite different actual threats, experiences and imagined thoughts and emotions. And then (passive or active, online and offline) supporters to anothers emotions or experiences. I would argue that all these types of response can be addressed in a positive way.
Emotions can be addressed in kind - and perhaps reducing the number of concerns is similar to increasing the level of comfort. For example, I might say "well my friend is concerned that the venue is far away from public transport stops and it's at night" but a good response from the organizers may say "don't worry, we have security on the venue, it's well lighted, there will be good taxi service, we're working with the venue and local police etc". This may well reduce my hypothetical concern, and increase my comfort. I couldn't speak for my friend though - but I'd imagine my, as an ally, reassurance would help.
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker5.htm
Listen, the behavior at some past conferences and in the industry in general are unprofessional, unacceptable, and egregious. It's at the point that I want to disregard anyone who uses the term "social justice warrior" as an imbecile. Everyone should be as comfortable as possible in this community. Everyone should be welcome.
But punishing people based on the words of an unknown person or persons, with no recourse or defense is not better.
In response to this? ->
> we became aware that based on private feedback - not simply the dialogue on Twitter - that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak.
I find that not just acceptable, but fitting.. I mean, what more could you say in response to some unnamed person having unnamed concerns?
> Conferences are about bringing people together. We hope the community can accept our apology and move forward
This is just a bunch of doublespeak, directing it all into the memory hole after not addressing anything seriously. If I was part of that community, my response would be a resounding "No, that's neither thorough nor adult enough. What else other than this squishy foam do you have to offer?".
What are the facts? there are no facts, what did Doug do to make these people "inconfortable" ? we don't know. Some people are inconfortable with ,I quote, "white males around them", inconfortable doesn't mean anything, it's just a euphemism for bigotry these days. Just like "inclusivity".
Excluding someone is not a sensible response to claims of exclusion.
Victimising someone is not a reasonable response to claims of victimisation.
That is the reason - from http://nodevember.org/statement.html : "that his presence would make some speakers uncomfortable to the point where they refused to attend or speak.". Instead of addressing this point, we generally are looking for concrete, binary, true and false examples. So it's harder for me to see how his past behaviour makes me uncomfortable. But I also can understand how it can possibly make other people uncomfortable.
How should any conference deal with speakers being uncomfortable with things?
How can comfort be increased for all? How can a small conference defend against accusations of uncomfortableness? What would the best way to do this be?
Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response.
So, working towards an answer to my own questions, instead of looking for logical reasons, and responding coldly, we should look towards emotion, and respond in kind: "Please be welcome here, we will have separate speaker lounges, multiple places to interact and speak with each other. Many people from a wide range of backgrounds will be attending. It will be our priority to ensure you, and everyone can feel safe and welcome and have an enjoyable time at the conference. We are a group of local friends putting on a great conference about a topic we all like, we arn't a soulless corporate conference. We are approachable and thanks for trusting us and feeling like you can approach us with your concerns."
Respond with reassurance, comfort, trustworthiness, essentially more PR and less rationality (and I would suggest that if they did that, the speaker wouldn't need to have been removed)