Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness” • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by Mz » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:41 AM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #133

at-fates-hands wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the part that puzzles me. Successful guy, plenty of money. Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something worthwhile. It just amazes me that people who have both the means a…

> Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near the same way that assault and blackmail does. If you're st…

It is probably a great deal more complicated than that.

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

#302

Post by nnfy » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:42 AM UTC

sgentle wrote: post #203

I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth responding to that idea in general. Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women (who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, thi…

I am pleased to see you attempt a logical exploration of this topic.

However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power imbalance.

Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power and most women desiring powerful men.

Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for people to grasp/discuss.

I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people realize.

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

#303

Post by ThrustVectoring » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:42 AM UTC

emmab wrote: post #188

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…

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?"

Asking permission beforehand is a good rule if you can't read body language and non-verbal cues, but not the best choice if you can. It goes without saying, of course, that you respect a verbal "no".

Like, it's not mysterious magical rocket science. Leave a graceful exit path, start small and safe, and gauge their response before escalating. If you're not a dickwaffle, this'll get more positive responses without coming across as creepy or pressuring. If you're not making a game of pushing boundaries or starting with a huge power discrepancy, this process fails really gracefully. Like, really gracefully. Neurotypicals have probably done this dance with you without you or them noticing it.

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

#304

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:47 AM UTC

rectang wrote: post #299

enriquto wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a father of a daughter and a son, I disagree strongly with what you say. Feelings are completely irrelevant here. Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.

> Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; That's not an accurate summary of her account. He'd been rebuffed repeatedly and clearly before forcing her into a corner and trying to kiss her. While the exact legal definition of "sexual assault" varies depending on the jurisdiction, if it came down to a court decision I don't like his chances.

[deleted]

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

#305

Post by whiddershins » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:52 AM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #295

whiddershins wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your feedback is great. Also, I wasn't meaning to imply anyone should cut someone slack for behaving poorly while drunk. I was saying drunk people can be a menace, kinda like muggers. But although I've been mugged it doesn't exactly haunt me so much as make me cautious in certain situations. But whatever maybe my whole idea was stupid. But why was my subsequent comment also flagged. And now I'm getting downvo…

I wouldn't read too much into it. When users see a flagged comment, they're more inclined to flag subsequent comments of the same tone. Saying that you didn't read half the reply didn't really help matters, plus it was very energetic overall. Energy tends to be met with energy in the opposite direction, which tends to spark flamewars. In general though, it's better to email hn@ycombinator.com with concerns about the…

I did email them, and I do appreciate your feedback. At this point my concern is understanding flagging criteria and your analysis of my tone was helpful.

This comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693085

Was not in the same tone and was flagged. It was an overtly conciliatory comment. When that comment was flagged, followed by the flagging user ignoring guidelines, I stopped debating.

There's a problem here that goes beyond my comments per se.

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

#306

Post by dang » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:54 AM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #293

dang wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's at least the fourth. But why did you need more than one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12216126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309353 > I'll never forget this is the site that shadow-banned me for saying the world "needs more Snowdens". I call this kind of comment the "linkless martyr": the romantic tale of a noble freethinker cruelly repressed by the…

> I propose to call this category of comment the "linkless martyr": the romantic tale (somehow always the same) of a noble freethinker cruelly repressed by the mods, always offering full interpretation for the reader, yet mysteriously including any pointer to the original source, where people could decide for themselves what happened. This is a classic of the genre. I feel confident making fun of it because the idea…

I checked the logs, and no, it was for the garden-variety nastiness of the predecessor comment ("Have you been anywhere near technology for the past 20 years?"), and even that was probably just a last straw since I'm pretty sure you'd done it lots before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=beedogs&next=6183189

Nowadays we tell people when we're banning them for comments like that; for a bunch of reasons it wasn't feasible to do that at the time. Even now, though, when we give a public explanation, some people love to fabricate a self-flattering story and post it melodramatically in later threads. They're careful never to supply the original data so readers could make up their own minds; hence the linkless martyr.

I guarantee you we would not have banned someone merely for supporting Snowden in summer 2013. It would have meant banning most of the site.

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

#307

Post by beedogs » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 7:59 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #306

beedogs wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I propose to call this category of comment the "linkless martyr": the romantic tale (somehow always the same) of a noble freethinker cruelly repressed by the mods, always offering full interpretation for the reader, yet mysteriously including any pointer to the original source, where people could decide for themselves what happened. This is a classic of the genre. I feel confident making fun of it because the idea…

I checked the logs, and no, it was for the garden-variety nastiness of the predecessor comment ("Have you been anywhere near technology for the past 20 years?"), and even that was probably just a last straw since I'm pretty sure you'd done it lots before. https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=beedogs&next=6183189 Nowadays we tell people when we're banning them for comments like that; for a bunch of reasons it wasn't…

Right, I was only told flat-out that I was banned for the Snowden comment, but by all means, go ahead and rewrite history and make it about the totally innocuous comment that preceded it. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done on HN.

It's really no wonder this site has the reputation it does in the tech community these days.

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

#308

Post by panic » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 8:04 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #305

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't read too much into it. When users see a flagged comment, they're more inclined to flag subsequent comments of the same tone. Saying that you didn't read half the reply didn't really help matters, plus it was very energetic overall. Energy tends to be met with energy in the opposite direction, which tends to spark flamewars. In general though, it's better to email hn@ycombinator.com with concerns about the…

I did email them, and I do appreciate your feedback. At this point my concern is understanding flagging criteria and your analysis of my tone was helpful. This comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693085 Was not in the same tone and was flagged. It was an overtly conciliatory comment. When that comment was flagged, followed by the flagging user ignoring guidelines, I stopped debating. There's a problem her…

FWIW, I didn't flag that particular comment (I "vouched" for it, in fact, as well as for your reply).

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

#309

Post by dang » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 8:09 AM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #307

dang wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked the logs, and no, it was for the garden-variety nastiness of the predecessor comment ("Have you been anywhere near technology for the past 20 years?"), and even that was probably just a last straw since I'm pretty sure you'd done it lots before. https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=beedogs&next=6183189 Nowadays we tell people when we're banning them for comments like that; for a bunch of reasons it wasn't…

Right, I was only told flat-out that I was banned for the Snowden comment, but by all means, go ahead and rewrite history and make it about the totally innocuous comment that preceded it. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen it done on HN. It's really no wonder this site has the reputation it does in the tech community these days.

"Told flat-out" by whom? When? I'll happily apologize if I'm wrong about this, but having just looked at the data, I'd be shocked.

There are only two people who would have been in a position to tell you such a thing. One doesn't show up in that data set, the other is me, and I know I wasn't banning people just for a yay-Snowden. More definitively, the ban trail starts with the predecessor comment (i.e. 6170753 not 6183189). Had we banned you for 6183189 the prior comment would never have been killed.

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

#310

Post by enriquto » Tue, Jul 04, 2017, 8:11 AM UTC

rectang wrote: post #299

enriquto wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a father of a daughter and a son, I disagree strongly with what you say. Feelings are completely irrelevant here. Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.

> Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; That's not an accurate summary of her account. He'd been rebuffed repeatedly and clearly before forcing her into a corner and trying to kiss her. While the exact legal definition of "sexual assault" varies depending on the jurisdiction, if it came down to a court decision I don't like his chances.

> ... forcing her into a corner ...

I did nor interpret her text that way. To be fair, the whole text is very confusing for an article that purports to be "shedding light". The sentence that talks about the corner is this:

"On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me, and said (...)"

Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out, but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner? He pushed himself without touching her (because the contact was later, during the kiss attempt)? This can be construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house of somebody.

It is infuriating that this crucial part of the text (where the alleged assault happens), is extremely vague. Moreover, the fact that the text is riddled with bogus claims like "unwanted propositions", does not play in favor of its credibility. That's actually the whole point of propositions, to see if you are wanted or not! What does it matter if a proposition is wanted or not? This is ridiculous.

In the end, this noise plays against the victims of assault. When somebody is assaulted, she should go immediately to the police, not write a vague article three years later, mixing real problems with imaginary ones in the same list.