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

Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

stackfield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#81

Post by oldmanjay »

the_af wrote: post #78
oldmanjay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always amused when someone rebuts their own thesis in their conclusion. Thanks for the laugh!

You're welcome, but of course I didn't rebut my own thesis: 1- Post says: "Sub-subtitle being "human beings utterly unable to overcome base impulses despite higher order brain functions", then?" 2- A reply says: "No, just the ones in the cherrypicked examples for this article, perhaps." 3- My post says (paraphrased for comprehension): "These aren't examples cherrypicked to show people unable to refrain from inappropr…

Oh, I saw what you intended in your original post. I was just amused at how poorly you phrased it.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#82

Post by StavrosK »

vertex-four wrote: post #70
StavrosK wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible How will you know if the other party desires it without showing your intentions?

Generally speaking, if a person is required to talk to you as their job, they probably don't desire it.[0] They're not in the right headspace and they get it plenty enough as it is. Similarly, if you have no idea who they are and they're not in a location (physically or online) which implies they're interested in receiving random attention, they're probably not going to be interested. Aside from that, testing boundar…

I'm not defending the customers, I'm pointing out that "don't do things people won't want" doesn't really work unless you first establish that they won't want them, and it doesn't work at all when it becomes "don't try to gauge if someone wants X unless you know they want X".

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#83

Post by deedub »

pekk wrote: post #46
nmeofthestate wrote: post #34

Subtitle "experiment reveals that organism's behaviour is influenced by most important driver for genetic survival".

Why aren't any women or gay men in the support channels hitting on the male support agent?

There are.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#84

Post by the_af »

StavrosK wrote: post #60
vertex-four wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible, whether or not sex is a good thing in general. Sexual activity is awesome, when it's between two people who both actually want it. I think you'll find that most of the people you're vilifying agree.

> Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible How will you know if the other party desires it without showing your intentions?

You don't.

The thing is, the balance here is tipped to the "you probably shouldn't try it" side, and with good reason. Maybe you miss the only chance in your lifetime of hitting it off with the cute Tech Support gal who actually was receptive to your advances. However, this is not a party or a pub, this is her job, a situation where she likely isn't looking for a hookup, and she receives tons of inappropriate comments, and is tired of being considered by her customers and male coworkers as merely a pretty thing instead of as a professional. So what do you think is the chance YOU are the one customer who she is actually interested in, after wading through dozens of similarly lame flirting?

To put it another way, if she is terribly upset about flirting, she can choose not to go to parties and pubs. But this is her job!

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#85

Post by toyg »

vertex-four wrote: post #70
StavrosK wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forcing your sexuality on somebody else in a context other than one where they desire it is terrible How will you know if the other party desires it without showing your intentions?

Generally speaking, if a person is required to talk to you as their job, they probably don't desire it.[0] They're not in the right headspace and they get it plenty enough as it is. Similarly, if you have no idea who they are and they're not in a location (physically or online) which implies they're interested in receiving random attention, they're probably not going to be interested. Aside from that, testing boundar…

That contrasts with recent findings that some of the happiest workers are hairdressers. Guess what hairdressers do all day, while cutting hair? Chat about random stuff their customers bring up. And yes, a lot of it will be saucy, so to speak, because that's what most people are interested in. Is that customers forcing their sexuality on hairdressers? No, that's just being social "old school". Like you learn to find boundaries, you learn how to actually talk of the stuff. In tech, that is simply frowned upon.

The tech world, for all our declarations of being so progressive, is extremely prurient and repressed.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#86

Post by vertex-four »

toyg wrote: post #85
vertex-four wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, if a person is required to talk to you as their job, they probably don't desire it.[0] They're not in the right headspace and they get it plenty enough as it is. Similarly, if you have no idea who they are and they're not in a location (physically or online) which implies they're interested in receiving random attention, they're probably not going to be interested. Aside from that, testing boundar…

That contrasts with recent findings that some of the happiest workers are hairdressers. Guess what hairdressers do all day, while cutting hair? Chat about random stuff their customers bring up. And yes, a lot of it will be saucy, so to speak, because that's what most people are interested in. Is that customers forcing their sexuality on hairdressers? No, that's just being social "old school". Like you learn to find b…

On the other hand, a hairdresser can usually fire their customer if they're creepy - at least in my country, they're independent workers. A tech support worker can't.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#87

Post by kelukelugames »

vertex-four wrote: post #56
dmm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that society equates being sexist with being evil or bad, the actions of sexist people as being inherently evil, and the words and opinions of sexist people as dismissable out-of-hand. So when you point out a sexist action the target of your comment interprets that comment as you saying, "You are evil. Your actions are evil and anything you say is not true." The truth is that even well meaning people w…

Or else, more generally... people are usually rather terrible at separating out "your behaviour is wrong and needs to be fixed" from "you as a whole are a terrible human being". People often define their identity by their actions, and to claim that those actions might be problematic is to attack their identity. Even where blame is explicitly not placed on anyone, people tend to go on the defensive as soon as you poin…

I need to say it this way. It's digestible.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#88

Post by arjie »

vinceguidry wrote: post #17
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tragedy played out every day, for sure. I wonder in all that, about the part where she accepts all this attention, letting guys pay for everything. What if she didn't play along? I know, blaming the victim. But the social game is complex, and she is definitely a part of it.

This is her life. She can't stop the guys from hitting on her, short of doing awful things like downplaying her looks or hiding herself away. I wear a suit and tie to work every day. I didn't really understand her position until I started job hunting. I like wearing suits. I own five of them, three are custom made. Now I have to make a decision. Do I wear a suit and tie to my in-person job interviews? Coders seem to…

> Coders seem to have an irrational hatred of suits and ties for some reason. The conservative choice would be to wear a polo shirt and slacks to my interviews.

Want to hear a funny thing regarding this? From _The Big Short_ by Michael Lewis:

> The guys who ran money dressed as if they were going to a Yankees game. Their financial performance was supposed to be all that mattered about them, and so it caused suspicion if they dressed too well. If you saw a buy-side guy in a suit, it usually meant that he was in trouble, or scheduled to meet someone who had given him money, or both.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#89

Post by vinceguidry »

peterwwillis wrote: post #53
yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is downplaying one's looks "awful" or "doing violence to yourself"? When we wear non-practical clothes (e.g. anything besides athletic wear or comfy cargo pants), the entire purpose is to cause other humans to respond to us in a way that we find favorable. I recently purchased a slim red pants designed to convey a) that I'm a moderately creative type and b) that I have a nice ass. The net result is that I get des…

I think you and vinceguidry are really missing the point. "I, and she, would rather deal with the consequences of being really attractive than to stop." There should be no consequences to how you look, in general, but especially not the kind of consequences that women have to deal with. Some people (probably most people) don't wear clothes just to get a reaction from others. They wear clothes because they just like t…

> Some people (probably most people) don't wear clothes just to get a reaction from others.

The clothes people choose to wear becomes a part of their identity. They are choosing for a reason, that reason comes from them. Unless you're a kid and your parents are picking out your clothes for you, what you wear is a reflection of who you are.

Nobody deserves to receive negative attention from others based on how they dress, but it's a bit of wishful thinking to claim that there should be no consequences to how you look. People get what they work towards, not what they deserve. And two people can receive the same attention, one person can receive it positively, the other negatively. Without reading a person's mind, it's impossible to know how to 'safely' interact with them.

> he "real answer" of "what should I do" about being treated this way is to fight this misconception

Need to stop you right there. You can't demand that someone get political just to change their personal situation. Fighting for social justice is a privilege afforded to those who have managed to reach a point in their lives where they can afford to spend great deals of their time persuading others to change the way they think.

You and I have this privilege, most people do not. Many people, if they start trying to fight the "way things are", it will get them fired.

> While you are welcome to have your own opinion, lumping your own experiences in with theirs and expressing an opinion about both as if they were one experience is not only factually inaccurate, it prevents discussion about the issue at hand, which is women receive unfair and undesireable treatment from men.

Nobody is doing this. I expressed an experience I had that I felt had parallels to her experience. Both experiences had parallels to the ordinary one. I shared them because I felt they'd help illustrate what goes on under their noses. It's not quite as overt as in my case, but it still happens, more subtly.

I'm not trying to conflate, but to raise awareness.

Re: Valentine's Day Special: Bye Bye Tinder, Flirting in the Support Channel

#90

Post by untog »

StavrosK wrote: post #82
vertex-four wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, if a person is required to talk to you as their job, they probably don't desire it.[0] They're not in the right headspace and they get it plenty enough as it is. Similarly, if you have no idea who they are and they're not in a location (physically or online) which implies they're interested in receiving random attention, they're probably not going to be interested. Aside from that, testing boundar…

I'm not defending the customers, I'm pointing out that "don't do things people won't want" doesn't really work unless you first establish that they won't want them, and it doesn't work at all when it becomes "don't try to gauge if someone wants X unless you know they want X".

As you correctly state, it is difficult to know exactly what someone does and doesn't want even at the best of times, but in a professional context it is a safe assumption that the person you are talking to wants to be treated professionally.
Post reply on HN