4 ms·

It's just laying out exactly what you seem to agree with, and that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results. Someone might say "you look really sexy toda

It's just laying out exactly what you seem to agree with, and that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results. Someone might say "you look really sexy today" and intend it as a compliment, but even if it is a compliment it almost certainly isn't going to be received as one.

bawolff 5y ago
Is it laying that out? I think you have to significantly read between the lines to get there. > what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer. If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all. "you look really sexy today" isn't wrong to say because the recipent was offended. It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. If the dice were on your side, and for some reason the recipent was delighted at your "compliment", i would still say it was wrong because you had no way of knowing that that would be the outcome. The wrongness has nothing to do with what actually happened, only with what was reasonably predictable to happen. There are pros and cons to this view, and reasonable people do disagree. [And to be clear, even if something was not predictable and therefore not "wrong", that doesn't absolve you from having to apologize/make it right if you accidentally hurt someone]
- hanselot 5y ago
  "Now now Sally, everyone knows before we can talk to another human, unless you are a protected class, you have to sign an interaction receival request. Don't be scared honey, only about half of all interaction receival requests are deemed offensive by the receiver, and punishable by removal of the tongue. Besides, how do you expect daddy to get another loaf of bread if I don't request one from our local CoC Kommando? I need you to be brave in this world, as right now you are a protected class, you can bargain on my behalf. Please go to the entity presiding over that area and beg them/their/it/they to be sparing with the interaction receival request litigation fees."
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  > It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. And what if you're not a "reasonably acculturized" person?
  - bawolff 5y ago
    That's the rub, right. If reasonable behaviour and common sense was obvious, there would be no need for CoC or even laws. Ultimately it devolves into what a majority of the group understands the norms of the group to be. The implicit assumption is that all members of the group have an implicit duty to understand the shared norms of the group (sort of like in the legal sphere where ignorance of the law is not a defense, but unintentionally breaking the law is, provided that the lack of intentionality isn't soley based on ignorance of what the laws are). E.g. in the case you mentioned earlier, sexualizing co-workers is the wrong thing. Not knowing that sexualizing coworkers is not a defense. If you say something with a double meaning, which you ernestly didn't realize had a double meaning, that might be a defense. You didn't intend to break a rule, and your unintentional rule breakage had nothing to do with not knowing what the rules are. It doesn't mean you don't have to apologize, but it should be enough [on this view] to prevent punitive action (generally, as always context matters). You could say that feels unsatisfactory, and you're right it does - its squishy and subjective. I don't hold this view because i think its perfect, but just because i think its the least bad of the alternatives.
odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
What about "That shirt looks really good on you"? Is it a compliment or the receiver may think you just want to rip it off them and have sex on the desk right there and then??

bawolff 5y ago

Is it laying that out? I think you have to significantly read between the lines to get there. > what you seem to agree with, that good intentions aren't a shield for bad results I wasn't giving my opinion so much as sumarizing its an unsolved problem with no obvious correct answer. If you want my personal view. I don't believe actual results should be taken into account at all. "you look really sexy today" isn't wrong to say because the recipent was offended. It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. If the dice were on your side, and for some reason the recipent was delighted at your "compliment", i would still say it was wrong because you had no way of knowing that that would be the outcome. The wrongness has nothing to do with what actually happened, only with what was reasonably predictable to happen. There are pros and cons to this view, and reasonable people do disagree. [And to be clear, even if something was not predictable and therefore not "wrong", that doesn't absolve you from having to apologize/make it right if you accidentally hurt someone]

hanselot 5y ago
"Now now Sally, everyone knows before we can talk to another human, unless you are a protected class, you have to sign an interaction receival request. Don't be scared honey, only about half of all interaction receival requests are deemed offensive by the receiver, and punishable by removal of the tongue. Besides, how do you expect daddy to get another loaf of bread if I don't request one from our local CoC Kommando? I need you to be brave in this world, as right now you are a protected class, you can bargain on my behalf. Please go to the entity presiding over that area and beg them/their/it/they to be sparing with the interaction receival request litigation fees."
oh_sigh 5y ago
> It's wrong to say because a reasonably acculturized person would know that there is a high chance it would be offensive in context. And what if you're not a "reasonably acculturized" person?
- bawolff 5y ago
  That's the rub, right. If reasonable behaviour and common sense was obvious, there would be no need for CoC or even laws. Ultimately it devolves into what a majority of the group understands the norms of the group to be. The implicit assumption is that all members of the group have an implicit duty to understand the shared norms of the group (sort of like in the legal sphere where ignorance of the law is not a defense, but unintentionally breaking the law is, provided that the lack of intentionality isn't soley based on ignorance of what the laws are). E.g. in the case you mentioned earlier, sexualizing co-workers is the wrong thing. Not knowing that sexualizing coworkers is not a defense. If you say something with a double meaning, which you ernestly didn't realize had a double meaning, that might be a defense. You didn't intend to break a rule, and your unintentional rule breakage had nothing to do with not knowing what the rules are. It doesn't mean you don't have to apologize, but it should be enough [on this view] to prevent punitive action (generally, as always context matters). You could say that feels unsatisfactory, and you're right it does - its squishy and subjective. I don't hold this view because i think its perfect, but just because i think its the least bad of the alternatives.

odshoifsdhfs 5y ago

What about "That shirt looks really good on you"? Is it a compliment or the receiver may think you just want to rip it off them and have sex on the desk right there and then??