I know Slavoj is a polarizing figure, but somehow that video nailed it for me, and IMHO it fits the article.
From my point of view I find it extremely ridiculous that this "cancelling" was decided without the supposed victim's involvement by some third party:
> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.
"Offense by proxy" is the way it works these days. If anybody is offended by anything you say or do, you are by definition guilty of causing offense, regardless of whether your remark was intended as offensive or even directed at that person.
Actual case from a Silicon Valley company: person X admiringly notes that a transgender fashion model (shown in a picture in a news article, not employed at the company or otherwise involved in any way) passes so well that she looks like a "real woman". Person Y, who is not transgender, takes this to imply that transgender women are not "real women" and reports the remark to HR, and X is very nearly fired as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM (more relevant parts to the article begin from ~5:00, but it's worth watching everything)
I know Slavoj is a polarizing figure, but somehow that video nailed it for me, and IMHO it fits the article.
From my point of view I find it extremely ridiculous that this "cancelling" was decided without the supposed victim's involvement by some third party:
> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.