5 ms·

My biggest problem with this essay is the idea that in all instances of egregious social misconduct it's the result of psychopathy. I think the psychopath facto

My biggest problem with this essay is the idea that in all instances of egregious social misconduct it's the result of psychopathy. I think the psychopath factor should be given a much higher prior, but not an absolute one. Sometimes people didn't get the socialization that they should have gotten in childhood or adolescence, within this industry in particular it seems odd to ignore the possibility of social impairment through autism. Sometimes people really do make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes make you go "Wow how did somebody not know this wasn't okay?"[0], and sometimes they know better and had a lapse in judgment or read the wrong signals. Predators exist, psychopaths exist, most harassment is probably repeat victimization by the same bad actors, but mistakes still exist. [0]: I know I've asked this question about my own behavior before, I somehow suspect most of us have at one point or another.

aaronem 11y ago
No one's suggesting that mistakes should be dealt with in the same way as predatory behavior. The article makes this explicit in its specimen code: > [I]f the organizers feel a particular individual is the cause of more than one complaint, and does not self-correct, they may exclude that person from the event. There's room here to deal with someone who's merely boorish or ignorant without throwing them out of the con; with such a person, a word on the subject of minimal standards of behavior will generally suffice. In cases where that doesn't suffice, and the harassment continues, I am much of the opinion that the host's responsibility to his blameless guest outweighs that to the misbehaving one; sure, it's a shame if someone gets booted out of a con because he genuinely isn't equipped to behave in a minimally decent fashion, but it's much more of a shame if people feel like they can't safely go to a convention at all because there's a significant chance they'll be harassed by fellow guests.
PieterH 11y ago
We all make mistakes. Yet if we're talking about safety, then we're talking about danger, and that means something specific. Social impairment makes people awkward, it does not make them dangerous. Taking offense at such awkwardness is itself a problem IMO. This is why you cannot take a complaint at face value without corroboration and allowing people to self-correct. We have all found ourselves on the wrong side of social mores and codes. The thing is, some of us move rapidly back, and others sit there happily, and on purpose.
cbd1984 11y ago
And you have to take into account the fact culture plays a role. What's your personal space? It varies based on where you were born and where you grew up. Invading someone's personal space is perceived as aggressive and noisome and perhaps even threatening, which makes it even worse to assume it must be based on pathology rather than "This person was born in Italy, I'm from Norway" or similar. Similarly, saying things like "culture doesn't excuse bigotry" is rather pointless, given that culture defines what you consider to be bigotry in the first place. What's perfectly tolerant and open-minded in Russia might be unspeakable in Liberia and vice-versa. My point is, add a culture out of step with the mainstream notions of propriety to someone with even a relatively mild social dysfunction (not necessarily diagnosable!) and you have a "harasser" in the making, especially if everyone castigates them on the first offense and nobody tells them what they're actually doing wrong.
- PieterH 11y ago
  Here's a funny thing about culture. It distorts a lot, so some cultures accept public stonings and lashings, while others won't let a parent slap a child. Yet what constitutes abuse is universal, and what constitutes positive social interaction is universal. In every culture in the world, a man putting his hand on another's shoulder is a gesture of dominance, and putting his hand inside a woman's knee is a gesture of intimacy. The size of personal spaces changes per culture. Just as some cultures speak louder than others. Yet it always follows the same dynamics, positive and negative.
  - OvidNaso 11y ago
    >In every culture in the world, a man putting his hand on another's shoulder is a gesture of dominance, What an example of cultural confusion on display. Because this sounds absurd to me. Here, a hand on the shoulder, is a clear sign of friendship and would be relieve tension in a situation.
    - PieterH 11y ago
      It is a gesture of dominance that most men will accept and even enjoy, the same way as a dog accepts and enjoys being patted on the head. It's not an aggressive act, but it is dominant. This is quite clear from the way men respond to it, which is almost universally the same: by relaxing. (Hence you describe it as relieving tension.) However try it with someone who thinks they are more important than you, and it will cause hostility. There are other universal dominance signals. For instance, keeping eye contact without smiling. Or, interrupting someone who is speaking. Or, being late for a meeting. Or, laughing at someone who makes a mistake.

aaronem 11y ago

No one's suggesting that mistakes should be dealt with in the same way as predatory behavior. The article makes this explicit in its specimen code: > [I]f the organizers feel a particular individual is the cause of more than one complaint, and does not self-correct, they may exclude that person from the event. There's room here to deal with someone who's merely boorish or ignorant without throwing them out of the con; with such a person, a word on the subject of minimal standards of behavior will generally suffice. In cases where that doesn't suffice, and the harassment continues, I am much of the opinion that the host's responsibility to his blameless guest outweighs that to the misbehaving one; sure, it's a shame if someone gets booted out of a con because he genuinely isn't equipped to behave in a minimally decent fashion, but it's much more of a shame if people feel like they can't safely go to a convention at all because there's a significant chance they'll be harassed by fellow guests.

PieterH 11y ago

We all make mistakes. Yet if we're talking about safety, then we're talking about danger, and that means something specific. Social impairment makes people awkward, it does not make them dangerous. Taking offense at such awkwardness is itself a problem IMO. This is why you cannot take a complaint at face value without corroboration and allowing people to self-correct. We have all found ourselves on the wrong side of social mores and codes. The thing is, some of us move rapidly back, and others sit there happily, and on purpose.

cbd1984 11y ago

And you have to take into account the fact culture plays a role. What's your personal space? It varies based on where you were born and where you grew up. Invading someone's personal space is perceived as aggressive and noisome and perhaps even threatening, which makes it even worse to assume it must be based on pathology rather than "This person was born in Italy, I'm from Norway" or similar. Similarly, saying things like "culture doesn't excuse bigotry" is rather pointless, given that culture defines what you consider to be bigotry in the first place. What's perfectly tolerant and open-minded in Russia might be unspeakable in Liberia and vice-versa. My point is, add a culture out of step with the mainstream notions of propriety to someone with even a relatively mild social dysfunction (not necessarily diagnosable!) and you have a "harasser" in the making, especially if everyone castigates them on the first offense and nobody tells them what they're actually doing wrong.

PieterH 11y ago
Here's a funny thing about culture. It distorts a lot, so some cultures accept public stonings and lashings, while others won't let a parent slap a child. Yet what constitutes abuse is universal, and what constitutes positive social interaction is universal. In every culture in the world, a man putting his hand on another's shoulder is a gesture of dominance, and putting his hand inside a woman's knee is a gesture of intimacy. The size of personal spaces changes per culture. Just as some cultures speak louder than others. Yet it always follows the same dynamics, positive and negative.
- OvidNaso 11y ago
  >In every culture in the world, a man putting his hand on another's shoulder is a gesture of dominance, What an example of cultural confusion on display. Because this sounds absurd to me. Here, a hand on the shoulder, is a clear sign of friendship and would be relieve tension in a situation.
  - PieterH 11y ago
    It is a gesture of dominance that most men will accept and even enjoy, the same way as a dog accepts and enjoys being patted on the head. It's not an aggressive act, but it is dominant. This is quite clear from the way men respond to it, which is almost universally the same: by relaxing. (Hence you describe it as relieving tension.) However try it with someone who thinks they are more important than you, and it will cause hostility. There are other universal dominance signals. For instance, keeping eye contact without smiling. Or, interrupting someone who is speaking. Or, being late for a meeting. Or, laughing at someone who makes a mistake.