Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

cherylyeoh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 416 posts

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#231

Post by panic »

whiddershins wrote: post #219
panic wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

I'm not really interested in a discussion. I just wanted to help you understand why I flagged your comment.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#232

Post by emmab »

marcosdumay wrote: post #192
emmab wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"

> "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?" Oh, that sounds creepy.

You could further constrain the time period e.g. "this evening".

If its creepy to ask in some situation it must be even more creepy to do in that situation.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#233

Post by Gargoyle »

whiddershins wrote: post #219
panic wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

I don't know if it's still true, but the system used to let you either comment or downvote, but not both. That is, if you replied in a comment any downvote to what you replied to would not be counted. Always struck me as a bit of a misaligned incentive, but I've always had many concerns about the way karma is used/applied on this site.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#234

Post by whiddershins »

panic wrote: post #231
whiddershins wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

I'm not really interested in a discussion. I just wanted to help you understand why I flagged your comment.

In violation of hacker news guidelines.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#235

Post by QuadrupleA »

panic wrote: post #204
whiddershins wrote: post #183

I am seeing an enormous percentage of comments here flagged, including one of mine which is a first for me on this site, or any site. Upon trying to figure out what's going on I think we need a meta-instruction for comments here? Like, perhaps the intention is to keep comments focused more on the general problem of sexual harassment in the industry and to not start making a bunch of assertions regarding the specifics…

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

So the mere idea of avoiding drinking, or that different people will react to an event in different ways is so dangerous and empowering to potential abusers that the entire HN readership needs to be protected from seeing it? Are we adults here? Sorry to be critical, I'm sure you meant well. For a weak comment though, "flagged" seems like a really extreme reaction.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#236

Post by panic »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #235
panic wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

So the mere idea of avoiding drinking, or that different people will react to an event in different ways is so dangerous and empowering to potential abusers that the entire HN readership needs to be protected from seeing it? Are we adults here? Sorry to be critical, I'm sure you meant well. For a weak comment though, "flagged" seems like a really extreme reaction.

It's not the idea of avoiding drinking: it's the creation of a situation (being drunk with coworkers) which you shouldn't be in. Once an abuser can get you into such a situation, they have an excuse for their abuse -- you shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

And it's not that different people will react to an event in different ways: it's the idea that you could always have reacted to an event in a certain way. If you didn't react to it that way, that's on you -- it's not the abuser's fault.

Put enough of these "mere ideas" together and you get the culture responsible for this environment of abuse that women are facing. We should try to chip away at as many bad ideas as we can!

You're right that flagging may not be the right tool to use here, though. Everyone says they want a reply, but in practice that tends to produce long discussions that rarely end up anywhere useful. What would you suggest? Maybe a mod could weigh in?

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#237

Post by sillysaurus3 »

hyperdunc wrote: post #213
Banthum wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every comment I've seen so far that has been dead or flagged down had these two properties: 1. Honestly attempting to contribute new information and views to the conversation, or asking new questions. 2. Opinion or assumptions would be considered immoral from a certain (currently dominant) point of view. It seems pretty clear to me that "high-quality" is being conflated with "reinforces my moral convictions" or "upho…

Not every flagged comment has been flagged undeservedly, but some of them have. I agree that there is a trend on HN where comments that go against the "moral convictions" or politics of the majority are flagged. It's disappointing to see this happening. Flagging a poorly worded or clearly incendiary comment is fair. That's not what has happened to some of the comments for this article. I hesitate to call it censorshi…

Would you mind listing some examples of flagged comments that you feel don't break the guidelines?

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#238

Post by ctvo »

orthoganol wrote: post #171

I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope it's also not wrong to say these…

Is there so much anxiety involved in following simple rules like don't touch people at work and don't talk about sexual topics?

There might be more anxiety involved in trying to find the line and getting as close to it as possible. Is a shoulder rub allowed? Can I touch her arms? Can I make a suggestive joke? I'd definitely be more anxious trying to keep that straight in my head.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#239

Post by monfrere »

I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent) unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel "assaulted".

As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand out for me are

1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in a position of power

2) McClure is a man and Yeoh is a woman, so McClure can be assumed to be more physically imposing

Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? In any other context, I would consider asking someone something a third time after two "no"s to be an example of annoying badgering, but not necessarily harassment.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#240

Post by ryandrake »

dang wrote: post #216
ryandrake wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of all the topics that come up from time to time on HN, this one is pretty much unique in that there is strictly one point of view acceptable to put forward, and every other one is guaranteed to get you instantly flag-killed under the guise of "wanting high quality discussion". If I valued my Internet Points, I'd just steer clear of these altogether and go click through to a React vs. Angular discussion instead.

That's not true at all, as anyone who skims through the last few days' threads on the topic can easily see. The one thing that ideologically committed HN readers all seem to agree on is that the community is full of (and the mods secretly in league with) their enemies. If you were in our shoes you'd find it as surreal as I do how consistently we hear this from all sides. The sincerity is similar in all cases, but obv…

Hey, dang, I agree mods in any public forum have a thankless job, and there will always be people assuming you're part of whatever conspiracy they think exists to censor them--it goes with the territory. You guys do your best to keep this place troll-free, and because of that, HN seems to be, for most topics, one of the last bastions of civil discussions left on the net. I'm sure it's why a lot of us keep coming back, so thank you.

My point was, whenever you have that mix of 1. an emotionally charged topic, 2. strong, existing community norms, and 3. a public, linear (up + down = 0) voting/flagging system, you're bound to get the results we're seeing in this discussion: comments that reinforce the community's norms being promoted and comments that don't being demoted. This shouldn't surprise anyone who's been on the Internet for more than a few days. Reasonable people can debate the normal run-of-the-mill HN topics, but ones like these don't seem to have much room.

Anyway, I wasn't planning to continue this discussion, but since you provided a thoughtful reply I figured I owed an attempt to do the same.

Post reply on HN