4 ms·

When someone actually touches you it infringes on your rights in a way that reading the text hug cannot not to mention the natural concern for your physical saf

When someone actually touches you it infringes on your rights in a way that reading the text hug cannot not to mention the natural concern for your physical safety. In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. It's actually nothing like real world touching at all.

tptacek 6y ago
This is a weird hill to die on. Continuing to send "=hug=" messages to someone who has told you that doing so makes them uncomfortable is very creepy behavior. It'd be grounds for discipline most places I've worked. I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Making your document the target of ridicule does no realistic good while undermining its effectiveness.
- nyanpasu64 6y ago
  > without consent or after a request to stop. Hugging someone after they tell you to stop is obviously creepy. Is hugging someone without asking permission first bad too?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Presumably actually hugging someone is subject to societal, cultural, interpersonal norms. People at least try to discern in which situations and for which people its likely OK to initiate a hug. Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort. If in doubt just don't do it or ask. In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
- jfindley 6y ago
  I think a more charitable reading of the GP might be to assume they were talking about needing consent from everyone on the list before including a mail sig containing "--hugs, <person>". I've seen a bunch of that sort of sig on various tech lists over the years. Still not something you'd expect to see in a workplace, but most FOSS devel lists haven't historically even attempted to replicate the kind of environment you'd expect in a workplace and I'm not sure that drawing the parallel is useful. FWIW I'm not trying to say the GP was right whichever reading we go with (and if we assume your reading then it's definitely pretty creepy), I just wanted to point out that a more charitable reading exists.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Thank you for being reasonable. Both the post I replied to and text quoted therein >> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. > Much like it would be a problem in the real world. Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot. Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously - doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND - opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative. I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps > But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. Where does that come from? If you consult my statement. > In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. Wherein do you find the defense of harassment?
    - 6y ago
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  > But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. That's why I never did that. You can be anti creep while also being against coc banning virtual hugs. I think we can do better than that. It seems most of the people involved with FreeBSD agree.

tptacek 6y ago

This is a weird hill to die on. Continuing to send "=hug=" messages to someone who has told you that doing so makes them uncomfortable is very creepy behavior. It'd be grounds for discipline most places I've worked. I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Making your document the target of ridicule does no realistic good while undermining its effectiveness.
nyanpasu64 6y ago
> without consent or after a request to stop. Hugging someone after they tell you to stop is obviously creepy. Is hugging someone without asking permission first bad too?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Presumably actually hugging someone is subject to societal, cultural, interpersonal norms. People at least try to discern in which situations and for which people its likely OK to initiate a hug. Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort. If in doubt just don't do it or ask. In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
jfindley 6y ago
I think a more charitable reading of the GP might be to assume they were talking about needing consent from everyone on the list before including a mail sig containing "--hugs, <person>". I've seen a bunch of that sort of sig on various tech lists over the years. Still not something you'd expect to see in a workplace, but most FOSS devel lists haven't historically even attempted to replicate the kind of environment you'd expect in a workplace and I'm not sure that drawing the parallel is useful. FWIW I'm not trying to say the GP was right whichever reading we go with (and if we assume your reading then it's definitely pretty creepy), I just wanted to point out that a more charitable reading exists.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Thank you for being reasonable. Both the post I replied to and text quoted therein >> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. > Much like it would be a problem in the real world. Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot. Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously - doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND - opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative. I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps > But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. Where does that come from? If you consult my statement. > In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. Wherein do you find the defense of harassment?
  - 6y ago
michaelmrose 6y ago
> But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits. That's why I never did that. You can be anti creep while also being against coc banning virtual hugs. I think we can do better than that. It seems most of the people involved with FreeBSD agree.