First, assault can be strictly verbal. That's why battery is a separate crime. So where I would draw a line on acceptability may be different from what you thought. I have absolutely no tolerance for intimidation, stalking, etc. An absence of "yes" means "no."
The analogy with racism is an interesting way to get past assumptions (no snark). OTOH, women were not insulted per se in the breast size case, but rather, one aspect of women was equated with greater attractiveness -- crude, but not sexist, AFAICT, because it's not like men don't have their own markers for attractiveness. Frankly it said more about the shallow presenter than about women.
Also, racism is often acceptable humor if it's self-deprecating; so if a woman had used the breast-size slide, should she get a pass? What if I, being male, described benchmarking as penis-size comparison? But I guess any analogy breaks down eventually.
]]>As for the rest ... Assault and battery are already illegal. So what's left that you would eliminate? Words that offend. The only way not to "allow" such is to censor. QED.
I have a problem with a movement toward censorship, in and of itself. No one ever had to argue in favor of *popular* speech, after all. You're a smart guy; you should be able to see the difference between liking speech and disliking the creeping rules that come in as a reaction to it.
]]>Aristotle: Including the consequence of having driven off (or discouraged from coming by) people that would have enriched the community?
This assumes facts not in evidence, that a continued lack of censorship will drive people off who would have enriched the community. It also assumes its conclusion, that I will say things that will reach that hypothetical level of repulsion.
This is the core of my problem with the apparently harmless idea of not offending people. Without proof that what they're doing will accomplish their stated goal, people will impose censorship and thus damage the community they would like to save. And given O'Reilly's Code of Conduct, facts *are* in evidence as to the first part. As for the second part, I can only appeal to history.
]]>I'm not saying that. O'Reilly is.
]]>I'd be amused, actually, by how appropriate it is. Geeks are jocks, just on a different field.
Sex is not a forbidden topic
O'Reilly's OSCON Code of Conduct has a different take on whether sex is, intrinsically, forbidden to discuss. Hey look, facts that confirm my view, how about that.
]]>I have no problem with suffering whatever consequences my words may bring, due to whatever offense they may cause, as long as the consequences are personal and direct. I have a lot of problem with the idea that some nebulous standard may be imposed, strangling expression, excluding the outspoken -- including by those who are not offended themselves, but who model others' offense in their minds, and seek to avoid that phantom pain.
And it is, truly, a fearful prospect.
]]>Hell, I don't have to _fear_ for it. I experience its loss already.
Oh, wait, is "hell" going to offend those who dislike references, however circumspect, to mythological places of torment? Better not use that word any more.
And so it begins.
]]>