D&D General Gen Con, Daisy, Sleeping in the Lobby and All That

[MGibster]

FWIW, most training uses "embarrassment" and "shame" interchangeably, and often uses "embarrassment or shame" given that there is no precise delineation. Other common phrases are "self-doubt," "guilt," "ashamed," and even "unease."

Most people use them interchangeably. But not allowing people to use flaunt when they really mean flout is a hill I will die on.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, words matter. And people with training and experience might be more likely to contribute to the conversation if they didn't think they'd be accused of victim-blaming because they used words that are actually employed in training, as opposed to the words you think are required.

This is not a training environment. This is a general discussion environment, where the perceived connotations of words are apt to be different. The language expectations should be set by the environment you are in.

Moreover, funny thing - I've been through training for convention security, specifically because I was on-call overnight to handle sexual harassment and assault incidents. That training specifically differentiated between the two terms, in the context of how a first responder should (and should not) use them with the victim, because one is commonly notably worse than the other.

So, given that training does not give everyone the same language use, it is probably not wise to lean into training language as authoritative in this discussion.

 

[eyeheartawk]

This is not a training environment. This is a general discussion environment. Language use expectation should be set for the environment you are in.

Moreover, funny thing - I've been through training for convention security, specifically to be on-call overnight to handle sexual harassment and assault incidents. That training specifically differentiated between the two terms.

So, given that training does not give everyone the same language, it is probably not wise to lean into training language as authoritative in this discussion.

So your experiences and training don't line up 100%.

That's fine and all, but like, it just seems a weirdly pedantic hill to die on.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that alot of people use shame and embarrassment interchangeably in speech.

Can we please not resort to needless purity tests and stop eating our own?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is not a training environment. This is a general discussion environment. Language use expectation should be set for the environment you are in.

Moreover, funny thing - I've been through training for convention security, specifically to be on-call overnight to handle sexual harassment and assault incidents. That training specifically differentiated between the two terms.

So, given that training does not give everyone the same language, it is probably not wise to lean into training language as authoritative in this discussion.

Okay, then I'll lean on this-

Your connotations are the not the same as everyone else's connotations.
Your labeling of how victims and survivors must feel (shamed, not embarrassed) is, in my opinion, wildly inappropriate. If you went through training, then you know that demanding victims and survivors feel a certain way is not appropriate. "Oh, you feel embarrassed? No, you don't. Let me explain to you why you need to feel deep and abiding shame- because only that captures your trauma, fear, and despair."

Moreover, funny thing ... you didn't address why you think it's appropriate to shame and publicly embarrass people who use perfectly acceptable terms that are part of training by accusing them of victim-blaming.

It is probably not wise to lean into this pedantic distinction when you are accusing them of victim-blaming for using accepted language.

Finally, given that you acknowledge that everyone does not use the same language, maybe it would have been best for you to just say, "Hey, my bad."

 

[MGibster]

I sometimes wonder if having a group of people who are largely in agreement leads to serious arguments over what are essentially petty issues.

 

[Ancalagon]

This... tendency we have of arguing over the minutia ... it's not good. I do it too, and I see it as a character flaw I am working on. But if we didn't argue about minutia, 50% of EN world posts would vanish...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I sometimes wonder if having a group of people who are largely in agreement leads to serious arguments over what are essentially petty issues.

I don't think accusing someone of "victim-blaming" for using an accepted term is a petty issue at all. That's .... that's pretty hardcore. So hardcore that the poster was going to leave the thread. YMMV.

OTOH, to move on to a different topic, I can't help but notice that people aren't discussing the issue of alcohol. I know that at work events I attend, I don't see people publicly vomiting and then continuing to drink.

It's a complicated topic, because discussing intoxication might cause some to incorrectly and improperly shift blame to the victim (if the victim was intoxicated) or incorrectly and improperly absolve the perpetrator (if the perpetrator was intoxicated), but harm reduction at these events .... well, alcohol seems to be a recurring issue. IMO.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think accusing someone of "victim-blaming" for using an accepted term is a petty issue at all. That's .... that's pretty hardcore. So hardcore that the poster was going to leave the thread. YMMV.

I'm more referring to what started us down this path: pedantry. I've had two careers where the the professional language was different from everyday parlance, and it's never been my job to correct them on their word choice. I had an employee come to me and say she wanted to file a grievance. I could have told her, "I'm not your union representative, and we don't even have a union, so you can't file a grievance. What you mean is that you have a complaint." But that would have agitated her (rightly so), and made it more difficult for us to communicate. (It turns out her "grievance" was that her manager insisted she actually do her job.)

OTOH, to move on to a different topic, I can't help but notice that people aren't discussing the issue of alcohol. I know that at work events I attend, I don't see people publicly vomiting and then continuing to drink.

At the first HR conference I attended, I jokingly told my peers, "I'm not going to drink so much I make any career ending decisions tonight." Some of my peers got slightly tipsy, I certianly wouldn't have driven, but nobody I could see got hammered. And the same was true of events with alcohol when I worked in libraries and museums. (I got paid to drink tequila with a representative from the Mexican consulate!) If I see someone obviously drunk, vomiting, and continuing to drink, that's indicative of a serious problem to me.

It's a complicated topic, because discussing intoxication might cause some to incorrectly and improperly shift blame to the victim (if the victim was intoxicated) or incorrectly and improperly absolve the perpetrator (if the perpetrator was intoxicated), but harm reduction at these events .... well, alcohol seems to be a recurring issue. IMO.

I wasn't sure how to bring up the alcohol consumption precisely for that reason, but it does seem like a contributing factor. But people are still responsible for their actions while under the influence. As Mitch Hedberg once said, "Alcholism is a disease, but it's the only disease you can get yelled at for having."

 

[ReshiIRE]

It's a complicated topic, because discussing intoxication might cause some to incorrectly and improperly shift blame to the victim (if the victim was intoxicated) or incorrectly and improperly absolve the perpetrator (if the perpetrator was intoxicated), but harm reduction at these events .... well, alcohol seems to be a recurring issue. IMO.

Alochol is a dangerous god damn drug and our culture does not treat it like that for a wide variety of reasons, most naughty word. It is also not an absolve of actions - if anything, it makes actions and the reasons behind them significantly worse.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Alochol is a dangerous god damn drug and our culture does not treat it like that for a wide variety of reasons, most naughty word. It is also not an absolve of actions - if anything, it makes actions and the reasons behind them significantly worse.

I completely agree that it does not absolve; after all, we arrest people for DUI.

I was more making an observation about the "partying" at conventions, and how it is a risk factor for this type of behavior and how we (as a society) often don't examine this.

I don't have any easy solutions, BTW. If there were easy solution, it wouldn't still be a problem. Maybe just the observation that going to a convention doesn't mean you get to drink yourself to oblivion without regard to the consequences to the people around you. And that conventions should be aware of problematic alcohol consumption.