> 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.
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
> 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.
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.
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).
"According to your opinion, and it's your site so you can censor people who speak up. But I can see that you don't take sexual violence seriously. It's your choice to enable serial sexual harassment through lewd comments."
There I put it in quotes so you can see the point being made. Considering I can attribute lewdness to nothing, I am easily capable of doing so from any comment. Now, as an "individual of color experiencing comment censorship" (the phrase for someone who is downvoted), I demand action.
> 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.
[flagged]
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
Are you really not capable of knowing what could be considered “lewd” and not go into that territory in polite company?
> 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.
3 replies →
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.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. You can disagree without this. There was nothing lewd in what scarface_74 posted.
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).
3 replies →
"According to your opinion, and it's your site so you can censor people who speak up. But I can see that you don't take sexual violence seriously. It's your choice to enable serial sexual harassment through lewd comments."
There I put it in quotes so you can see the point being made. Considering I can attribute lewdness to nothing, I am easily capable of doing so from any comment. Now, as an "individual of color experiencing comment censorship" (the phrase for someone who is downvoted), I demand action.
2 replies →