Offering to have a call to sort things out sounds fine. Offering to record that call and happily post it to Twitter unedited seems ... unordinary, almost chilling?
That banned person took a picture in front of Trump Tower wearing a MAGA hat, and of course banning him would lead to a debate.
To use a clear example, if he had posed in front of a former Nazi concentration camp, put on a hat with a swastika on it, and grinned for the picture, then most people would probably agree they don't want someone with that kind of "political" views there.
Now the question is, how much difference is there between the 2 actions (Picture with a MAGA hat and one with the fictional swastika hat)? Obviously one side can argue similarities (and mention the current admin's racism, non-rejection of the extreme right, and refugee internment) and the other side can argue that nowadays there aren't gas chambers burning millions of people, so the comparison is outrageous, and wearing a MAGA hat is no way similar to wearing a swastika hat.
"Exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material in their booths and must refrain from the use of sexualized clothing, uniforms, costumes, or otherwise creating a sexualized environment."
Reminds me of the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984. But in this case, it's capitalism that demands you sacrifice reproduction for productivity. It's just unusual to see it stated so openly. If it's not careful, it'll kill its host - birth rates in most industrialized countries are already well below replacement level.
> I reached out to the Linux Foundation, multiple times, for clarification or statement. After 5 days, I had not received any response.
> Likewise, I contacted Charles Wood, who declined to comment with the following statement: "I'm not sure I want to go on the record with anything at the moment. You're welcome to comment on anything that's already out there."
> Kim Crayton, who posted the complaint, was also given the opportunity to provide her views and provide further information: "My viewpoint is well documented and I have absolutely no desire to explain it further"
But somehow this still warranted a 1,590 word post from a podcaster about an event they don't have any knowledge about other than some public tweets. It's like a Linux-oriented shock jock trying to drum up controversy in the absence of a complete story. Speculation is pretty entertaining, I guess.
Yeah, I don’t know or care about any of these people. I have no idea who the author is or why they’re relevant. I only clicked this link because I’m a sucker for clickbait and am pretty bored rn.
> Since we are focusing, in this article, on the banning of the individual from an event -- we are going to start with the initial (to my knowledge) and primary public complaint posted by Kim Crayton and directed to the organizers of the conference (KubeCon).
So as soon as I got to that point, I got suspicious. It seemed awfully convenient to start a story at that point.
> I am keeping my personal opinion out of this article. Just facts, so you can make up your own mind on what, if anything, all of this means.
Not sure if they think they’re getting away with it or if they legit don’t know how biased this reads to someone, who once again, has no stakes in the situation. I actually went ahead and googled and situation and I don’t claim to know the full story from 15 mins of reading different hot takes but boy...
Anyways, that’s enough Silicon Valley tmz for me for tonight.
This is pretty much the status quo for the industry at this point. If you're in CS then your political presentation should be Democrat and progressive, the implolite right gets punished far more frequently that the impolite left.
In a time where a belligerent crowd of rowdy people with a shallow education in social pseudo science, a penchant for social atomisation and self-victimization has our industry by the throat, you'd have to be a fool to do anything, even something as simple as wearing a hat, that goes against the contradition-riddled narrative being spun.
It's akin to pissing into the wind.
Unless you've something to sell (including yourself via talks/appearances), stay off social media, except for interactions with your close friends/family, don't engage with this nonsense and just focus on your own skills and growth, both tech-related and not.
It's not worth it and this is all destined to blow over. Remember when we all used to agree to not engage the troll? That applies more than ever.
The Linux Foundation has been an utter shitshow for a while now, but who actually cares? Keep using its members' projects for free, don't support the foundation financially and move on with life.
It will all blow over. Don't cause your career irreparable damage over a bellicose flash in the pan.
9 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 32.1 ms ] threadThat banned person took a picture in front of Trump Tower wearing a MAGA hat, and of course banning him would lead to a debate.
To use a clear example, if he had posed in front of a former Nazi concentration camp, put on a hat with a swastika on it, and grinned for the picture, then most people would probably agree they don't want someone with that kind of "political" views there.
Now the question is, how much difference is there between the 2 actions (Picture with a MAGA hat and one with the fictional swastika hat)? Obviously one side can argue similarities (and mention the current admin's racism, non-rejection of the extreme right, and refugee internment) and the other side can argue that nowadays there aren't gas chambers burning millions of people, so the comparison is outrageous, and wearing a MAGA hat is no way similar to wearing a swastika hat.
"Exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material in their booths and must refrain from the use of sexualized clothing, uniforms, costumes, or otherwise creating a sexualized environment."
Reminds me of the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984. But in this case, it's capitalism that demands you sacrifice reproduction for productivity. It's just unusual to see it stated so openly. If it's not careful, it'll kill its host - birth rates in most industrialized countries are already well below replacement level.
> Likewise, I contacted Charles Wood, who declined to comment with the following statement: "I'm not sure I want to go on the record with anything at the moment. You're welcome to comment on anything that's already out there."
> Kim Crayton, who posted the complaint, was also given the opportunity to provide her views and provide further information: "My viewpoint is well documented and I have absolutely no desire to explain it further"
But somehow this still warranted a 1,590 word post from a podcaster about an event they don't have any knowledge about other than some public tweets. It's like a Linux-oriented shock jock trying to drum up controversy in the absence of a complete story. Speculation is pretty entertaining, I guess.
> Since we are focusing, in this article, on the banning of the individual from an event -- we are going to start with the initial (to my knowledge) and primary public complaint posted by Kim Crayton and directed to the organizers of the conference (KubeCon).
So as soon as I got to that point, I got suspicious. It seemed awfully convenient to start a story at that point.
> I am keeping my personal opinion out of this article. Just facts, so you can make up your own mind on what, if anything, all of this means.
Not sure if they think they’re getting away with it or if they legit don’t know how biased this reads to someone, who once again, has no stakes in the situation. I actually went ahead and googled and situation and I don’t claim to know the full story from 15 mins of reading different hot takes but boy...
Anyways, that’s enough Silicon Valley tmz for me for tonight.
It's akin to pissing into the wind.
Unless you've something to sell (including yourself via talks/appearances), stay off social media, except for interactions with your close friends/family, don't engage with this nonsense and just focus on your own skills and growth, both tech-related and not.
It's not worth it and this is all destined to blow over. Remember when we all used to agree to not engage the troll? That applies more than ever.
The Linux Foundation has been an utter shitshow for a while now, but who actually cares? Keep using its members' projects for free, don't support the foundation financially and move on with life.
It will all blow over. Don't cause your career irreparable damage over a bellicose flash in the pan.