I don't have anything invested in this one way or the other, but it all strikes me as a bit PC and oversensitive. I don't think I really want to work in an environment where considerations like this reign. I wonder if the author would prefer speech codes in the workplace. If so, I'm glad I don't work with her. I think startups should carefully screen for people with attitudes like the author (note: I'm not saying screening out women, for those who can't read carefully); not doing so could be costly in court, as well as having a frigid effect on company culture.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. We're not talking about "workplace speech codes" here, or lawsuits, at all, so you appear to by attempting to insert a slippery slope where there's no need for one.

The case here is about a public presentation where a presenter offered up a rather bizarre, inappropriate image (a faceless woman labelled "bitch") which bore no relation to the talk he was giving, and then followed it up with a non-sequitur about it being "an ex-girlfriend."

Now, it's hard to read that as anything but misogynist, and while it might be considered an ill-fated attempt at humor, it misses the mark by such a wide margin as to make one wonder exactly what Noah thought he was doing.

Trying to dismiss it as "a bit PC and oversensitive" it another way of saying "Since I wasn't offended, I don't need to take seriously the possibility that somebody else might have been." But in this case, even that doesn't seem to fit, because putting "a faceless bitch" on the projector seems designed to shock.

You're absolutely right that this isn't the workplace. It was a tech conference talk. Which only puts a finer point on what I mean by policing speech. I do NOT want to go to a conference knowing all the talks have been run through some bullshit politically-correct filter to please a given group of people in the room, and if I find out they are, I will cease attending those conferences.

Nobody is proposing having anyone "policing speech".

What we are discussing is one individual's massive failure in self-policing, and another individual's response, calling him on it.

Nobody's trying to change the system. Rather, this is how the system works: when you're a presenter, you say what you want. If you act like a jerk, people will most likely publicly point out that you acted like a jerk, which should theoretically lead to some self-insight for the presenter in question.

I'm still puzzled by your presumed outrage.

  > I'm with the other guy on this one. I want to live
  > in a free society, where no one attempts to enforce
  > some artificial moral code on what I can or can not
  > say. Don't like it, leave.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like you understand how human society currently works. In a 'free society,' if a majority of people think you are an asshole, they are going to treat you like one. If you don't want to be treated like an asshole, you'll have to adjust your behavior. Technically, this is forcing you to self-censor yourself, but it's a hell of a lot better than state-censorship or even organizational-censorship. I'd be curious how you would approach eliminating this sort of 'censorship.' So far as I can tell, it would impose the idea on other people that they can't think or act the way they want to just so that 'you' can feel comfortable walking around acting like an ass (and living in a fantasy where you believe that no one thinks you're an ass).

    > In a 'free society,' if a majority of people think you are an asshole, they are going to treat you like one.

True, but the majority isn't guaranteed to be right according to your personal moral compass. Your statement would stay just as true if you replaced "asshole" with "gay" or "nigger", but you'd probably draw different conclusions from it, no?

Most definitions of 'asshole' reference something that can be changed rather than something that you are. Restricting people based on being 'gay' or a 'nigger' is based around identity, which is not something easily changed. A black person can't become a white person, but an asshole can change their point of view and/or hold their tongue.

Your comment was more general than this specific instance, and I treated it as such. You can't make a general comment, and then try to seamlessly reduce the scope when you realize that you made too general of a comment.

I shouldn't but I can. And that, is what freedom of speech is all about.

If she didn't like it, she should have left. She didn't leave, she had a temper tantrum. To save face, she then made that blog post. She wanted to share her side of the story, irrespective of its merits. And she knew, just as well as we all do, that the internet White Knights will assemble to her cause, also irrespective of its merits. And they have. Now let us not waste anymore time discussing this triviality.

"the internet White Knights"

What does this even mean? Does it simply mean "a man who disagrees with me when a woman is being discussed"? That's an interesting way to dismiss an argument without requiring yourself to think about it thoroughly.

'white knights' is a 4chan term. It originated on /b/ when women/girls would show post nude/revealing pictures of themselves, and then Anonymous (presumably male) posters would attempt to 'dox' them (hack their accounts; email their friends/family/school with the nude photos; etc). The 'white knights' were the guys that would defend them (e.g. warn them if they didn't know their images were on 4chan; login to a hacked account, change the password, and notify the owner so that other anonymous posters couldn't continue to 'have fun' with the account; etc). The stereotypical portrayal of internet 'white knights' are lonely geeks that can't get women who think that by defending them on the internet they might get laid (or at least a date/a kiss/etc). Obviously the stereotype is most likely far from the truth, and there's probably some overlap between what /b/ users call 'moral fags' and 'white knights.' Note, that the 'white knight' label is usually only used when someone of unknown gender (which is assumed to be male) is helping out someone that is known to be a female. I don't think the 'white knight' label would ever be applied to someone helping out a target that was known to be male.

edit: There's probably something on Know You Meme and/or Encyclopedia Dramatica about this that may (or may not) be more authoritative.

Thanks for the write up! The less time I spend looking at anything on ED, the better... I have heard this term before, but it always leaves me scratching my head. It makes no sense in the context of this disagreement.

  > It makes no sense in the context of this disagreement.

It does (to me at least). teadrinker is obviously claiming that all of the guys defending (or just agreeing with) the blogger (Anne) are 'white knights.' You might not agree with that claim (as I don't), but it does make sense in context.

But how could they be angling for sexual favors when they are essentially anonymous, and she is a married woman with grown children? It seems like it's been taken wildly out of context, and the term is being used to attempt to mock and shame people (many of whom are straight women). I find it to be a silly stretch, at the very least.

  > I shouldn't but I can. And that, is what freedom
  > of speech is all about.

Maybe I should have qualified that "can't." But you are right. You're welcome to do it, but don't hold your breath waiting for people to view it as a great logical rebuttal.

Yes, I'm serious. Are you? It's hard to tell from your reply.

First of all, all moral codes are artificial. Second, no one is enforcing anything. There's no force involved here, at all. Third, "Don't like it, leave" is precisely what happened.

Noah was a dick. The OP called him on it. What's your problem with that?

Do I understand correctly that you believe it is okay to refer to a woman as a "bitch" in the workplace (and startups should actively screen for people who feel otherwise)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I'm just taking your suggestion to "read carefully" very seriously indeed, because right now it seems to me you are making a statement about yourself you may regret later.

No, you don't understand correctly. Did you not read the distinction I've made several times here about a joke uttered at a conference and calling a woman a bitch on the job? No, I don't think the latter is acceptable at all. And the screening I referred to is not for potential sexual harrassment claims, which I BTW take very seriously (my wife is a professional)-- it's for people, male and female, who are professionally and continually aggrieved. Regrets? Not on HN. Karma is like that.

Did Noah know the word Bitch would set her off? How about other words which are commonplace, which would she feel insulted by? We don't know. And I think it is for this added uncertainty to a team that he was referring to rather than the specific term "bitch" which is, of course, commonly considered offensive in a workplace, particularly in direct reference to a known individual.

In most [westernized] countries, including the US, workplace considerations like this not only reign but are the law.

Good thing for Noah it wasn't spoken at a workplace.