US Controversy over canceled sex talk at hacker convention

[ledboots]

The entire talk is 41-ish minutes, and it would take a very unusual fetish to be sexually aroused by it.

Did she talk about rape drugs?

 

[Moll Flanders]

As I understood it in her talk, hackers, drug users and sexually active people are all at-risk populations. Sex and drugs is merely a method of framing the discussion.

I think I'm more confused as to why the big hubbub about what she said. I thought I might have missed something.

 

[Spang]

The entire talk is 41-ish minutes, and it would take a very unusual fetish to be sexually aroused by it.

Did she talk about rape drugs?

No.

 

[Spang]

I think I'm more confused as to why the big hubbub about what she said. I thought I might have missed something.

I think some people had a problem with what they thought she was going to say or do. If her C3 talk is any indication of what Ms. Blue would have said at BSides, then there was little reason for concern.

 

[das_nut]

I think some people had a problem with what they thought she was going to say or do. If her C3 talk is any indication of what Ms. Blue would have said at BSides, then there was little reason for concern.

I think some people had a problem with her name as well, or her other pursuits, or just assumed that a talk about sex and drugs to a majority-male audience must be designed to titillate.

Obviously the talk she was going to give was clearly labeled that it would be about sex and drugs. Anyone who worried about being triggered by such a discussion was free to avoid it, and as far as I know, anyone during any talk at that conference was free to leave at any time.

As for those who remained, it's sexist to believe that men would go out to rape just because they heard a talk where sex was discussed (if the mere mention of sex would provoke rape, anyone exposed to a normal day's worth of advertising, television, and music would be a rapist). And its sexist to believe that any woman who remained for such a talk are too immature to handle a frank discussion about sex and drugs in a positive, adult manner.

It's also foolish to believe that by suppressing information about sex and drugs, we'd reduce the behaviors we do not want.

A chance to raise awareness, to engage and inform was lost at that conference. Many of the people there probably would not be exposed to such information normally. Few of them are going to seek out some sort of positive conference on sexuality. There was a real chance at harm reduction, and that chance was lost because one group decided that nobody should hear this talk.

 

[Spang]

Obviously the talk she was going to give was clearly labeled that it would be about sex and drugs.

But only so far as to frame her talk on harm reduction and its relation to the hacker community, as far as I can tell. In her C3 talk, Ms. Blue mentions intravenous drugs and needles and such, but she doesn't give step-by-step instructions on how to shoot up or provide a recipe on how to make heroin.

 

[mlp]

I'm still at a loss as to the point of this thread, or the reason for the "controversy."

Are those of you who are worried about the talk being cancelled concerned that hackers have been deprived of some essential information?

IME, it's not unusual for agendas of professional conferences to have some last minute changes. I never suspected that there would be online controversies raging about them.

 

[Pickle Juice]

She clearly does not give a **** about how misogynists are going to see her attitude as being given permission by a woman to keep being a misogynist. Siding with them means she condones, approves of, and supports misogyny, so as far as I am concerned she's fair game for anyone who wants to judge her and look down on her as a sell-out.

Violet Blue tweeted this image in response to sexism at Defcon (naughty word follows):

Spoiler

From Daily Violet:

What Ada Initiative has done here is the opposite of harm reduction. In addition, I want to state for the record that the so-called “creeper cards” are also the opposite of harm reduction. Both things, while seemingly not directly related, create damage to the community and offer no solutions to the very issues they trade on in order to advance the narrow agendas of the people behind them.

I realize it's a long litany of Violet whining, and there's no sex talk, but you can find that quote there. If you are offering this image as a refutation of the above quote, it falls very short of the mark.

Again, this isn't about the sexual content of the talk that may or may not have been planned. She admits herself she didn't reveal what the talk was going to consist of til it was nearly time to give the talk. So now, after the fact, she can say anything she pleases to defend herself and make her critics look like a bunch of irrational prudes.

What this IS about is her blatant disregard of the concerns of rape survivors that her talk may have had the potential of giving a significant number of the men at the convention cause to behave in unacceptable ways.

What the Ada Initiative basically said to her is that her talk had the potential to cause more harm than good. Obviously she disagrees, and places the blame on the people who weren't comfortable with the potential bad situation she may have been about to make worse. Which is pretty much the same attitude rapists have towards their victims. They are the ones who have a problem if they don't like being forced to have sex, not the rapist. If they didn't want to be raped they shouldn't have placed themselves within reach of their rapist. That's pretty much what she's saying to the people who had valid concerns over the effect her talk might have had. Leave the room if you don't like it.

So yeah, according to Ms Blue, there's nothing wrong with her wanting to make money off talking about sex in an arena already known for problems with how women are treated. It's all everyone else's fault for having "narrow agendas", and if the number of incidences of harassment had gone up after her talk, it wouldn't have been her fault, and it wouldn't have been the fault of the perpetrators, it's the fault of the victims for not knowing the "right" way to put a stop to it. It's always nice to hear that from another woman. That it's your fault for being a victim because your attempts to put a stop to being harassed by men are having the opposite effect and making you more likely to experience future victimization.

So it doesn't really matter what the talk may or may not have ended up being about, and it doesn't even matter that there is no way to prove whether it would have caused more harm than good. What matters is Violet Blue putting her own self interest ahead of rape survivors with valid concerns, and publicly attempting to shame them. Which makes her about ten times easier to dismiss as an idiot as it was easy for her to dismiss the concerns of the Ada Initiative.

 

[Spang]

Are those of you who are worried about the talk being cancelled concerned that hackers have been deprived of some essential information?

It's unfortunate that Violet Blue's talk was canceled, especially given the seemingly unfounded rationale. But my motivation for participating in this thread is the unfair mistreatment of Ms. Blue.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I'm still at a loss as to the point of this thread, or the reason for the "controversy."

Are those of you who are worried about the talk being cancelled concerned that hackers have been deprived of some essential information?

IME, it's not unusual for agendas of professional conferences to have some last minute changes. I never suspected that there would be online controversies raging about them.

The point is that a few men have been deprived of being able to attend a talk because some people listened to a rape survivor and took her concerns seriously for a change. No doubt if it had been a male rape survivor attitudes would be very different.

 

[mlp]

It's unfortunate that Violet Blue's talk was canceled, especially given the seemingly unfounded rationale. But my motivation for participating in this thread is the unfair mistreatment of Ms. Blue.

It must be comforting for all of the people who have had their lectures cancelled for various reasons to know that there are people on the internet willing to go to bat for them.

That must keep all of you pretty darn busy, since I venture to guess that it's at least a daily occurrence.

 

[Spang]

So yeah, according to Ms Blue, there's nothing wrong with her wanting to make money off talking about sex in an arena already known for problems with how women are treated.

Attacking Ms. Blue isn't going to remedy the sexism and misogyny problem at hacker cons.

 

[Spang]

That must keep all of you pretty darn busy, since I venture to guess that it's at least a daily occurrence.

Well, I don't go all over the Internet defending Violet Blue. I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but I didn't care for the way she was being treated in it. So I stood up and defended her. And evidently I was wrong for doing that.

 

[Pickle Juice]

So yeah, according to Ms Blue, there's nothing wrong with her wanting to make money off talking about sex in an arena already known for problems with how women are treated.

Attacking Ms. Blue isn't going to remedy the sexism and misogyny problem at hacker cons.

If she doesn't want to be dismissed as an idiot she should stop trying to shame rape survivors for voicing their concerns.

Letting her go unchallenged isn't going to help the targets of misogyny any more than calling her out on her crap is, so you're half right. But the point of calling her out isn't to remedy what goes on at hacker conventions anyway. The identification of hypocrisy has its own intrinsic value, and hopefully anyone here who is still confused as to Violet Blue's own narrow agenda now has a different point of view to consider.

 

[das_nut]

What this IS about is her blatant disregard of the concerns of rape survivors that her talk may have had the potential of giving a significant number of the men at the convention cause to behave in unacceptable ways.

Using 'rape survivors' as the reason is convenient for those who are against such talks because it serves to limit further discussion. Anyone who argues against such censorship becomes conflated with those who would further assault rape survivors - that is, they are compared to rapists.

What's next? Should we stop giving away free condoms? Not only do condoms imply sex, but a condom can be a "rape tool" that allows rapists to get away with their crimes. It is conceivable that free condoms could be triggering to rape victims. Yet at some point, we need to draw the line, and decide that the benefits of such an act outweighs the risks of triggering rape victims or encouraging rape.

And acting like men will rape just because someone mentions sex or something sexual is abhorrent. Do you really have such a low opinion of the male gender?

They are the ones who have a problem if they don't like being forced to have sex, not the rapist. If they didn't want to be raped they shouldn't have placed themselves within reach of their rapist. That's pretty much what she's saying to the people who had valid concerns over the effect her talk might have had. Leave the room if you don't like it.

The same argument could be had for gay pride parades (which may also include sexually charged messages). Should we shut down all pride parades in order to prevent rape survivors from being offended?

And by the way, note how you start comparing those who want to talk about sex and harm reduction to rapists.

Do you honestly believe that someone who talks about sex and harm reduction during a presentation that is clearly marked as having sexual content is the same as a person who would use physical or emotional coercion to force someone to engage in a sexual activity? Do you honestly believe a presentation about sex is the equivalent to rape?

It seems to me you're trivializing rape.

So yeah, according to Ms Blue, there's nothing wrong with her wanting to make money off talking about sex in an arena already known for problems with how women are treated.

Do you even know if B-Sides presenters are compensated for their presentations? At smaller cons, it's not uncommon to have unpaid speakers.

 

[Pickle Juice]

That must keep all of you pretty darn busy, since I venture to guess that it's at least a daily occurrence.

Well, I don't go all over the Internet defending Violet Blue. I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but I didn't care for the way she was being treated in it. So I stood up and defended her. And evidently I was wrong for doing that.

No I wouldn't say you are wrong to defend her if that's what you want to do. I just don't happen to think she deserves defending, and have stated why.

 

[Pickle Juice]

...It seems to me you're trivializing rape.

I think most of us are already sadly well aware of your views on giving the concerns of rape survivors the respect they deserve.

 

[Spang]

I just don't happen to think she deserves defending, and have stated why.

It would be weird to defend her whilst attacking her.

 

[das_nut]

...It seems to me you're trivializing rape.

I think most of us are already sadly well aware of your views on giving the concerns of rape survivors the respect they deserve.

Do you think that attacking me as an individual addresses the concern that you are trivializing rape?

Here's a question - do you think that someone giving a clearly marked talk about sex and harm reduction is comparable to a rapist? Yes or no?

 

[mlp]

That must keep all of you pretty darn busy, since I venture to guess that it's at least a daily occurrence.

Well, I don't go all over the Internet defending Violet Blue. I hadn't even heard of her until this thread, but I didn't care for the way she was being treated in it. So I stood up and defended her. And evidently I was wrong for doing that.

I wouldn't say you were wrong for defending her. After reading about her and reading her own stuff, I would say that knight errantry is a bit misplaced - she seems to be quite good at stirring up controversy to burnish her fame and to paint herself as a victim.