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

Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#21

Post by sethammons »

_jal wrote: post #12
sethammons wrote: post #5

Feels like a slippery slope. Someone will always feel uncomfortable with something.

No, it really isn't hard to avoid touching someone who doesn't like it. If simple accommodations like that are a "slippery slope", I'd suggest a little empathy.

Obviously, if you know someone doesn't like a thing, you can avoid doing that thing. It is quite common for some people who just met to clasp a shoulder or similar. It provides extra social comfort and connectivity. I'd suggest a little empathy for those seeking human connection in a socially positive way. Hmm. Seems that empathy thing goes both ways.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#22

Post by [deleted] »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

[deleted]

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#23

Post by jfk13 »

0815test wrote: post #19
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when we meet.

Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#24

Post by true_religion »

0815test wrote: post #9

> Humans require social touch, but the rules that govern its deployment are not biologically determined... On the contrary; social touch, with the ensuing spectrum between "discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort" is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society, gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even domesticated cats http://…

How do you deal with the dissonance of Biden being a leading political figure, whilst being socially incompetent?

How does he get voters? Why aren’t people who meet him singularly turned against his candidacy?

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#25

Post by apacheCamel »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

Would you be able to give other examples of this obsession with rules?

From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle things that make you uncomfortable and I also don't think uncomfortable is always a bad thing.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#26

Post by dinkudunk »

0815test wrote: post #19
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#27

Post by mc32 »

0815test wrote: post #19
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

Biden isn’t swinging his fist. It’s social interaction. Now, blurring the distinction between interactions with friends and strangers is problematic. But the interaction itself isn’t a problem, it’s recontextualizing the interaction which is problematic.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#29

Post by siliconunit »

everdrive wrote: post #17
0815test wrote: post #9

> Humans require social touch, but the rules that govern its deployment are not biologically determined... On the contrary; social touch, with the ensuing spectrum between "discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort" is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society, gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even domesticated cats http://…

You're helping to create a very cold world. I've heard the term neopuritan thrown around in this context, and the more I think about it the more it fits. The modern obsession with harshly judging the body language, physical touch, and emotion of individuals today feels like a technology-enabled Scarlet Letter. People's preferences aren't immediately self-evident to all observers, and intent does matter.

Absolutely agree with this. I find it quite sad when I see young non religious people at work behaving like monks and nuns in fear of human latent intentions and interpretations of their behaviour. Sometimes reading too much theory and having too many specific words that define phenomenons which you have not yet experienced and elaborated can lead to a very frustrating life to say the least..

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#30

Post by icebraining »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #16

In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would preven…

Since you're distinguishing rules from norms and laws, can you describe what kind of rules are you talking about?
Post reply on HN