Val Aurora (and Matthew Garrett) are also involved in some kind of Shun Project against Ted T'so, as best as I can tell it's because of the savage crime on his part of saying that it's possible that some forms of sexual assault and rape are worse than others (e.g. being touched while drunk vs. being violently gang-raped in a bus). One of Ted's actual examples was that of two extremely drunk individuals, where he asked that if a drunk female does not have the mental ability to knowingly consent, does the drunk male have the mental ability to knowingly rape the female? And how do we know who raped who? [1]. He goes further into territory I don't personally agree with (talking about shifting some responsibility onto a party that has been drinking) but even there that's at least consistent with the treatment of other situations involving consumption of alcohol.
While it's probably insensitive to talk about like that, I'm even more scared of those who try to turn policy and ethics debates like that into "my way or the highway" topics by turning every opposing viewpoint into thoughtcrime.
Certainly sexual assault of any type should not be tolerated, but should a conference organizer report all types of sexual assault that occur at a conference only as a flat "rape", or is it OK to split into further categories? And how can you sanely debate policy at all when you will simply be silenced if your opinion does not conform?
I can't help but going on a rant here. Honestly, people can't face themselves. I understand that her past wasn't exactly a glorious one and I'm grateful for her that she has made it through. However, her heart is still fragile, she lies to herself constantly. This rant isn't to her in specific, it's to people. In general, people just aren't willing to face deep down how their heart truly thinks. No matter how disgusting, weird, noble, or sensitive your heart will be, let that thought out and if you understand it's not socially acceptable or just it will invade into other people's comfort zone, then think about how to combat it with your rational mind. Don't just glorify yourself and cover up your inner thoughts with other seemingly heroic reasons attributes to yourself. If you like money, then just tell yourself that you like money and don't say you have to make money to sustain girlfriend's lifestyle. If you hate talking to people then just tell yourself that you hate talking to people and that you may be considered to be 'socially awkward' in the society instead of saying you are just tired. Once you can bring your true heart to yourself, you can find ways to combat it and bring yourself to true happiness. Be sincere and talk to others about them. However, hiding all your true emotions and fragile self just isn't recipe for achieving ultimate happiness in life.
What happens if you have two emotions that conflict:
1. You like money.
2. You want to sustain your girlfriend's lifestyle.
But, 1 conflicts with 2 because 2 will cause a drain in your financial resources.
Instead of saying "you have to make money to sustain girlfriend's lifestyle" (which is a way to bridge two conflicting emotions together), what would you say instead? "I can't do both. :("?
7 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 24.8 ms ] threadthe ada project was behind another recent sexism scandal involving a harm reduction presentation meant to be given by violet blue [1].
[1] http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/44107008572/what-happened-...
While it's probably insensitive to talk about like that, I'm even more scared of those who try to turn policy and ethics debates like that into "my way or the highway" topics by turning every opposing viewpoint into thoughtcrime.
Certainly sexual assault of any type should not be tolerated, but should a conference organizer report all types of sexual assault that occur at a conference only as a flat "rape", or is it OK to split into further categories? And how can you sanely debate policy at all when you will simply be silenced if your opinion does not conform?
More details:
http://adainitiative.org/2012/10/open-source-software-open-t... http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2012/10/29/the-linux-community...
[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_maili...
1. You like money. 2. You want to sustain your girlfriend's lifestyle.
But, 1 conflicts with 2 because 2 will cause a drain in your financial resources.
Instead of saying "you have to make money to sustain girlfriend's lifestyle" (which is a way to bridge two conflicting emotions together), what would you say instead? "I can't do both. :("?