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

371–380 of 416 posts

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

#371

Post by rectang »

siliconc0w wrote: post #325
rectang wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.

It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.

Thanks for the statutory reference. I decided to research this more closely, and looked into several specific definitions. The most widely known (and the one I'd already seen) is the Justice Department's:

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa

  Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior 
  that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. 
  Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual 
  activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, 
  child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
However, the DOJ reference is not a statute. The other state statutes I looked at (New York, Washington, Delaware, Texas) seem to define "[aggravated/unlawful] [sexual/intimate] [assault/abuse/contact] similarly to California, with "intimate parts" enumerated.

So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless, such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment.

I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved. However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not OK" -- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no matter which statutory lines are crossed.

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

#372

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

gizmo wrote: post #370
qubex wrote: post #367

> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise. No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me dow…

Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin. Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thre…

You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention, as a "victim blamer."

Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparatively) a minimum of tribalism in discourse. What qubex and I are pushing back against is the idea is branding anyone who brings up this topic (or any topic, really) as essentially "the enemy" regardless of their intent.

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

#373

Post by Chris2048 »

TuringTest wrote: post #369
Chris2048 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"quality" is subjective. Why should I "support the idea" of role models when I see no value in it? Isn't the burden of proof on the user? Where is the "argument" that role models are a valid thing worthy of authority?

I didn't say that you should support the idea of role models. I said that the argument provided in pjc50's post supported the idea that "role models are probably a bad idea". Your comment only included a sentiment, not a rational reason to support the idea you tried to express.

That's all that is needed when the burden of proof is not upon you. I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space, anyone with such a claim themselves bear that burden.

MY 'idea' is the rejection if an unsupported claim, requiring no more rationalisation than that.

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

#374

Post by gizmo »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #372
gizmo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin. Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thre…

You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention, as a "victim blamer." Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparat…

Sexism is off-limits, and victim blaming is sexist and so as a consequence off-limits. What is and what isn't victim blaming is well-defined: I'm not making this up as I go along. So this isn't about me or my tribe.

I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you don't believe me.

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

#375

Post by StevePerkins »

Mz wrote: post #366
StevePerkins wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paraphrase, only because the exact quote was pretty long: In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get." Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after r…

I chose the phrase "make initial inquiries" very carefully. It is not intended to describe a situation where men are openly and unambiguously hitting on a woman. In my experience, in delicate situations, there is a feeling out process. It isn't a bald question. If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her to have wine with him. Sometimes she said no. Other times, she said yes and it w…

Your post and bio give the impression of seeing yourself as an "HN celebrity", frustrated at people purposely ignoring your blog. Are you aware of HN's scale? I've been here for about 5 years, and have never heard of you prior to an hour ago. I'd be astounded if a full 1% of HN's readership has clicked on a single page on your blog, ever.

In reality, we seem to be in near-total alignment. Within a larger comment, you had one statement that seems over-generalized. After agreeing with the gist of your post, I mildly and respectfully challenged that one over-generalized statement.

That's not a big deal. It might catch a downvote or two, because HN is HN. But that's what normal healthy human conversation sounds like, outside of any particular echo chamber. It's not an attack, and not really even a defense.

Somehow you're now in a "witch hunt", or being called a "man-hating bitch", or otherwise under attack from the "other side", etc. I can't even... uhh... just, no... you're not. And if you feel like you have to take it to that level, in order not to be called a "rape apologist", then maybe you run with the wrong circles online.

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

#376

Post by Mz »

StevePerkins wrote: post #375
Mz wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose the phrase "make initial inquiries" very carefully. It is not intended to describe a situation where men are openly and unambiguously hitting on a woman. In my experience, in delicate situations, there is a feeling out process. It isn't a bald question. If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her to have wine with him. Sometimes she said no. Other times, she said yes and it w…

Your post and bio give the impression of seeing yourself as an "HN celebrity", frustrated at people purposely ignoring your blog. Are you aware of HN's scale? I've been here for about 5 years, and have never heard of you prior to an hour ago. I'd be astounded if a full 1% of HN's readership has clicked on a single page on your blog, ever. In reality, we seem to be in near-total alignment. Within a larger comment, you…

I wrote a piece recently about the witch hunt atmosphere that is developing.

Just because you have never heard of me before does not mean I do not routinely run into people who clearly know who I am when I have never heard of them. That isn't delusion on my part.

After advising you that you misunderstood and clarifying, you basically doubled down, thus positioning yourself as an adversary. Now you are attacking me and making a lot of derogatory comments. This does not back up your assertion that you were engaging in good faith and I am just overreacting.

If you and I were really on the same page, my clarification would have been the end of the matter, not the start of escalating aggressive remarks on your side.

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

#377

Post by qubex »

gizmo wrote: post #370
qubex wrote: post #367

> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise. No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me dow…

Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin. Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thre…

That is an absolutely tendentious mischaracterisation of my statement and my intent. You are trying to define a taboo that places my line of inquiry out of bounds so that the topic it subtends does not need to be addressed. That's a technique beneath the standards of this community where respectful inquiry is always pursued.

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

#378

Post by jacquesm »

Gigablah wrote: post #173
jacquesm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I invite you to read: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236666.pdf "Rape and Domestic Violence: Rape, including marital rape, is a criminal offense, as are most forms of domestic violence. The penal code states that rape is punishable by a prison term of up to 20 years and whipping. Marital rape does not have a minimum penalty, but the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. According to women’s group…

Note that Cheryl is Malaysian.

Right you are. Would that make it worse or better?

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

#379

Post by qubex »

gizmo wrote: post #374
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention, as a "victim blamer." Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparat…

Sexism is off-limits, and victim blaming is sexist and so as a consequence off-limits. What is and what isn't victim blaming is well-defined: I'm not making this up as I go along. So this isn't about me or my tribe. I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you don't believe me.

Mine is neither sexism nor victim-blaming. I asked a simple question you decreed by fiat that asking that question was equivalent to shaming the victim. Shame on you!

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

#380

Post by greglindahl »

tnone wrote: post #349
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN isn't an ideological battleground. In general, it's for whatever gratifies intellectual curiosity. The flagged comments may have contributed information, but most of them share a common trait: they're incendiary. The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. It's not easy to do. People are generally passionate about their points of view, and I've been guilty of this myself. But…

On this topic, it absolutely is. Whenever these threads happen, they go one way or the other. If the all-genders-equal, non-feminist side swings the discussion, the entire thread disappears off the front page, inexplicably sitting at position 500+ with no flagged indicator. The lambdaconf debacle comes to mind, but it's hardly the only example. If the feminist, women-are-victims-side swings the discussion, the thread…

You might want to check your definitions -- feminism is the belief that all genders should be treated equally.
Post reply on HN