Penguicon has lost its way

> This post resonates strongly with me. I would consider myself a far-left progressive, supporting single payer health care, free schooling, absolute equal rights for all types of people, breaking up banks, heavy taxes on the rich, complete drug legalization, sane immigration laws etc.

Ditto.

>It's nearly impossible to go into depth and have nuanced discussion about sensitive topics even with people who would probably agree with you if they were just willing to listen.

I've left a local tech channel because of this. As soon as a topic takes a serious bent and someone is upset, everyone tries to change the topic. I left when I got a 24hr ban for trying to understand why a discussion of gun laws was "keeping ladies away and making the ones here uncomfortable" and just wouldn't be satisfied with a non-answer because in Pittsburgh, it's almost 50/50 in terms of gender and gun ownership. I didn't respect that person's feelings, I was told. They derailed a nice conversation and offered no understand. I wasn't the only person left confused.

"I'm sorry, I don't like gun discussion for personal reasons" is all they needed to say, but no, it was "another" example (which they couldn't provide any others) of male culture (note most of my friends who are the biggest gun nerds are female) pushing ladies away.

Another time I had people get upset because I mentioned that certain hiring practices that are discriminatory to women (because they stereotypically do the housework) are also are discriminatory to men who take part in their household. I wasn't trying to lessen the issues of women in tech, just adding my personal frustration and that I can relate. But no, I got reamed by everyone.

> What I've found is that the liberal base has become so polarized and uniform that any slight deviation from the narrative leads to accusation, labeling, and insults. It's like the left has acquired and autoimmune disorder and is attacking itself.

Exactly, it's extremely frustrated, especially when I'm _agreeing_ with these people 99% of the time.

I should say we all said fuck these guys because of the amount of effort goes into running a convention and dealing with folks who are just never going to be satisfied.

If they'd volunteer and put the time in to organize I'd probably take them more seriously.

I was thinking about making this my first con, and I didn't go because the first thing I saw looking for info was the code of conduct. That's now The Sign. Caring too much about your code of conduct, instead of just being welcoming as the con has always been from what I've heard, means far left politics are the order of the day.

Better form committees about inclusion and rape culture too, before people accuse you of being (insert buzzword)!

Hacker groups have always been the most welcomeling places I've ever experienced for people from "odd" walks of life, and paradoxically it's people fighting for inclusion who threaten that. You tell everyone this is a culture of toxic masculinity, and guess who are the only people left in it?

    > "if there is a disagreement talk it out. If it can't be resolved escalate."

Haven't read it, so maybe I'm being unfair. But why do you need to "talk it out" ? Can't people just disagree and continue living? And "escalate", what does that even mean? Do you have an example?

I agree with you, but I have a comment about the video you linked to.

O'Neill gave several examples of views that in the past were regarded as "maximally offensive", but they were all progressive - they advocated for a new idea, something that was never accepted before in that society.

But are there any examples of regressive views that were initially considered offensive but later accepted?

Thank you for sharing this. I was having trouble articulating my view on the subject and that guy nailed it. A must watch.

speaking for myself it's not ever the offense I take issue with it's the ubiquity of popular offense. that every space must be a space wherein offensive speech is permitted including spaces created to cater to other genuine concerns such as recovery from debilitating trauma. churches have been a safe space for certain kinds of thought for centuries, some churches even creating a safe space within their safe space where a person can confess to any sin without suffering the adverse social affects.

it's on this point that I think people lose their minds. the vulnerable see a world completely set against them and have no ability to create an island for themselves so they over react and become militant with time as popular social movements continually fail to understand them. I see wrong on both ends for different reasons but in a hyper connected world where everything is happening all the time, the marginalized by definition must lose out. the freedom to offend is not the only attribute worth protecting, despite how very serious our history teaches us otherwise. the world isn't just becoming smaller, it's becoming flat, and that is another dimension worth pushing against.

there are no easy positions to take here. there are no obvious answers. defending free speech is obvious and good and I'm in favor of erring on the side of caution but the longer people take a principled stand on offense and dismiss the motivations of the people pushing against it, the further this situation will deteriorate.

A tiny criticism of the Covenant

> for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

They've made up their own list, and come up with something a bit odd. There's some overlap (body size is covered by personal appearance) and some gaps (no mention of neuro diversity, which would seem to be important for that audience).

I doubt it. Many users flag these threads because classic flamewars don't belong on HN. They're tedious and violate the mandate of the site. That's a different consideration than agreeing or disagreeing with the politics of a post.

I think he gives at least one good example:

> I've already been personally accused of promoting "rape culture" because I teach women how to shoot and fight hand-to-hand and advocate that they should take responsibility for their own safety.

... the assumption being that his accusers are the same type of people that would demand unisex bathrooms and written codes of conduct.

I'm for people using whatever toilet they want, but this is usually beyond what the organizing comities can do anyway. There are state laws and rules for the hotel/convention centre that they probably have to abide by. I mean there is the bigger question of why the hell do we even separate toilets by male/female to begin with? That's a more anthropological question that we could debate for hours.

I think the author was just using this as one example, and it's probably not the best one.

Isn't your reaction to his complaint that switching to unisex restrooms is a deliberate political signal, and not about welcoming to trans folk part of what this post is talking about? If we can't discuss how others feel about this, if the motivation for the switch to unisex bathrooms is an overt political signal or a genuine one to marginalized groups, are we really behaving civil? Specifically because bathrooms are something that's banged into most peoples heads as gendered thing and the opposite sex in them might make them uncomfortable, for no overtly sexist, homophobic, transphobic, &c reason; it's something they've been taught very strongly, and transitions do take time.

Remember, the complaint is not that unisex bathrooms are bad, but that they're being used as a political signal to tell people who aren't comfortable with them that they aren't welcome, regardless of the reason for the uncomfort.

Righty, right. Let's work that bullying up into a healthy mobbing.

Why? Why is that the right track? Being exposed to people with different views is healthy, as long as the discussion is fairly civil.

I don't now much about this particular conf or the people, so maybe I'm misjudging you. But in general I believe many people are offended far to easily and we give far too much weight to them. Never being offended is not a human right.