3 ms·

Looks like we have a category mismatch. You seem to care about the classification and definitions of questions present in the survey. I care about finding way

Looks like we have a category mismatch. You seem to care about the classification and definitions of questions present in the survey. I care about finding ways for men (myself included) to understand and think about their blind spots regarding sexual harassment. I am not saying that you are wrong within your chosen frame of what you care about. I am saying is that your frame is not very relevant to my frame. I am also saying that focusing on the survey question is indicative of how you rank the importance about these issues. It’s like the house is on fire, half of the residents of the house are saying “let’s get outside right now”, and you’re saying “hold on, let’s stay inside and figure out whether the fire’s origin is an electrical fire or a wood fire?”

manfredo 8y ago
This is childish argument. Just because some people put their energy in one topic or issue does not imply that they don't care about others. Case in point, "you're debating strangers on the internet while the Rohingya are being subject to genocide - clearly you think people debating studies is more important that an entire culture getting eradicated." It is unwarranted to say that people asking for greater clarifications of these terms don't care about reducing sexual harassment. Regardless, I wasn't even the original commenter that pointed out the ambiguity of this item in the survey. I only responded after roenxi asked for greater context, and other commenters replied with the unqualified assumption that this item was universally interpreted by respondents as only referring to coercive advances. I merely pointed out the fact that, as it was worded in the original document, it was not exclusive to coercive advances and potentially included non-harassment examples that would fit under the terms used (and provided an example). Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place?
- brenschluss 8y ago
  > Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place? You know, you’re so right. Why waste my time with someone who clearly doesn’t care about the core issue at hand?

manfredo 8y ago

This is childish argument. Just because some people put their energy in one topic or issue does not imply that they don't care about others. Case in point, "you're debating strangers on the internet while the Rohingya are being subject to genocide - clearly you think people debating studies is more important that an entire culture getting eradicated." It is unwarranted to say that people asking for greater clarifications of these terms don't care about reducing sexual harassment. Regardless, I wasn't even the original commenter that pointed out the ambiguity of this item in the survey. I only responded after roenxi asked for greater context, and other commenters replied with the unqualified assumption that this item was universally interpreted by respondents as only referring to coercive advances. I merely pointed out the fact that, as it was worded in the original document, it was not exclusive to coercive advances and potentially included non-harassment examples that would fit under the terms used (and provided an example). Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place?

brenschluss 8y ago
> Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place? You know, you’re so right. Why waste my time with someone who clearly doesn’t care about the core issue at hand?