As a man, I would in fact find being greeted like that offensive.
This man wouldn’t.
see something wrong
I’d say she didn’t see something wrong, she evaluated something as wrong—something that I did not, just you evaluated the knitting question as offensive, while I did not.
I’d say she didn’t see something wrong, she evaluated something as wrong—something that I did not, just you evaluated the knitting question as offensive, while I did not.
I’m sure we have all read our Korzybski, and grok the distinction that you are drawing to our attention, between levels of abstraction: between reality, perceptions, interpretations of those perceptions, deductions from those interpretations, etc. This is an important fact, but it also leaves out an important aspect of the matter.
This can be seen if the stakes are raised. A trifle such as the knitting question (a trifle, that is, in the way that a single drop of water falling on a rock is a trifle), is—a trifle. It is lost in the noise of everyday friction. It is easy to politely ignore, easy to not even notice. But if, instead of seeing someone make the remark under discussion, you see them yelling hostile obscenities, at someone else, or at you, you do not really have the option of saying, “well, you evaluate it as wrong, but I do not.”
It’s about how far you let things go before taking a stand. Different people will make different judgements, but I cannot fault Submitter C for making that stand at “So, do you actually read Less Wrong, or did someone drag you here?”
Why “take a stand” against a trifle that could very well be simply a misinterpretation?
Accusations of a moral affront are themselves a moral affront. You’ve crossed the rubicon. The stakes have been raised from mistake to attack. For my part, I would have found less fault in the original fellow if he had retaliated in kind than I find in Submitter C’s behavior as is.
Why “take a stand” against a trifle that could very well be simply a misinterpretation?
There are only so many excuses one can make for people before one has to wonder why they keep on having to be made.
Accusations of a moral affront are themselves a moral affront.
C’s response was “Are you saying that because she’s wearing heels and lipstick?”. Is that an accusation of a moral affront?
I wasn’t there; were you? If not, we’re likely both responding not just to the story as written, but to movies we’re playing in our respective heads as we read the words.
Submitter C, the primary source for the whole thing, has posted an update. It may be true that as she says, “The whole thing would have gone better if I had responded more charitably”, but that is hindsight talking about might-have-beens. In the moment, you respond as best you can with the information and time available.
And I get an uneasy feeling about this: “I think it was a genuine mistake/misunderstanding and not a deliberate attempt to alienate anyone.” Well, it wouldn’t be. That is the problem.
Did you edit this after initial posting, or am I drunk again?
In the moment, you respond as best you can with the information and time available.
And maybe next time her best will more accurately assess the situation, and she’ll respond more charitably.
No evidence that the first woman took offense. The first fellow says he didn’t mean anything by it. And Submitter C wishes she had responded more charitably. Looks like you’re the last holdout.
Well, it wouldn’t be. That is the problem.
And this problem is your wall of bricks?
Generalizations about women are bricks in the wall for which women should take a stand. She is entitled to react disproportionately to the immediate brick, because it is a part of a larger wall.
How many decades of such entitlement for women does a man need to live through until he is similarly entitled to disproportionate response to the bricks in his wall? For all my conscious life, and I’m pushing 50, entitling women to denigrate men has been standard operating procedure throughout mainstream media. It’s not just entitlement, it’s self righteous approval and condemnation of any man who objects. When a woman condemns you, you’ll take it and like it!
I don’t claim the right to disproportionate response. But I’m not going to cower meekly when it is tried on me. That’s where I make my stand.
Often it’s only when I see the posting that I realise I want to change something.
Same with me. For some reason my eyeballs don’t see the issue until I’ve submitted it. I think some of it is being able to see a bigger chunk of text at once. I wish we could make the editing window bigger.
How? Here I am editing in chrome, I go to the edges to tray and get a draggy thing, and I don’t get one. I can resize the screen, but that doesn’t give me more line like to work with. The box expands and shrinks in sync with the text.
How? Here I am editing in chrome, I go to the edges to tray and get a draggy thing, and I don’t get one.
Upgrade to a Mac? :-) There’s a draggy thing at the bottom right corner of the comment editing pane for me, put there by the browser, not the web page—it’s on editing panes in any web page. Safari at least has done this for years.
That’s just embedding your conclusion into your premises.
I embedded what I took as your characterization (trifle) and the possibility of misinterpretation. Rereading it, looks like you didn’t particularly commit to the where this stood on the scale, and the possibility of misinterpretation was a reality!
C has posted an update:
I think it was a genuine mistake/misunderstanding and not a deliberate attempt to alienate anyone. I don’t know how the other woman took the whole situation. I know it pushed my you-don’t-belong-here button, and I responded based on that. The whole thing would have gone better if I had responded more charitably.
“If I had responded more charitably”. Yes. Grant him the presumption of basic good will, and see whether the data is compatible with that.
C’s response was “Are you saying that because she’s wearing heels and lipstick?”.
Is that an accusation of a moral affront?
I think moral affront was taken and given. Yes. I believe that was the whole point. She was offended at what she took as some implication of the question, deeming it likely to offend.
I wasn’t there; were you? If not, we’re likely both responding not just to the story as written, but to movies we’re playing in our respective heads as we read the words.
I made the same point elsewhere. Yes, it’s a big problem that we’re all inevitable filling in the blanks and commenting on our individual hallucinations. These kind of discussions without shared concretes have a high degree of built in divisiveness to overcome, giving the tendency to hallucinate in our own favor.
This man wouldn’t.
I’d say she didn’t see something wrong, she evaluated something as wrong—something that I did not, just you evaluated the knitting question as offensive, while I did not.
I’m sure we have all read our Korzybski, and grok the distinction that you are drawing to our attention, between levels of abstraction: between reality, perceptions, interpretations of those perceptions, deductions from those interpretations, etc. This is an important fact, but it also leaves out an important aspect of the matter.
This can be seen if the stakes are raised. A trifle such as the knitting question (a trifle, that is, in the way that a single drop of water falling on a rock is a trifle), is—a trifle. It is lost in the noise of everyday friction. It is easy to politely ignore, easy to not even notice. But if, instead of seeing someone make the remark under discussion, you see them yelling hostile obscenities, at someone else, or at you, you do not really have the option of saying, “well, you evaluate it as wrong, but I do not.”
It’s about how far you let things go before taking a stand. Different people will make different judgements, but I cannot fault Submitter C for making that stand at “So, do you actually read Less Wrong, or did someone drag you here?”
Why “take a stand” against a trifle that could very well be simply a misinterpretation?
Accusations of a moral affront are themselves a moral affront. You’ve crossed the rubicon. The stakes have been raised from mistake to attack. For my part, I would have found less fault in the original fellow if he had retaliated in kind than I find in Submitter C’s behavior as is.
There are only so many excuses one can make for people before one has to wonder why they keep on having to be made.
C’s response was “Are you saying that because she’s wearing heels and lipstick?”. Is that an accusation of a moral affront?
I wasn’t there; were you? If not, we’re likely both responding not just to the story as written, but to movies we’re playing in our respective heads as we read the words.
Submitter C, the primary source for the whole thing, has posted an update. It may be true that as she says, “The whole thing would have gone better if I had responded more charitably”, but that is hindsight talking about might-have-beens. In the moment, you respond as best you can with the information and time available.
And I get an uneasy feeling about this: “I think it was a genuine mistake/misunderstanding and not a deliberate attempt to alienate anyone.” Well, it wouldn’t be. That is the problem.
Did you edit this after initial posting, or am I drunk again?
And maybe next time her best will more accurately assess the situation, and she’ll respond more charitably.
No evidence that the first woman took offense. The first fellow says he didn’t mean anything by it. And Submitter C wishes she had responded more charitably. Looks like you’re the last holdout.
And this problem is your wall of bricks?
Generalizations about women are bricks in the wall for which women should take a stand. She is entitled to react disproportionately to the immediate brick, because it is a part of a larger wall.
How many decades of such entitlement for women does a man need to live through until he is similarly entitled to disproportionate response to the bricks in his wall? For all my conscious life, and I’m pushing 50, entitling women to denigrate men has been standard operating procedure throughout mainstream media. It’s not just entitlement, it’s self righteous approval and condemnation of any man who objects. When a woman condemns you, you’ll take it and like it!
I don’t claim the right to disproportionate response. But I’m not going to cower meekly when it is tried on me. That’s where I make my stand.
Yes, within a few minutes of posting it, but not since. Often it’s only when I see the posting that I realise I want to change something.
Well, do that. I don’t see a problem.
Same with me. For some reason my eyeballs don’t see the issue until I’ve submitted it. I think some of it is being able to see a bigger chunk of text at once. I wish we could make the editing window bigger.
Safari, Firefox, and Chrome all let you resize any multi-line editing box.
How? Here I am editing in chrome, I go to the edges to tray and get a draggy thing, and I don’t get one. I can resize the screen, but that doesn’t give me more line like to work with. The box expands and shrinks in sync with the text.
Upgrade to a Mac? :-) There’s a draggy thing at the bottom right corner of the comment editing pane for me, put there by the browser, not the web page—it’s on editing panes in any web page. Safari at least has done this for years.
Like this.
I embedded what I took as your characterization (trifle) and the possibility of misinterpretation. Rereading it, looks like you didn’t particularly commit to the where this stood on the scale, and the possibility of misinterpretation was a reality!
C has posted an update:
“If I had responded more charitably”. Yes. Grant him the presumption of basic good will, and see whether the data is compatible with that.
I think moral affront was taken and given. Yes. I believe that was the whole point. She was offended at what she took as some implication of the question, deeming it likely to offend.
I made the same point elsewhere. Yes, it’s a big problem that we’re all inevitable filling in the blanks and commenting on our individual hallucinations. These kind of discussions without shared concretes have a high degree of built in divisiveness to overcome, giving the tendency to hallucinate in our own favor.