And what score are we keeping?

What are you hoping to accomplish by highlighting this particular tweet? What does this have to do with the incident at PyCon? What does this have to do with determining the facts of what happened at PyCon?

Even if you disagree with this tweet (which i do), aside from the obvious character assassination, what exactly are you asking us to infer here?

It's relevant for the context that she certainly seems to have a political cause to further that isn't necessarily directly relevant to the appropriateness of jokes shared between members of the audience of a conference.

It's well known that political activists are quite more able to see the enemy that "laymen" - eg. when FOX Newsers call something or someone "communist" for an example from the opposite end of the spectrum.

"What exactly are you asking us to infer here?"

That in this situation she's playing a victim when she's actually the one with the power. Granted, old tweet.

And you think she has the power because...?

She has a twitter account? Or because she works in developer relations for a startup? Or because she's got two X chromosomes? Or because she's black?

It's pretty obvious - she was able to get a guy fired for making a Jr. High joke to his friend (sexual joke, not sexist) and stir up a hornets nest with a simple tweet.

@knowtheory The person being fired is a direct consequence of her tweet. While it isn't likely she directly intended for anyone to lose their jobs, it is equally unlikely she expected absolutely nothing to come of it.

Edit: changed wording.

It's simple, really. You start at the result - the termination of someone's job - and work backwards. The first action thats absence changes the result is a direct cause of the result.

A direct result of the tweet is the termination of the employee. Without the tweet the parties involved wouldn't be identifiable, and no one would have lost their job.

Is the joke a direct cause of the firing? No. Many subsequent actions must take place to get from the joke to the firing. The joke isn't even required in the sequence of events. Because tweeting a picture of someone and labeling them a sexist is enough to get them fired from a certain employer.

I think it's fascinating that every single instance of this argument, in this and related threads, posters conveniently decide to begin tracing the chain of events that lead to the firing at the tweet--not the jokes.

Maybe the part you're missing is that the jokes aren't the unusual part. Just run of the mill banter between a couple guys when maybe they should have been quiet so they weren't distracting people from listening. Tweeting a photo to shame people at a conference is highly unusual. Getting offended at a dongle joke not directed at you is highly unusual. That's why the story normally starts there.

Not trying to be a jerk - if you feel the jokes are somehow unique or offensive. Most people just don't see it that way though.

I'm sorry but you're incorrect. Getting "offended" by a sexual joke is not unusual, nor does its normalcy matter in this situation. What they did was create an unwelcoming environment around them by engaging in locker room-level humor.

I personally am not offended by the joke nor do I think they are clever or unique, but saying that they don't matter because they're the status quo is a really weak argument and it speaks to the lack of progressive thought in this community when it comes to diversity.

Lack of progressive thought on diversity? If you want an argument about dongle jokes creating an unwelcoming environment look elsewhere. The most sensitive among us don't set the rules. https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

I think everyone following this has read the article you linked, and you have a valid point. But I think that you are in error if you're endorsing the idea that because something is normal or happens often (like casual banter between males) that it is inherently non-harmful.

The tone of conversations between other males often repels me, but the reaction to calling them out for it is worse often then simply putting up with it, as Adria Richards is experiencing. The focus is shifted to examining the complainant rather than truly evaluating the matter at hand. It's extremely unfortunate to witness or experience and is undeniably regressive in my opinion.

She didn't fire anyone. And frankly, do you think she expected him to be fired? Do you think that was her intent when she posted?

While I might have some issues with that statement I think it's a valid and defensible argument. It's a fairly common one within anti-racist discourse. I don't see it's relevance here at all.

Implying that someone should be vilified for holding a political opinion you disagree with is fairly horrible and remarkably similar to the thing you're (and I with some caveats) disagree with Adria for doing in the first place.

How is this defensible? Asserting that by virtue of their powerlessness black people can't be racist? That's a statement that should offend anyone, especially black people.

Racism, sexism, etc. are characterized by the desire to damage a certain group while propping up another by making broad-scoped and baseless inferiority/superiority statements, often followed up by aggressive actions. It's not necessary for one group to be "in power" for this to happen. Racism in cases where minorities are the perpetrators is exactly as unacceptable as in any other circumstance and people who defend that should be called out for it.

In short, and conveniently looping back to the actual topic at hand: behaving like an asshole is never OK.

The difference between racism (an institutionalized system wherein a majority race discriminates against minority races) and racism (an arbitrary action that reveals a preference of one race over another) is a constant source of confusion in these discussions. The former definition is used most often in academia; the latter definition is much more common in casual conversation.

When one person says "black people can't be racist" and another person says "black people can indeed be racist," they are using the word two different ways and meaning two different things. It has derailed more threads than I care to remember.

Is there a good source for your first definition? I've never come across this distinction so directly before, and the line between the two is still a little blurry. I hate to get all [citation needed] on you, but it just seems to me that the 'institutionalized system' is nothing more than the vast repetition of many 'arbitrary actions'. Is there a simple textbook example contrasting the two?

Take a look at the sociological definition of racism on the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological

Hey thanks, that's definitely helpful. I wanted to read the Cazenave paper (paywall), but 'centrality' led me to a Google Book [1] which briefly explains MMRI (salience, centrality, regard, ideology). Understanding the differences between these basically answers my question.

1: Culture, Motivation, and Learning: A Multicultural Perspective edited by Farideh Salili, Rumjahn Hoosain, p. 327-328

I would say you are confusing 'defensible' - a reasonable, sane person could hold this view with the concept of 'I agree with this'. I happen not to agree with it but I could have a reasonable exchange of views with someone who did.

I'm keeping score: You lose 10 intelligence points for lacking understanding about racism.