4 ms·

> The really sad thing about is that the vast majority of guys I talk to about this topic are simply not aware that women, especially attractive women, go throu

> The really sad thing about is that the vast majority of guys I talk to about this topic are simply not aware that women, especially attractive women, go through stuff like this all the time. So when they hear women complaining about discrimination, harassment, glass ceilings, and so on, they think those women are simply "being bitchy." Which simply perpetuates and intensifies the status quo. Assuming not all (attractive) women will publicly or privately complain about such behaviors by men, will the others submit to such behaviors by the men in those positions? Will some women complain (public/privately) and still submit to such behaviors, and what circumstances is that more likely to happen? And is that act submission more socially accepted than say, if the sexes were reversed? Tangent: I wonder if such things could be analytically studied? Some one could mine sites like HN, twitter, etc for a signal. Check the various states of the author of such. But then it would be hard to match that with the outcomes of submitting to such behavior or not without some kind of surveillance. Meta: My tangent makes me really wonder what the world could be like where the current information asymmetry when it comes to present and technically possible surveillance systems, did not exist, where nearly everyone could leverage such scale of information in the same way that nearly everyone can leverage the atmosphere to breathe… Edit: So I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted since I'm not trying to lead any bias towards any group that could be placed on either side of the interactions, It could be Martian's propositioning some being from Alpha Centauri system. Is pondering a way to study such things (and how one could even approach to) so controversial such that no one will respond yet shame at the same time? It's like we're not even allowed to try to explore what is going on. We all must trout out more anecdota, spout out more faux outrage about what has been going on (we're all apart of the status quo, and even with the internet outrage we haven't progressed very far in understanding it seems, who could have guessed…), and damn everything else. Anyone going to propose another reason to refute that's not what's going on here? Maybe someone can point me to a place where I could attempt to frame such ideas/questions/ways to approach studying such things and doesn't cost $xx,000 per year, since apparently, HN isn't for such. Amusing HN…

joe_the_user 13y ago
It could be Martian's propositioning some being from Alpha Centauri system. I didn't downvote you, though I was tempted. I think what's happening people are taking offense at exactly your detached tone, where what they're looking for is a human response. Involved Person: Oh my god, did you see that guy who was just shot. Disengaged person: Yeah, the way the blood spurted out of his head was fascinating, I've cut up with an equation for the arc it took. You see how an involved person can take offense at someone's disengagement?
- mindslight 13y ago
  Not just a human response, but one that matches theirs. Attempting rational analysis in the presence of an angry mob is not a good idea - your only real options are to actively join in the fun, or stay at home with the lights off.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    > Attempting rational analysis in the presence of an angry mob is not a good idea - your only real options are to actively join in the fun, or stay at home with the lights off. Probably great advice for the meatspace, but I question if such needs to be the lowest common denominator for online interactions. But I guess some people must be thinking: "How could this person not derive any pleasure/fun from deriding another human being (or in this case, anonymous men who abuse their position in power or in society for a variety of reasons not made apparent but must be inferred by the audience, but human being nonetheless), especially when its socially accepted to do so?!?! How dare he (go figure, but he's admitted to being black [gasp!] so now I'm confused!?!?!) not partake in a sadomasochistic expression of the human condition!?!?!"
    - mindslight 13y ago
      Well the online consequences are a lot less serious. The possibility of some downvotes is not dissuading either one of us from carrying on saying what we think. I said what I did mainly to point out that this whole thread is indeed mob behavior, because the phenomenon seems have gotten really bad in this community lately. But even if I do get greyed out, it doesn't really matter because a few people will still read nuance and see that there are indeed people who don't agree but aren't just part of a rival mob. In meatspace, my voice would have been drowned out by the jeers of the day ("faggot" (1995), "traitor" (2005), "privileged" (2015), etc), so that's some incremental improvement to be thankful for. I don't really think it's a thought of "why don't you take pleasure joining in", but a very base judgment of whether someone is with-us or against-us. Since you're not outraged at this very important subject, you must not share my values. And since you have different values, you must be a contributor to the problem.

joe_the_user 13y ago

It could be Martian's propositioning some being from Alpha Centauri system. I didn't downvote you, though I was tempted. I think what's happening people are taking offense at exactly your detached tone, where what they're looking for is a human response. Involved Person: Oh my god, did you see that guy who was just shot. Disengaged person: Yeah, the way the blood spurted out of his head was fascinating, I've cut up with an equation for the arc it took. You see how an involved person can take offense at someone's disengagement?

mindslight 13y ago
Not just a human response, but one that matches theirs. Attempting rational analysis in the presence of an angry mob is not a good idea - your only real options are to actively join in the fun, or stay at home with the lights off.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  > Attempting rational analysis in the presence of an angry mob is not a good idea - your only real options are to actively join in the fun, or stay at home with the lights off. Probably great advice for the meatspace, but I question if such needs to be the lowest common denominator for online interactions. But I guess some people must be thinking: "How could this person not derive any pleasure/fun from deriding another human being (or in this case, anonymous men who abuse their position in power or in society for a variety of reasons not made apparent but must be inferred by the audience, but human being nonetheless), especially when its socially accepted to do so?!?! How dare he (go figure, but he's admitted to being black [gasp!] so now I'm confused!?!?!) not partake in a sadomasochistic expression of the human condition!?!?!"
  - mindslight 13y ago
    Well the online consequences are a lot less serious. The possibility of some downvotes is not dissuading either one of us from carrying on saying what we think. I said what I did mainly to point out that this whole thread is indeed mob behavior, because the phenomenon seems have gotten really bad in this community lately. But even if I do get greyed out, it doesn't really matter because a few people will still read nuance and see that there are indeed people who don't agree but aren't just part of a rival mob. In meatspace, my voice would have been drowned out by the jeers of the day ("faggot" (1995), "traitor" (2005), "privileged" (2015), etc), so that's some incremental improvement to be thankful for. I don't really think it's a thought of "why don't you take pleasure joining in", but a very base judgment of whether someone is with-us or against-us. Since you're not outraged at this very important subject, you must not share my values. And since you have different values, you must be a contributor to the problem.