3 ms·

I have absolutely no need to get anywhere near the line of what anyone would think of being lewd.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> have absolutely no need to get anywhere near the line of what anyone would think of being lewd How is that relevant? The point is if one party can inconsequentially, to them, subjectively define lewdness and cause consequence to others through it, you will wind up with abuse and backlash. Whether it’s lewdness or moral uprightness or loyalty to a flag is besides the point.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    When Apple announced cycle tracking for the Apple Watch. You would be surprised how many people on HN thought that was a useless niche feature when it literally is something that affects every woman of child bearing age
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Are you really not capable of knowing what could be considered “lewd” and not go into that territory in polite company?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Are you really not capable of knowing what could be considered “lewd” and not go into that territory in polite company? I’m pretty sure I both am and am aware enough of the line and its ambiguity to weaponise it against someone else if I wanted to. Add to that cultural variance in where the line lies and you effectively wind up censoring cross-gender discussion of gender-relevant topics. I don’t think Graham is advocating for lewd jokes in the workplace, or suggesting the womens’ rights movements of the 60s were misplaced. He’s arguing against universally institutionalising rules of politeness, and being particularly wary of doing it one way. > in polite company Graham is arguing against the expansion of polite company to virtually the entire discussion space. In that, I kind of agree.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      > I’m pretty sure I both am and am aware enough of the line and its ambiguity to weaponise it against someone else if I wanted to. I have been in customer facing roles since mid 2020 as a consultant. There really is no ambiguity. I don’t talk about anything that can hint at going in a sexual direction, or politics or religion. I just don’t get involved with those types of conversation at work. Occasionally, I do have to talk about politics as it affects business especially since I spent a lot of time working in the Education/State and Local Government space. > He’s arguing against universally institutionalising rules of politeness, and being particularly wary of doing it one way. There has always been institutionalization of what one should and shouldn’t talk about in “polite company”. Those norms have changed through the years and rightfully so. Did your parents grow up in the Jim crow south? > Graham is arguing against the expansion of polite company to virtually the entire discussion space. In that, I kind of agree. How is that any different than it has always been? I talk differently when I’m with my friends and family in private than I do when I’m in public spaces. Society would look at me like I was crazy if I did the same amount of “cussing, drinking and telling lies” loudly like I do when I’m at home with my friends playing cards if I did it in public. We all “code switch” to an extent.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > There really is no ambiguity. I don’t talk about anything that can hint at going in a sexual direction, or politics or religion One can absolutely impute all kinds of nonsense from inaction as much as action. I’d also challenge the fact that I don’t need to make lewd jokes as extending to the premise that they need never be made. (Or that our refraining from making them doesn’t cover up something darker.) > norms have changed through the years and rightfully so. Did your parents grow up in the Jim crow south? And most of those shifts are reasonable. Some, however, are purely performative. Latinx is a frequent example, though I’ve never met anyone who seriously used it. As a gay non-white man, there is plenty of performative nonsense online that comes from people who I can’t imagine actually have any friends who are in the category they claim to be looking out for. (There are also jokes that, while off colour, speak to something true, even if they’re made at the expense of some of my immutable characteristics.)
renewiltord 2y ago
And yet, here you are, making the lewdest of remarks. You're making me uncomfortable and need to stop making hurtful accusations that could be damaging to people. We're trying to have a polite discussion here.
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. You can disagree without this. There was nothing lewd in what scarface_74 posted.
  - svieira 2y ago
    Correct, but if the point is "what is lewd can change out from under you without any consent on your part" ad contra scarface and in support of the OP, then this is a reasonable response (though I agree it would have been better to put it in quotes and then point out the issue in several follow-on paragraphs to better fit with the site. This isn't Reddit).
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      So give an example of what is now considered lewd that changed out from under you?
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      If anything, they provided an example of how the counter-argument is disingenuous: one person's opinion of what is and is not lewd did not dictate the community opinion on the topic in this context. Many of these complaints about arbitrary rules changing, to my observation, come from people who were simply unaware of a decades-long conversation happening in spaces they don't care to be invested in: sociological studies, gender studies, cultural studies, human behavior studies, etc. And when those conversations reach a well-reasoned consensus with convincing arguments that sway the hearts and minds of people with control over interaction spaces, it can be a little startling when rules change! But being upset about it is a little bit like being upset that the web APIs changed due to the publications of WHATWG while consistently ignoring the well-publicized discussions and work of WHATWG. Graham in this essay seems to be laboring under the belief that because these norms didn't originate from the STEM education space, the STEM industry space doesn't need to adopt them or take them seriously... As if they weren't originating from the space of professional consideration of sociology and human behavior.

> have absolutely no need to get anywhere near the line of what anyone would think of being lewd How is that relevant? The point is if one party can inconsequentially, to them, subjectively define lewdness and cause consequence to others through it, you will wind up with abuse and backlash. Whether it’s lewdness or moral uprightness or loyalty to a flag is besides the point.

gedpeck 2y ago
[flagged]
- scarface_74 2y ago
  When Apple announced cycle tracking for the Apple Watch. You would be surprised how many people on HN thought that was a useless niche feature when it literally is something that affects every woman of child bearing age
scarface_74 2y ago
Are you really not capable of knowing what could be considered “lewd” and not go into that territory in polite company?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Are you really not capable of knowing what could be considered “lewd” and not go into that territory in polite company? I’m pretty sure I both am and am aware enough of the line and its ambiguity to weaponise it against someone else if I wanted to. Add to that cultural variance in where the line lies and you effectively wind up censoring cross-gender discussion of gender-relevant topics. I don’t think Graham is advocating for lewd jokes in the workplace, or suggesting the womens’ rights movements of the 60s were misplaced. He’s arguing against universally institutionalising rules of politeness, and being particularly wary of doing it one way. > in polite company Graham is arguing against the expansion of polite company to virtually the entire discussion space. In that, I kind of agree.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    > I’m pretty sure I both am and am aware enough of the line and its ambiguity to weaponise it against someone else if I wanted to. I have been in customer facing roles since mid 2020 as a consultant. There really is no ambiguity. I don’t talk about anything that can hint at going in a sexual direction, or politics or religion. I just don’t get involved with those types of conversation at work. Occasionally, I do have to talk about politics as it affects business especially since I spent a lot of time working in the Education/State and Local Government space. > He’s arguing against universally institutionalising rules of politeness, and being particularly wary of doing it one way. There has always been institutionalization of what one should and shouldn’t talk about in “polite company”. Those norms have changed through the years and rightfully so. Did your parents grow up in the Jim crow south? > Graham is arguing against the expansion of polite company to virtually the entire discussion space. In that, I kind of agree. How is that any different than it has always been? I talk differently when I’m with my friends and family in private than I do when I’m in public spaces. Society would look at me like I was crazy if I did the same amount of “cussing, drinking and telling lies” loudly like I do when I’m at home with my friends playing cards if I did it in public. We all “code switch” to an extent.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > There really is no ambiguity. I don’t talk about anything that can hint at going in a sexual direction, or politics or religion One can absolutely impute all kinds of nonsense from inaction as much as action. I’d also challenge the fact that I don’t need to make lewd jokes as extending to the premise that they need never be made. (Or that our refraining from making them doesn’t cover up something darker.) > norms have changed through the years and rightfully so. Did your parents grow up in the Jim crow south? And most of those shifts are reasonable. Some, however, are purely performative. Latinx is a frequent example, though I’ve never met anyone who seriously used it. As a gay non-white man, there is plenty of performative nonsense online that comes from people who I can’t imagine actually have any friends who are in the category they claim to be looking out for. (There are also jokes that, while off colour, speak to something true, even if they’re made at the expense of some of my immutable characteristics.)

renewiltord 2y ago

And yet, here you are, making the lewdest of remarks. You're making me uncomfortable and need to stop making hurtful accusations that could be damaging to people. We're trying to have a polite discussion here.

dang 2y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. You can disagree without this. There was nothing lewd in what scarface_74 posted.
- svieira 2y ago
  Correct, but if the point is "what is lewd can change out from under you without any consent on your part" ad contra scarface and in support of the OP, then this is a reasonable response (though I agree it would have been better to put it in quotes and then point out the issue in several follow-on paragraphs to better fit with the site. This isn't Reddit).
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    So give an example of what is now considered lewd that changed out from under you?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    If anything, they provided an example of how the counter-argument is disingenuous: one person's opinion of what is and is not lewd did not dictate the community opinion on the topic in this context. Many of these complaints about arbitrary rules changing, to my observation, come from people who were simply unaware of a decades-long conversation happening in spaces they don't care to be invested in: sociological studies, gender studies, cultural studies, human behavior studies, etc. And when those conversations reach a well-reasoned consensus with convincing arguments that sway the hearts and minds of people with control over interaction spaces, it can be a little startling when rules change! But being upset about it is a little bit like being upset that the web APIs changed due to the publications of WHATWG while consistently ignoring the well-publicized discussions and work of WHATWG. Graham in this essay seems to be laboring under the belief that because these norms didn't originate from the STEM education space, the STEM industry space doesn't need to adopt them or take them seriously... As if they weren't originating from the space of professional consideration of sociology and human behavior.