undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmartypitt13y ago0 comments

>> The problem was directing a "suggestive" / "lewd" conversation at a 3rd Party with no active relationship.

There is nothing in the source material that suggests that the conversation was directed at a 3rd party. Person A was having a conversation with Person B, and made a comment that Person C overheard and got offended at.

The twitter conversation analogy fits perfectly.

How is a joke about socks in pants less sexual in nature than a joke about a big dongle?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

szc13y ago· 1 in thread

Since you didn't say who A, B and C were I have to assume,

A - person to the left B - person to the right C - Adria

Yes, you have missed the distinction and the twitter "analogy" is false.

Adria[C] (I've no idea who any of these people are) turned and spoke to the person to the far left [A] behind her - and it "involved forking the repo to continue development".

Then, the "guy next to him" [B] .... um, the 3rd Person [B], began making forking jokes.

So how does [B] have an active relationship to [C]? (Speculation: [B] thinks there is a relationship because they are sitting next to [A]?)

Now we have to introduce [D] -- the traveller inbound to the USA. The "socks in pants" sexual innuendo is between party [D] and [C]. Party [D] tweets about the TSA, party [C] responds.

Where is [B] or other letter if twitter is supposed to be analogous? Being an observer or a passive listener doesn't count!

singleuse13y ago

You're kinda right here, the twitter analogy is not quite the same, the PyCon incident involved a handful of people and spoken words while the twitter one is much much worse as it is made public to the whole internet and doesn't go away once written.

Apart from this significant difference, both are dick jokes and to me seems to be poking innocent fun but reveals a closed mindedness and double standard from Adria.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse