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

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

#401

Post by TuringTest » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #373

TuringTest wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space

In that case you didn't needed to write down your rejection of it either, and your post became redundant. No wonder that it got downmodded into oblivion.

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

#402

Post by novia » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

nnfy wrote: post #297

QuadrupleA wrote: post #222

The mass flagging / censoring of comments people disagree with below seems a little petty, I'm curious what the original posts are. I'd rather hear a dumb opinion and make my own choice.

I had the gaul to cite personal experience as reason to legitamitely question the narrative, as there was something I didn't understand. Rather than take this as an opportunity to bring someone onto their side, I was met with a barrage of down votes and flaggers for doubting the wrong narrative. This kind of community censorship hinders progress.

If I recall correctly, I responded to your comment before it was flagged. Did my comment help you understand at all?

You seemed like you were asking in good faith, unlike a lot of other commenters in here, so I tried to legitimately engage you. But you never responded to my comment to let me know if I missed the mark or not.

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

#403

Post by orthoganol » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #314

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…

If you find this sort of example terrifying, imagine for a moment what it'd be like to be on the other end of aggressive advances from a guy who could make or break your career and wanted you to submit to sex. Hopefully that puts your terror as a guy in perspective.

I understand - I never claimed equivalence or even a comparison. I don't believe its wrong to acknowledge other parties also affected, especially when designing an ideally lasting and widely adopted solution.

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

#404

Post by dang » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:22 PM UTC

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…

We detached this flamewar subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14695324 and marked it off-topic.

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

#405

Post by morgante » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #350

morgante wrote: post #277

This is a really great post, both in the courage it took to write and the logical analysis it provides. I have to provide a bit of mea culpa here. When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard (to an unacceptable but understandable level). It's much worse than that. This is undoubtably sexual harassment and those differences/nuances matter. All I can say…

> When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard. "Flirting which goes overboard" is perhaps understandable from a co-worker or peer. It is absolutely, 100% an abuse of power when a VC does it to a potential investee. Imagine it from the woman's point of view. Suppose you had an idea you worked long and hard on, and then when you present it to a VC, he sta…

I didn't say it was okay or acceptable, but I had a much easier time imagining how a powerful VC ends up making a woman uncomfortable through flirting than full-on sexual assault.

Like I said, that was my fault. This is a lot more serious than I first realized when stories surfaced.

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

#406

Post by morgante » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

wiredfool wrote: post #340

morgante wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Honestly, that's just not realistic. Subtle touching is a key part of rapport and bonding (even in a platonic setting between men). It would be extremely bizarre if after a woman laughs at a joke I stopped and said "is it okay if I gently touch you on the elbow for a second as you laugh?" I'm a huge fan of consent (ex. I alm…

I find 'touchy' people to be really creepy. They ignore the body language of "go the [word] away before I find something to run through you". But you say that in a workplace and people look at you funny. It's not bonding. It's a power thing, I think. "I can touch you, but if you call it out, then you're the one who is reacting and being 'sensitive'". (reversed, obv). You may think it's an important part of platonic s…

You're uncomfortable with touch, in a way that most people aren't.

That's totally fine. I'm guessing you send off signals that you're uncomfortable with it.

Part of social skills is knowing how to read those signals and respecting them. There are definitely people who I take pains to not touch (due to the signals they send), even in a crowded bar.

I'll tell you it's definitely not a power thing. Most of the time, it is somewhat reciprocal. If it's not, then any well-adjusted person backs off.

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

#407

Post by qubex » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #400

qubex wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a theory, it's my practice. There's many cultures/religions where drinking is not allowed and somehow they manage to socialise too. I just say "thank you, but no thank you, I don't drink" and that's the end of it, the one time somebody was pushy I just remarked I'm on medication (little white lie there) and that was it. Plus, incidentally, this is Malaysia... I lived in Malaysia for several years in the mid…

Well yes. If you live in a Muslim country you may have a different perspective.

I think I expressed myself badly. I'm English/Italian and live in Italy. However I lived in Malaysia in the mid-2000s. These events took place in Malaysia. As I understand it the victim is a Malaysian national. Therefore I consider my experience of the place and culture to be somewhat relevant, or at the very least, evidence that other modes of behaviour are possible.

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

#408

Post by Banthum » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #380

tnone wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In feminism's the "motte and bailey" belief structure, that's the motte (the thing people say when challenged).

It's not the bailey (the thing people actually want to say and do) though.

One example of the bailey in action: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

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

#409

Post by whitemale » Thu, Jul 06, 2017, 6:27 AM UTC

Preamble: I am not defending the guy mentioned in the article, his only defence could be that he was drunk(not good enough imho).

What about when at a nightclub? What about women who rely on easily misinterpret-able body language?

What if two people have totally consensual intercourse where one has more power over the other one?

The issue I take here is that people pretend like the issue is black and white, while it's incredibly nuanced. The other issue is that when gender comes into play, people become emotional, I would love to talk about this topic as if instead of sex the guy demanded money from the women in exchange for the deal, then I feel we could have a much more rational conversation about this.

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

#410

Post by grey-area » Thu, Jul 06, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

orthoganol wrote: post #403

grey-area wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you find this sort of example terrifying, imagine for a moment what it'd be like to be on the other end of aggressive advances from a guy who could make or break your career and wanted you to submit to sex. Hopefully that puts your terror as a guy in perspective.

I understand - I never claimed equivalence or even a comparison. I don't believe its wrong to acknowledge other parties also affected, especially when designing an ideally lasting and widely adopted solution.

It was the word terrifying which seemed a little out of place, I don't agree men should be or are in terror over changing social norms. If you act naturally but respect the other person and what they say and do, you really have nothing to fear. Just treat people as equals and check they are comfortable from time to time.

In most of these cases we hear about it's very, very clear that someone was using their position of power to attempt to coerce others. If you don't do that, you have nothing to feel terror about.