4 ms·

I didn't follow the "second cancellation", but re: the first cancellation, I think so far this thread has lost the fact that the Epstein/Minsky comments were no

I didn't follow the "second cancellation", but re: the first cancellation, I think so far this thread has lost the fact that the Epstein/Minsky comments were not the first comments RMS made about childhood sexuality. And that many of the other comments were cause for concern. But there does seem to be a lack of uniformity about cancellation. For example, many people seem totally unconcerned by the stuff Bernie Sanders wrote about toddler sexuality, but the same writings from RMS would almost certainly be considered deeply problematic. My take is that both are problematic. In other cases, sometimes I'll hear about problematic behavior that is on the order of "this awkward person asked me out," where the same behavior by a more attractive and charming person would be often welcome. It seems like the standard of acceptable behavior probably shouldn't depend on whether someone is attractive or charming. So IMO, the current approach depends a lot on social dynamics and both misses problematic behavior of popular people and also overly restricts normal behavior of unpopular people. I think we need a more rules-based approach, and my guess is that's where we'll eventually settle. Arguably, things seem to have trended that way already.

lukan 1y ago
"It seems like the standard of acceptable behavior probably shouldn't depend on whether someone is attractive or charming." It does not. Before asking someone out, there is also nonverbal communication happening like eye contact. Ignoring eye contact and all the little signs and then asking out of the blue can be awkward, but is also not problematic in a bad way, unless it was asked in a sexually charged way. The standard of acceptable behavior is reading all the little signs, before asking for more. But asking someone out in no sexually charged way is never problematic, even though it might result in comments.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  > The standard of acceptable behavior is reading all the little signs The thing that defines awkward behavior is being unable to read those signs. Conversely what makes someone charming is that they're better than average at reading those signs. So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct? It's also unclear how someone would learn to read those signs if the standard for acceptable behavior is already being able to read them. It seems like you'd need to build in the idea that learning a skill requires some failure trials.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Touching strangers without asking them first is probably not a good idea, regardless of whether you think you know the signs. (There's a rule for your rules-based approach: other people's bodies are private.)
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      Sure, I think that's a good rule. It's what we teach children. However, many courses that teach interpersonal skills (e.g. sales courses) encourage touching as a way to foster closeness. So in practice it seems like touching without asking isn't currently widely recognized to be unacceptable by the average person.
      - lukan 1y ago
        "So in practice it seems like touching without asking isn't currently widely recognized to be unacceptable by the average person." You always are supposed to ask. You just don't have to verbalize it every time. Like I said, eye contact for example. And then it really depends on the reaction, when and where and if a slight touch is appropriate. You can differentiate a smile and eye contact (approval) from not smiling and looking away? Because that basically is the fundamental "secret". And whether you are charming and attractive just influences the chance the other person will react with a welcoming smile. (good looks are really just a small factor here btw, but rather a relaxed smile paired with confidence)
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        And if you can't do this non-verbal communication – for example, if the other party is autistic, and you're not familiar enough with autistic body language(s) to figure out what they're saying – then you shouldn't treat it as an available communication channel.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct?" No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with being charming or attractive, that you look someone in the eye first and evaluate their reaction, before making closer contact. That is part of normal human communication. So if someone really cannot do it out of being autistic ... then it is up to them to communicate their unability to communicate like normal persons. Those are exceptions. But there is also a big group of people who use autism as an excuse to be an asshole. In the sense not really caring what reaction the other person gives. And then complaining other people feel molested (I had this exact conversation with someone who thought it is appropriate to ask unknown women directly for sex, without ever daring to look them in the eye first).

lukan 1y ago

"It seems like the standard of acceptable behavior probably shouldn't depend on whether someone is attractive or charming." It does not. Before asking someone out, there is also nonverbal communication happening like eye contact. Ignoring eye contact and all the little signs and then asking out of the blue can be awkward, but is also not problematic in a bad way, unless it was asked in a sexually charged way. The standard of acceptable behavior is reading all the little signs, before asking for more. But asking someone out in no sexually charged way is never problematic, even though it might result in comments.

ants_everywhere 1y ago
> The standard of acceptable behavior is reading all the little signs The thing that defines awkward behavior is being unable to read those signs. Conversely what makes someone charming is that they're better than average at reading those signs. So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct? It's also unclear how someone would learn to read those signs if the standard for acceptable behavior is already being able to read them. It seems like you'd need to build in the idea that learning a skill requires some failure trials.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Touching strangers without asking them first is probably not a good idea, regardless of whether you think you know the signs. (There's a rule for your rules-based approach: other people's bodies are private.)
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    Sure, I think that's a good rule. It's what we teach children. However, many courses that teach interpersonal skills (e.g. sales courses) encourage touching as a way to foster closeness. So in practice it seems like touching without asking isn't currently widely recognized to be unacceptable by the average person.
    - lukan 1y ago
      "So in practice it seems like touching without asking isn't currently widely recognized to be unacceptable by the average person." You always are supposed to ask. You just don't have to verbalize it every time. Like I said, eye contact for example. And then it really depends on the reaction, when and where and if a slight touch is appropriate. You can differentiate a smile and eye contact (approval) from not smiling and looking away? Because that basically is the fundamental "secret". And whether you are charming and attractive just influences the chance the other person will react with a welcoming smile. (good looks are really just a small factor here btw, but rather a relaxed smile paired with confidence)
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        And if you can't do this non-verbal communication – for example, if the other party is autistic, and you're not familiar enough with autistic body language(s) to figure out what they're saying – then you shouldn't treat it as an available communication channel.
- lukan 1y ago
  "So the standard as you've stated if we take it literally seems to reiterate the idea that some behavior from charming people is acceptable but from awkward people is not. But it also sounds like that is not what you intend, is that correct?" No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with being charming or attractive, that you look someone in the eye first and evaluate their reaction, before making closer contact. That is part of normal human communication. So if someone really cannot do it out of being autistic ... then it is up to them to communicate their unability to communicate like normal persons. Those are exceptions. But there is also a big group of people who use autism as an excuse to be an asshole. In the sense not really caring what reaction the other person gives. And then complaining other people feel molested (I had this exact conversation with someone who thought it is appropriate to ask unknown women directly for sex, without ever daring to look them in the eye first).