4 ms·

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this shoul

It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

jfk13 8y ago
I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when we meet. Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?
- manicdee 8y ago
  How come the rules that restrict Joe Biden’s freedom to touch other people shouldn’t apply to you? There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those are mutually consensual actions. Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the shoulder) is not consensual. For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their work. In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from those social circles. But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise. By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary existed at one point in time.
dinkudunk 8y ago
Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.
mc32 8y ago
Biden isn’t swinging his fist. It’s social interaction. Now, blurring the distinction between interactions with friends and strangers is problematic. But the interaction itself isn’t a problem, it’s recontextualizing the interaction which is problematic.

jfk13 8y ago

I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when we meet. Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?

manicdee 8y ago
How come the rules that restrict Joe Biden’s freedom to touch other people shouldn’t apply to you? There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those are mutually consensual actions. Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the shoulder) is not consensual. For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their work. In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from those social circles. But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise. By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary existed at one point in time.

dinkudunk 8y ago

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.

mc32 8y ago

Biden isn’t swinging his fist. It’s social interaction. Now, blurring the distinction between interactions with friends and strangers is problematic. But the interaction itself isn’t a problem, it’s recontextualizing the interaction which is problematic.