3 ms·

So how long have you used this style of argument on line? Is it a habitual thing, or are you just emotional right now?

• ddingus 11y ago
  It is an emotional topic. I really like that you do not classify offence as damage. I do not like the intrusion of time and space as damage without also recognizing people vary considerably in their ability to handle this. To be completely fair, you did in some degree by allowing for complaints to be evaluated, but that's just not good enough. Personally, I'll handle these people and work to a favorable place. Often, their perception of time and space varies from my own. People can work with that. I have made many friends this way, and once I have this friendship and degree of trust, I can model better behavior norms and options to great effect. Often, what I find are pretty good people, who just have more texture than other people do. Where their intent is not nefarious, a lot boils down to socialization. This leads me to empowerment, which is a natural outcome of socialization. The idea that we need a patrol or some more dominant authority is not inclusive enough. When intent moves from undesirable, which is highly subjective, to nefarious, less subjective, having that authority and or structure is valuable. When we are talking about things that are not nefarious, an authority of that kind can be oppressive and or a source of inhibition that can do a lot more harm than good. Consider people experiencing the kinds of things being discussed here outside the context of that "security blanket" type authority. What do they do then? They could seek more authority, or they could start avoiding lots of scenarios that are likely ordinary and valuable given they have some perspective and tools to handle them. In between nothing and that authority, is the idea of giving people better tools to navigate these things. In your example, Alice could take any number of more active means to relieve herself of a boorish or poorly socialized maybe ignorant, but not nefarious person. Additionally, other savvy people could step in to nudge people in subtle ways, giving everyone the "out" they need to avoid negative consequences and half the time it's not even all that noticeable. Where these simple, human things are an option, we really should use them and share them. In my experience, those of us who have these skills and understanding of people can be modeling it for those in need. Simple education and role play can do wonders here too. And we don't blame or judge people for not having many tools, instead we make sure they see them in action and provide opportunities for them to improve. When they see it modeled, they are free to observe and adopt things they find will give them options where perhaps none existed, or were inadequate in some way. This happens without the person having to communicate some need or inadequacy. For people who do not consider those an issue, or inhibition of some kind, the active role helps them progress quickly and take more direct education and advice, all of which are very good things for them and their peers, and in the end, all of us. Quite frankly, some of us enjoy the diverse nature of people and have few issues with it in the non nefarious intent scenarios. We prefer to share that and help our peers improve in their level of appreciation and by doing so, their overall sense of personal security and confidence. The longer term value of this may exceed the value of your conduct proposal while preserving a lot of basic human freedom of expression. A secondary objection here is related to cultural differences and other sources of basic discrimination. Say someone is alternative, tats, piercings, etc... and that stage of their life is past. They may be a much different person today, yet they may struggle with perceptions. A more inclusive set of norms can help here. Or consider a person, of good intent and character, from an older time, or different part of the world. Understanding who they are can help to also understand intent, and intent counts for a lot. Knowing another isn't acting with nefarious intent can bring a lot of security, lower inhibition, and that all helps marginalize boundary conflicts of the kind you are seeking to manage. Well equipped, socialized people have what they need to evaluate others and understand them better without having to rely so much on rule of thumb type information, or stereotypes that may clash hard with who people really are. The likely outcome of your policy and norm proposal is frankly, stale. Uninteresting in the people sense. I'm not writing your opinion off, just highlighting that it's not entirely sound, and your basis for marginalizing those objections is not inclusive enough to warrant the merit you've implied lies behind it. On the topic of style, I must point out, you are making an advocacy case for a different set of policy and norms at conferences, and that advocacy does involve emotions and character in addition to the strong reason you have used to support your policy and norm vision. Because of this, it is bad form to dismiss emotion in rebuttals. Doing it by going right to character didn't help at all here. It would improve your case to address those emotional arguments instead as there are subjective elements in play that have emotional and personal components. Secondly, doing this would likely lead you to a place where some reconsideration of your overall proposal may make a lot more sense.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > Is it a habitual thing, or are you just emotional right now? It is advisable to do some research before character assassinations, so you don't ask a man if he's having his period ;-)