"Ask yourself: why is she the one you chose to focus on?"

You're right. The guys need to own-up for their stupidity too. Oh that's right, they never got the chance. She didn't confront them. She snapped a picture and tweeted.

And I agree about their employer. In fact, I'd love to know who the employer was?

So we need to remain eternally vigilant of the thousands of years of sexism during our day-to-day dealings? We need to be constantly thinking of the women and minorities in the room before we say anything? How is this being gender-neutral?

You should always think about the impact of what you're saying. What is the point of saying something but to have an effect on your listeners?

I don't like this train of logic. How can I read minds? What if I bring up something about my dog, and trigger someone in the room who was the victim of a dog attack?

So dick jokes are off the table, I get that. What about "your mom" jokes? Or blonde jokes? What is the invisible line that I dare not cross?

You read minds the traditional way: by asking people. And by paying attention to their reactions when you are talking.

In this case, the line was pretty visible: the conference has a code of conduct.

I believe it was you who simply did not think about the impact of your words when you compared the situation to that of 2 gay men discussing "virgin asshole". I think you need a moment of introspection on your own commentary.

I did think about it. I have thought about it since, and will think about it tomorrow. I may have gotten it wrong.

But to be clear, as I have written circa 15 times at this point, I was not comparing the situations. I understand why people might think that, but I didn't say it. I apologize for not being explicit about that, as it has caused a great deal of distraction from my actual point.

It should be clear from the reaction here on HN that your comments were widely regarded as heteronormative at best.

I think in fact that people understood you were trying to "invoke a feeling of sexual threat" and that you did this by making blatantly homophobic remarks.

I also think you should realize that even if it was not your intent to analogize, there is still an inherent comparison being made between the two situations. If they are not at all comparable, then Adria Richards must be examined according to the circumstances outlined in this thread. It appears to be the consensus among both male and female posters (including yourself) that it is unlikely that the situation could have made her feel sexually threatened. That being the case, you are simply defending the fact that she could have. This is irrelevant. Is it fair for me to feel threatened by you because you made a homophobic remark which, unlike the comments made in the presence of Ms. Richards, was actually perceived by the community to be reprehensible? Frankly, no - and I think it is a failure on your part to evaluate her situation critically rather than defending people's ability to be offended by anything they deem offensive.

EDIT: Typo.

You don't need to be constantly thinking of women and minorities in the room before you say anything. But if you say something offensive to women or minorities, they might take offense, surprisingly enough. And yeah, this is the reason for ethnic and women studies classes in the school setting. Understanding a little bit about sexism and racism is a good way to remove them from your lifestyle and speech patterns.

> How is this being gender-neutral?

These actually don't have anything to do with gender neutrality, btw. But it is pretty considerate. And if you don't think you need to be constantly considerate of diversity when speaking around a lot of people, you need to rethink that.

> But if you say something offensive to women or minorities, they might take offense, surprisingly enough.

Possibly. Or, they could be cool with it. Or, they could refrain from passing their judgment to the rest of the world and inform me that what I said was offensive. The thing is, this is less about being aware of women and minorities and more about knowing if there are any people in the room who are easily offended by scatological humor.

In my experience, refraining from scatological humor in public settings is an uncontroversial mode of behavior for the most part. I wouldn't call the incident at hand scatological, though, but maybe I'm jaded.

Standing up to a PC lynch mob is incredibly risky. I don't blame the boss, I blame the person who sent the mob.

From a recent wired article:

"The court of public opinion is an alternative system of justice. It’s very different from the traditional court system: This court is based on reputation, revenge, public shaming, and the whims of the crowd. Having a good story is more important than having the law on your side. Being a sympathetic underdog is more important than being fair. Facts matter, but there are no standards of accuracy. The speed of the internet exacerbates this; a good story spreads faster than a bunch of facts."

Just because a woman is to blame does not prove sexism. It is quite reasonable to say that she holds most of the responsibility in this situation by not reacting to the comments in a professional way. The jokes were hardly sexist and more anatomical and if that bothers he she could have dealt with it in a different way. But I guess I am sexist too for having the opinion that she handled the situation incorrectly right?

Probably because she is engaging in hypocritical behavior that lead to a significantly negative impact on another member of the community?

he was an idiot and said something idiotic. She was vengeful and out to get someone in trouble, publicly.

If she had reported it to the conference staff and just tweeted what she had done, without identifying them i don't think anyone would be focusing on her, and it would be a non-story.

There is a world of difference between the actions.

I think the focus is on her because it seems like she's the one with the most power in this situation. Like telling a teacher "Tommy hit me", at that point, the authority figure has to treat it as a worst case scenario.

It could be she didn't realize how much juice she had, but with 9k followers, that seems a little far fetched.

At a guess, it appears that sexism is a specific instance of "People with power wielding it against people who don't have it, in a manner which the community finds morally questionable." Which seems to be what people are judging her for; not that she retaliated, but her escalation. Perhaps it's a good thing, the whole situation brings to mind the saying about "An armed society is a polite society."

In the end, I'd guess every party involved is going to wish this had never happened, and spend years carefully watching every word they say, and learning the first rule of InfoSec; Never Say Anything.

my rage at the boss who fired him is only matched by my boggledness that more people are choosing to blame adria than are choosing to blame the person actually responsible.

> You could blame the guy for saying something inappropriate.

It wasn't inappropriate.