I understand her claim: "I was banned from the conference."
I don't understand what that claim means, or how it is verified?
Has she been banned from attending? From presenting? What has she been banned from?
And most of the time, conferences have more than one organizer, don't they? There is usually a committee in charge of who presents.
So you jessedhillon are asking me to believe her conspiracy theory: that the person who wanted to have sex with her has gotten to the entire conference committee and convinced them that this very talented and accomplished woman is not worthy of presenting at the conference. What was she going to present? What did he tell them?
Or if you take her words literally, she was banned from the conference, then the vendor will not take her money even for an admission ticket, and if she shows up, the cops will be called.
All of this seems to provide ample evidence for Ms. Camp to prove her case in a court of law.
And yet, she provides none of it.
As I said, somewhat ambiguously, I have no idea why she thinks she was banned from the conference. She needs to clarify what she was banned from, and how.
"Try reading the article."
I have been friendly. And stated my views. And attacked no one. And taken Ms. Camp at her words and taken you seriously.
You appear to have an attitude problem, Jesse. Not sure why.
> You appear to have an attitude problem, Jesse. Not sure why.
Because you have a combination of two bad habits: being intellectual cheap/lazy and boldly proclaiming stark, binding conclusions based on that lazy reasoning.
I seriously wonder if you have Asperger Syndrome, or are a psychopath, to be this obtuse and seemingly incapable of understanding how a people think and feel.
intellectually cheap or lazy
probably have Asperger's Syndrome, or
I am a psychopath,
I am obtuse, and
Incapable (INCAPABLE) of understanding how a people (a people?) think and feel.
Good job Jesse! We will be contacting you shortly.
Apparently you are surprised or dismayed that someone could draw that conclusion about you based on what you've written here.
I don't have any remorse about considering that someone who's response to "I was asked to have sex with a conference organizer or leave, and it was a deeply humiliating and infuriating experience" is to be glib and interrogative -- feigning curiosity with pointed and IMO malicious questions --
I don't have any remorse about proposing that such a person has deep issues understanding the emotions and motivations of other people.
(BTW, let me know if you find any more typos or grammatical errors, I'm seriously concerned about that.)
" Asperger's Syndrome, or I am a psychopath, I am obtuse, and Incapable (INCAPABLE)"
Jesse, those are pretty strong conclusions to draw after a few short encounters on the Internet.
The world is not as black and white as you insist it is.
That you would draw and state these conclusions, for forcefully, so unabashedly, suggest to me that you are desperate and out of logical ammunition, or that you are a relatively naive and intolerant individual.
Re: "Feigning individual and asking "malicious" questions?" Do tell, what gives you, Dr. Jesse Dhillon, that impression, and how were my questions malicious?
The questions I ask, are the questions I would think any critical (critical in the best meaning) observer of the situation would ask. Her allegations, as they are of this moment, are tissue thin, and are backed up solely by her word, and nothing else.
I am genuinely impressed with how much attention this has gotten, especially by folks who similar to you, unreservedly, uncritically, buy into her story without expressing even a single misgiving about any of the stated details.
I have expressly given her the benefit of the doubt, but I have also expressed my concerns over what seem to be vague ambiguities in her claims that need clarification before I believe it without reserve.
You may wish to ask yourself, how often do you buy into similar tales, how often you do not, and what is it about YOU, that makes the difference.
And yes, in fact, I wonder if the wholesale buy in to her statement comes more from how she is an attractive, powerful, young woman, and less from her very thin statement.
But yes, I am surprised that in an internet conversation, you Jesse would so quickly and enthusiastically jump to attacks and attacks based on diagnosing psychological pathologies over the internet.
If you continue this behavior, I think you'll go far.
First off, the conclusions are partially facetious. Do I think you have a diagnosable mental illness? I don't know. Are you obtuse: yes, I would say you are being obtuse. Do you have Asperger's? I don't know, but you certainly speak like someone who has little ability to understand the motivations of others.
I'm not alleging that we could take you to a doctor's office right now and produce a certificate of verified diagnosis.
The post was largely about how she deals with negative experiences, and only a small part of that was about the event that prompted her experience. Yet you chose to focus not on the part of her post where she focuses on achieving a positive mental state, but to cast doubt -- under the guise of what you claim is rational skepticism (which is where the claim of cheapness comes from) -- as to whether or not she was justified in feeling offended.
Where the claims that you are lazy and cheap come from is that you are apparently operating under the slow-thinking idea that anyone who simply questions anything they are told is a rational, critically thinking agent. In fact, that modus better suits conspiracy theorists than actual, rational analysts.
It's ironic that you think that I'm the one who views things in stark contrast, when you are the buffoon who thinks that claims of the existence and prevalence of gender biases are disproved by naming even one successful female.
> And yes, in fact, I wonder if the wholesale buy in to her statement comes more from how she is an attractive, powerful, young woman...
Wow, if there was any doubt before, now it is removed: you are a verified weirdo. I haven't said anything about whether or not I believe her, only that your line of questioning is motivated by something other than a desire to be purely rational, as you would have readers believe.
I would guess that you are motivated by her attractiveness more than me: if you are like most other male HN readers, you are probably resenting her and other women, especially the attractive ones.
Doesn't that line raise a host of legitimate questions with you, that need to be answered before you can ascertain what miss Camp's accusation entails? For all we know, she could have been wrong about the intentions of said organizer. If being 'banned' means: not being offered a position in the presentation schedule, she could have wrongfully inferred a causal chain between the wrongly interpreted intentions and her not being offered that position. A decade of witnessing professional misunderstandings between people taught me that you can never take a single report at face value, unless you know the person doing the reporting very well.
"I was banned from one of my favorite conferences because I wouldn’t have sex with one of the organizers"
Try reading the article.