5 ms·

> I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. Is it the verbal nature of it, that leads you to believe people have

> I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. Is it the verbal nature of it, that leads you to believe people have no right to be free of it? As a counter example, consider that verbal intimidation is just as illegal as any other kind.

neveroffensive 9y ago
This is an interesting comparison. Is verbal intimidation illegal/immoral because of the words being said or the intention of physical violence behind them? Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"? Edit: To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words. Most crimes of words or planning are like that: * Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”. * Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing. * Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth). If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough. Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job. It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark. > If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand... This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?
  - neveroffensive 9y ago
    I can understand the "it's not just one comment" angle, this kind of makes sense. Although, I'm still not convinced everything taken as sexual harassment is actually such, at least to the extent external government intervention is need. With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. If there is intention, then it's a threat not verbal harassment. My concern overall is that in the long term government and policy will be such that even so much as giving a simple compliment like, "I like your shirt", gets taken as punishable sexual harassment because someone find this sexually charged based on their own life experiences. My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      > With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?
      - neveroffensive 9y ago
        >What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment? I can't answer this question. That's my point, I have no clue why people care about what they perceive as sexual comments being directed at them. It just doesn't make sense to me. Here is my thought process; if words can't hurt people physically, and I personally don't care about anything anyone says to me, there must be other people in this world that feel the same way. If this is the case than harassment must be on some level subjective, but a objective analysis of common reality would come to the same conclusion. It's a simple fact that what is sexual harassment in America today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or the same as it is for a tribe in Africa, and I don't believe an objective definition of sexual harassment could ever exist. Therefore sexual harassment can not be universally banned in the workplace or otherwise. At least not in a non authoritarian rights based system. Of course if all you care about is your perception and your subjective reality, and you believe it's ok to push this on people, my point is moot. I just lean towards basic rights and leaving the subjective stuff alone. It all depends on how you view reality. Personally I feel reality has a common base of extremely simple truths (science/normative ethics), and all else is essentially arbitrary. Is this right or wrong? I'm clearly not qualified to say, nor is anyone else. Edit: It's like trying to find an answer to the equation "2+2" if you don't know anything about math. Some people say the answer is between 14 and 20, some really strange people may say it's 2,000 and they know it for sure. Personally, I think it's best to say it's between negative and positive infinity and wait for additional information. The question of the ethics of sexual harassment in the workplace is "2+2", and nobody on earth really know anything about "math" in this regard. So defer to the least restrictive answer.

neveroffensive 9y ago

This is an interesting comparison. Is verbal intimidation illegal/immoral because of the words being said or the intention of physical violence behind them? Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"? Edit: To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?

solidsnack9000 9y ago
Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words. Most crimes of words or planning are like that: * Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”. * Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing. * Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth). If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough. Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job. It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark. > If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand... This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  I can understand the "it's not just one comment" angle, this kind of makes sense. Although, I'm still not convinced everything taken as sexual harassment is actually such, at least to the extent external government intervention is need. With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. If there is intention, then it's a threat not verbal harassment. My concern overall is that in the long term government and policy will be such that even so much as giving a simple compliment like, "I like your shirt", gets taken as punishable sexual harassment because someone find this sexually charged based on their own life experiences. My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    > With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?
    - neveroffensive 9y ago
      >What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment? I can't answer this question. That's my point, I have no clue why people care about what they perceive as sexual comments being directed at them. It just doesn't make sense to me. Here is my thought process; if words can't hurt people physically, and I personally don't care about anything anyone says to me, there must be other people in this world that feel the same way. If this is the case than harassment must be on some level subjective, but a objective analysis of common reality would come to the same conclusion. It's a simple fact that what is sexual harassment in America today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or the same as it is for a tribe in Africa, and I don't believe an objective definition of sexual harassment could ever exist. Therefore sexual harassment can not be universally banned in the workplace or otherwise. At least not in a non authoritarian rights based system. Of course if all you care about is your perception and your subjective reality, and you believe it's ok to push this on people, my point is moot. I just lean towards basic rights and leaving the subjective stuff alone. It all depends on how you view reality. Personally I feel reality has a common base of extremely simple truths (science/normative ethics), and all else is essentially arbitrary. Is this right or wrong? I'm clearly not qualified to say, nor is anyone else. Edit: It's like trying to find an answer to the equation "2+2" if you don't know anything about math. Some people say the answer is between 14 and 20, some really strange people may say it's 2,000 and they know it for sure. Personally, I think it's best to say it's between negative and positive infinity and wait for additional information. The question of the ethics of sexual harassment in the workplace is "2+2", and nobody on earth really know anything about "math" in this regard. So defer to the least restrictive answer.