>I can't imagine how you could present those slides in anything other than a perverted manner.
Off the top of my head:
* Feign outrage, deliver the talk as if you are furious at apple for including such filth. "WHAT IF MY CHILDREN WERE TO HAPPEN UPON THIS API?!?" and so on.
* Feign acute embarrassment, as if one has been forced to deliver a talk about programming but cannot concentrate because of the distress these perfectly normal method names cause to your repressed puritan 1950s mind. Mumble, sweat, stammer, dart your eyes around but never actually say anything bad.
* Deliver the talk deadpan, but become increasingly upset at the audience's inevitable laughter at the bad words. Admonish them loudly for being so low-minded. When you deliver the last and crudest method name, with suitably overloaded timing, throw your notes to the ground and storm off the stage during the laughter.
I would support any criticism of a lack of female presenters and so on. But "criticizing" humor is in my view the highest form of arrogance existing. Telling other people what they are allowed to find funny and what not is just pure hypocrisy. If someone can't look behind a few unfunny remarks and pull the "I AM OFFENDED" card, any further argument seems impossible. I think there is a need besides the reductio ad hitlerum to introduce a reductio ad affendendum.
'A few' seems to be the operative phrase here. At least in the one talk, it sounds like the entire talk was just an excuse to make dirty jokes, and actually had a lack of content. If the even itself is meant to be professional, then don't bring in presenters that are more interested in being comedians than actually teaching.
The subject of the talk should have alerted any potential visitor of upcoming profanities. Plus the situation with these conferences is most of the time a mixture of speakers trying to appeal to different levels of audience members-from students to professionals, from academics to business. I think these are two different issues, one the lack of content and the other her complaining on the presentation.
If a talk turns out to be disappointing there is always the option to leave, sneak into another talk, have a break, go outside, bond with other "leavers" and so on. There will always be individual preferences in regards to conference presentations and content but expecting that they have all to fit to ones personal preferences (and values) seems a bit unrealistic.
I would liken it to going to a talk at OSCON entitled, "What's Wrong With Microsoft," and finding out that it is just a string of Microsoft jokes. Sure one could have expected that at an Open Source conference. Sure one can walk out of the talk.
But am I barred from blogging about my disappointment with the level of professionalism/maturity at the conference? Does my ability to walk out invalidate how that talk reflects on the conference as a whole?
Those seem like stretches. I really can't see the slides fitting with feigned outrage considering the very first joke is "You said 'member'." and, a bit later, "autorelease — Enjoy while you can."
Feigning embarrassment is possible but extremely unlikely, given every "dirty word" has a comment at the end of its section emphasizing the joke.
I appreciate your comments, though. It's always good to have someone representing the other side in a reasonable manner.
No, I'm equating a conference session, likely one of several running at the time, described in the title itself as involving "dirty words", to a class on sexual behavior.
If you go to a session that says it involves dirty words, you really shouldn't be surprised or offended when it involves dirty words, or at least attempts at saucy double entendres.
Admittedly, one might think "dirty words" wasn't meant so literally - perhaps it meant "words that describe things you shouldn't do, like 'over-release'". That ought to have been made clear in the conference materials.
I think the real thing here is that if the entire point of the session is to make dirty programming jokes, does the content of that session really provide anything to the conference? I don't think many people go to conferences expecting it to be like a comedy club... Just sayin'
I suppose it depends on the technical content. The session was pretty much using groan worthy euphemisms as a way of selecting a limited set of things to cover. That slice through the APIs may cover different things than other sessions that deal with more monolithic topics like 'Core Animation' or 'Core Data'.
When that is the stated purpose of the talk, then one has the option to avoid it. It doesn't seem fair to attend a talk that warns you of its nature, and then complain about it.
Really? It's just a collection of crude jokes. I can't imagine how you could present those slides in anything other than a perverted manner.