3 ms·

"If a woman tells you that putting giant sexually suggestive images in front of her made her uncomfortable, you don’t get to bicker about that." Isn't this a s

by joecode 17y ago

"If a woman tells you that putting giant sexually suggestive images in front of her made her uncomfortable, you don’t get to bicker about that." Isn't this a sexist viewpoint itself? As if a woman's reasoning doesn't matter, just that you have offended, oh my, a female?

raganwald 17y ago
One could equally say that if I tell you that putting the word "Nigger" in a slide makes me feel uncomfortable, you don't get to bicker about that. It's just one of those things that matter if other people's feelings matter. I discovered this the hard way when I repeated a joke about Jews to a Jewish friend. As she put it, "Jokes are all in the delivery, and you have to be Jewish to deliver that joke."
- joecode 17y ago
  No, its not really the same thing. Because there is a very obvious reason that people are upset by that word. My point is merely that you need to explain your reasons, not merely point out your skin color or gender, as if that itself were a reason. Your Jewish friend, for example, has given a very good reason for why jokes about Jews by non-Jews are generally offensive. In fact, there are cases where using that word in a presentation would be perfectly legitimate, i.e. in a presentation about racist epithets. If someone objected to that, I would bicker with them, regardless of their skin color.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Your Jewish friend, for example, has given a very good reason for why jokes about Jews by non-Jews are generally offensive By way of conversation, not argument, I will share that at the time, her explanation was unsatisfying. I felt that she was saying "You Can't Say That" arbitrarily. Why was it ok for one person to tell that joke and not another? I didn't feel she was explaining the reasoning behind the rule, just telling me the rule. But time has passed, and now I understand that a joke about cultural stereotypes often means one thing when told by an outsider, another thing when told by an insider to an outsider, and a third thing when told by an insider to another insider. And of course, outsiders are sometimes oblivious to the nuances.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. But, nevertheless: It doesn't matter who you offend or why. If a person comes up to you and says "I'm not really a person; I'm really a tower of cats in a cunningly designed human suit, and your LOLcat photos offended me," the correct answer is still "Gosh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to offend. I really had no idea that cats would take my presentation in that way." After which you back carefully away and hope they don't come to your next talk. You should not respond with a passionate defense of free expression unless the person who approaches you is a cop trying to arrest you. [1] In general, nobody is trying to deny you the right to advertise your beliefs out loud. When they complain, you should assume that they are merely inviting you to walk back what you said before they commence avoiding you like the plague. Of course, if you really hate cats, you can always just respond with "good, I'm glad I offended you, you terrifying feline monstrosity!" Because very few Rails consulting customers are cats, that might not cost you much. Although, come to think of it, some Rails customers probably do employ cats, or people who love cats and care about their feelings. And there are many others who will feel mighty uncomfortable when the managers of the framework that lies beneath their million-dollar website become more concerned with aggressively asserting the universal freedom to hate cats than with keeping people like Mike Gunderloy on the team. What kind of priority is that? Enough with the sophomoric flamewar, already! --- [1] In which case, of course, you still shouldn't respond with a passionate defense. You should call up your lawyer and let her respond.
- joecode 17y ago
  That's pretty hillarious. But still I think it is useful when you offend a person to try to understand why. If there's something to it, then you apologize, and learn a lesson. But if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Meanwhile, if they're just being hyper-sensitive for no good reason, I am quite happy to pop their bubble.
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Not at all. The apology -- which one should issue immediately and without hesitation -- is full of meaning. Very important meaning. Just not literal meaning. What is the apology saying? "I hear you and I understand that you were really offended." "I am trying to listen to you." "I am not trying to hurt you on purpose." "I am not trying to deliberately start a giant flame war that tears our community apart." "I am open to reconsidering what I said, and the way I said it, in light of your interpretation of my words." "I have basic social skills and recognize the role of Apologizer when I see it." (See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 ) What the apology is not: An admission of guilt, an admission that you did something illegal or even something wrong. You do not have to break down in tears. You don't have to agree with the complainer. You don't have to change your mind. What you have to do is signal some sympathy: That you're a civilized person who is open to "trying to understand" the offended person. That you want to de-escalate the situation rather than start a fight. That you're not a troll -- that is, someone who (a) deliberately introduces a topic that is likely to be offensive and then (b) continues to push the buttons of any offended people until a giant flame war breaks out.

by joecode 17y ago

raganwald 17y ago

One could equally say that if I tell you that putting the word "Nigger" in a slide makes me feel uncomfortable, you don't get to bicker about that. It's just one of those things that matter if other people's feelings matter. I discovered this the hard way when I repeated a joke about Jews to a Jewish friend. As she put it, "Jokes are all in the delivery, and you have to be Jewish to deliver that joke."

joecode 17y ago
No, its not really the same thing. Because there is a very obvious reason that people are upset by that word. My point is merely that you need to explain your reasons, not merely point out your skin color or gender, as if that itself were a reason. Your Jewish friend, for example, has given a very good reason for why jokes about Jews by non-Jews are generally offensive. In fact, there are cases where using that word in a presentation would be perfectly legitimate, i.e. in a presentation about racist epithets. If someone objected to that, I would bicker with them, regardless of their skin color.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- raganwald 17y ago
  Your Jewish friend, for example, has given a very good reason for why jokes about Jews by non-Jews are generally offensive By way of conversation, not argument, I will share that at the time, her explanation was unsatisfying. I felt that she was saying "You Can't Say That" arbitrarily. Why was it ok for one person to tell that joke and not another? I didn't feel she was explaining the reasoning behind the rule, just telling me the rule. But time has passed, and now I understand that a joke about cultural stereotypes often means one thing when told by an outsider, another thing when told by an insider to an outsider, and a third thing when told by an insider to another insider. And of course, outsiders are sometimes oblivious to the nuances.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

I have no idea what you're talking about. But, nevertheless: It doesn't matter who you offend or why. If a person comes up to you and says "I'm not really a person; I'm really a tower of cats in a cunningly designed human suit, and your LOLcat photos offended me," the correct answer is still "Gosh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to offend. I really had no idea that cats would take my presentation in that way." After which you back carefully away and hope they don't come to your next talk. You should not respond with a passionate defense of free expression unless the person who approaches you is a cop trying to arrest you. [1] In general, nobody is trying to deny you the right to advertise your beliefs out loud. When they complain, you should assume that they are merely inviting you to walk back what you said before they commence avoiding you like the plague. Of course, if you really hate cats, you can always just respond with "good, I'm glad I offended you, you terrifying feline monstrosity!" Because very few Rails consulting customers are cats, that might not cost you much. Although, come to think of it, some Rails customers probably do employ cats, or people who love cats and care about their feelings. And there are many others who will feel mighty uncomfortable when the managers of the framework that lies beneath their million-dollar website become more concerned with aggressively asserting the universal freedom to hate cats than with keeping people like Mike Gunderloy on the team. What kind of priority is that? Enough with the sophomoric flamewar, already! --- [1] In which case, of course, you still shouldn't respond with a passionate defense. You should call up your lawyer and let her respond.

joecode 17y ago
That's pretty hillarious. But still I think it is useful when you offend a person to try to understand why. If there's something to it, then you apologize, and learn a lesson. But if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Meanwhile, if they're just being hyper-sensitive for no good reason, I am quite happy to pop their bubble.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Not at all. The apology -- which one should issue immediately and without hesitation -- is full of meaning. Very important meaning. Just not literal meaning. What is the apology saying? "I hear you and I understand that you were really offended." "I am trying to listen to you." "I am not trying to hurt you on purpose." "I am not trying to deliberately start a giant flame war that tears our community apart." "I am open to reconsidering what I said, and the way I said it, in light of your interpretation of my words." "I have basic social skills and recognize the role of Apologizer when I see it." (See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 ) What the apology is not: An admission of guilt, an admission that you did something illegal or even something wrong. You do not have to break down in tears. You don't have to agree with the complainer. You don't have to change your mind. What you have to do is signal some sympathy: That you're a civilized person who is open to "trying to understand" the offended person. That you want to de-escalate the situation rather than start a fight. That you're not a troll -- that is, someone who (a) deliberately introduces a topic that is likely to be offensive and then (b) continues to push the buttons of any offended people until a giant flame war breaks out.