3 ms·

> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" How can you possibly read any possi

> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?" How can you possibly read any possible minds. Even if you can predict the 'reasonable' person, outliers can take offence and you don't know what can offend them. People can and do take offence at anything. This leaves two possible solutions. 1) Eventually fuck up. 2) Immediately leave the community and find greener, less insane pastures. I've taken #2 in almost all cases, because I'm definitely going to screw up because I'm human.

simiones 5y ago
The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake. For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA who knows the history of this phrase may take offense. If the person from the USA feels that this may have been an attack, they should be free to raise this issue, and the person from Eastern Europe should apologize for making them uncomfortable, even if it was unintentional. As long as they do this, no further harm should happen to either person. However, if the person who made the comment refuses to apologize/explain, or keeps repeating this comment since "to me it's not offensive, it's just a joke/reference" etc, then this should be considered a problem and someone with authority should intervene. Similarly, if the person who took offense refuses to accept the mistake after an apology or explanation was given, then once again someone with authority should intervene and correct this error on this other side, as it unnecessarily creates a hostile working environment. This is the intended reading of that line. Of course, that line can also be mis-applied by immediately punishing the person from Eastern Europe in my initial example. Note: I used "person from Eastern Europe" in my example because that is where I am from, and because I have personally seen others around me using references to US culture without knowing the full context in just this way, without ill intent but in ways which would probably shock someone who assumes that the context is well known (for example, casually addressing peers using rap lyrics containing the infamous N-word).
- Fellshard 5y ago
  The changed rule explicitly removes good faith considerations.
prancer_or_vix 5y ago
You act like fucking up is the end of the world. In my experience, when someone "fucks up", I can reflect on my rapport with that person to determine whether or not it was intentional. Either way, I can say something to them about it. It is a sign of maturity to say "oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think that my words could be perceived in that way. My intent was.." If your intent is harmful, that's great, because I can help you with #2 by not interacting with you in the future. However, if your intent was reasonable, then no harm done. I walk away having set a healthy boundary for our relationship and you got to keep me around and strengthen our rapport. > I've taken #2 in almost all cases, because I'm definitely going to screw up because I'm human. This makes it sound like you're not willing to accept the effort of empathy.
- gentleman11 5y ago
  > You act like fucking up is the end of the world. People stopped forgiving and forgetting years ago. Every mistake people make follows them forever now. “Fucking up” is the end of the world for their careers since nobody wants to hire somebody who was publicly outed on Twitter for whatever they allegedly did Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?
  - prancer_or_vix 5y ago
    I think you're overlooking the role that rapport plays in this. If you don't have a rapport (it's a new relationship, for example), one doesn't have that to rely on (this describes a significant portion of online interactions, like this one!). If one has a solid rapport with someone, and that person says something that one find upsetting, one's much less likely to attribute that behavior to malice, because rapport is just social context. > Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”? I think a more accurate thing to say is that those who are harmed and cannot contextualize it to be reasonable are not willing to enable that harmful behavior by the person that has harmed them. Empathy is just the act of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes to gain respect for their perspective". I can empathize with an asshole and decide that their behavior needs to be called out _despite_ OR _because of_ the context I have for that person (e.g. I might be more likely to call out inappropriate behavior in those with power than in those without power, with whom I might work more closely to come to an understanding privately, as there's really no use kicking someone when they're down).

simiones 5y ago

The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake. For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA who knows the history of this phrase may take offense. If the person from the USA feels that this may have been an attack, they should be free to raise this issue, and the person from Eastern Europe should apologize for making them uncomfortable, even if it was unintentional. As long as they do this, no further harm should happen to either person. However, if the person who made the comment refuses to apologize/explain, or keeps repeating this comment since "to me it's not offensive, it's just a joke/reference" etc, then this should be considered a problem and someone with authority should intervene. Similarly, if the person who took offense refuses to accept the mistake after an apology or explanation was given, then once again someone with authority should intervene and correct this error on this other side, as it unnecessarily creates a hostile working environment. This is the intended reading of that line. Of course, that line can also be mis-applied by immediately punishing the person from Eastern Europe in my initial example. Note: I used "person from Eastern Europe" in my example because that is where I am from, and because I have personally seen others around me using references to US culture without knowing the full context in just this way, without ill intent but in ways which would probably shock someone who assumes that the context is well known (for example, casually addressing peers using rap lyrics containing the infamous N-word).

Fellshard 5y ago
The changed rule explicitly removes good faith considerations.

prancer_or_vix 5y ago

You act like fucking up is the end of the world. In my experience, when someone "fucks up", I can reflect on my rapport with that person to determine whether or not it was intentional. Either way, I can say something to them about it. It is a sign of maturity to say "oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think that my words could be perceived in that way. My intent was.." If your intent is harmful, that's great, because I can help you with #2 by not interacting with you in the future. However, if your intent was reasonable, then no harm done. I walk away having set a healthy boundary for our relationship and you got to keep me around and strengthen our rapport. > I've taken #2 in almost all cases, because I'm definitely going to screw up because I'm human. This makes it sound like you're not willing to accept the effort of empathy.

gentleman11 5y ago
> You act like fucking up is the end of the world. People stopped forgiving and forgetting years ago. Every mistake people make follows them forever now. “Fucking up” is the end of the world for their careers since nobody wants to hire somebody who was publicly outed on Twitter for whatever they allegedly did Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?
- prancer_or_vix 5y ago
  I think you're overlooking the role that rapport plays in this. If you don't have a rapport (it's a new relationship, for example), one doesn't have that to rely on (this describes a significant portion of online interactions, like this one!). If one has a solid rapport with someone, and that person says something that one find upsetting, one's much less likely to attribute that behavior to malice, because rapport is just social context. > Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”? I think a more accurate thing to say is that those who are harmed and cannot contextualize it to be reasonable are not willing to enable that harmful behavior by the person that has harmed them. Empathy is just the act of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes to gain respect for their perspective". I can empathize with an asshole and decide that their behavior needs to be called out _despite_ OR _because of_ the context I have for that person (e.g. I might be more likely to call out inappropriate behavior in those with power than in those without power, with whom I might work more closely to come to an understanding privately, as there's really no use kicking someone when they're down).