Comment by JumpCrisscross
6 days 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.
[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.
> 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.
2 replies →