<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
Ah! Anecdotes! Let me provide one from my personal experience that’s more relevant. A female friend of mine attending a school *was* offended by the gratuitous insertion of nude pictures in a slide presentation in one of her classes. That school was soon thereafter
subjected to an investigation for sexual harassment by the Office of Civil Rights of the US Department of Education, followed by a resolution agreement.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anecdotal cases aside, in the West these sorts of things are generally known to be offensive to many, many women <i>in the wrong context.</i> The right context would certainly include art museums and art classes. But at a GIS conference? Generally speaking,
I think potentially offensive items must not only be <i>germane</i> but <i>necessary</i>, and if they aren’t presenters should consider alternatives, especially if they are presenting on behalf of a larger organization.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So while the Dali portrait may be germane, I don’t see it as in any way necessary. Sanghee writes “I just used that image to stress the importance of long distance from the object or sometimes from the too experienced ordinary culture.” But there are many,
many other images that could be used instead to emphasize the same thing; they’re all over the place (see, e.g.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElUS201fM8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElUS201fM8</a> or
<a href="https://www.vat19.com/item/abraham-lincoln-penny-portrait">https://www.vat19.com/item/abraham-lincoln-penny-portrait</a> — you could even make your own, with a geographic basis).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding the girl-group picture, Sanghee writes “I believe as symbolic icon of wide spread of Korean culture(K-Culture) in/around Asia” — again possibly germane to this point, and perhaps by far the best representation and therefore necessary, but I have
never heard of them and the point would be lost on me. A photo of a bowl of kimchi would be more effective in my case :-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At the very least, I agree with Pedro-Juan Ferrer Matoses when he writes “May be a less-dependant-on-someone-explaining-presentation is more suitable for being in the landing page of the Conference.” Looks like it was a presentation for the 2014 meeting
in Bangkok, where I assume the context was verbalized, but the Web is a different medium. On general principles of effectiveness, I’d recommend putting the context directly into the slides. Otherwise their inclusion does seem gratuitous.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>— Andy</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Milo van der Linden <<a href="mailto:milo@dogodigi.net">milo@dogodigi.net</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hahaha!</p>
<p dir="ltr">I appreciate this. Maybe we need to add some statistics to your political-correctness-o-meter to measure how much of the world population is potentially still "on board" at the final slide. This will give a clear insight of how many people will
come to the event. ;-)</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 24, 2015 3:41 PM, "Iván Sánchez" <<a href="mailto:ivan@sanchezortega.es">ivan@sanchezortega.es</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
El Miércoles 24. junio 2015 12.42.40 Charles Schweik escribió:<br>
> [...] I was raising the question that those slides could turn some women off<br>
> who are considering attending and I think [...]<br>
<br>
I feel obliged to jump in the thread, because this looks just like a recent<br>
case of "the limits of joking" in Spanish media.<br>
<br>
Imagine this: Person A makes a joke involving person B who was a victim of a<br>
terrorist bombing. Person C throws a tantrum and tells the media "I'm sure B<br>
finds A's jokes insulting, thus A must resign from his job"[1]. Then, person B<br>
jumps in and publicly states that she never felt offended by A's jokes at<br>
all[2].<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2015/06/13/madrid/1434219265_951793.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2015/06/13/madrid/1434219265_951793.html</a><br>
[2] <a href="http://www.larazon.es/opinion/columnistas/mas-fuerte-que-el-odio-AF10047124" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
http://www.larazon.es/opinion/columnistas/mas-fuerte-que-el-odio-AF10047124</a><br>
<br>
<br>
In other words: Saying "Person A should take this down because I find it<br>
offensive" is perfectly OK. Saying "Person A should take this down because it<br>
is possibly potentially offensive to a third party" is not OK (and actually<br>
erodes the right to freedom of expression).<br>
<br>
<br>
I need to ask for **evidence-based policy** here. There is a big difference<br>
between a Dali painting *maybe* turning someone off FOSS4G and a Dali painting<br>
*actually* turning someone off FOSS4G.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Furthermore, there is such a thing like too much political correctness. I will<br>
illustrate *ad absurdum* by turning my own political-correctness-o-meter up to<br>
eleven for a second:<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 15 because blood sausages are maybe potentially<br>
offensive to muslims and vegans.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 17 because the kerning can maybe potentially make<br>
the eyes of experience typesetters bleed.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slides 18 and 19 because they might be potential<br>
triggers for agoraphobics.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 22 because it might be potentially insulting to<br>
astronomers concerned by light pollution.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 23 because it might be potentially insulting to<br>
"grammar nazis".<br>
<br>
I should remove the previous sentence because someone might potentially find<br>
"nazis" offensive.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 25 because it might be potentially insulting to<br>
geodesists who know circles don't have a meaning outside of distance-<br>
preserving projections (incidentally, these are the same people offended by<br>
EPSG:3857 being used everywhere) and find that FOSS4G is not representative of<br>
the professionalism required to attend such an event.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slide 30 because the alignment might be a potential<br>
trigger for people with obsessive-compulsive disorder.<br>
<br>
Sanghee should remove slides 37-42 because they might be potentially offensive<br>
to alcoholics and former alcoholics.<br>
<br>
<br>
</rant><br>
<br>
--<br>
Iván Sánchez Ortega <<a href="mailto:ivan@sanchezortega.es">ivan@sanchezortega.es</a>> <<a href="mailto:ivan@geonerd.org">ivan@geonerd.org</a>><br>
<<a href="mailto:ivan@mazemap.no">ivan@mazemap.no</a>><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>