Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6878345" data-attributes="member: 177">No.&nbsp; I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs.&nbsp; It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported.&nbsp; The post has missed the point of the thread, really.And this is common - it is rather like the &quot;not all men&quot; argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand.&nbsp; You say that, but it happens pretty regularly.&nbsp; I had to report such an issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January.&nbsp; There's a large chunk of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they think it is okay for them to do it!&nbsp; Worry about those hose-heads first, and worry about agreeing on hiring practices later.&nbsp; There's a whole lot of supposedly clear-cut stuff that needs to be worked on.&nbsp; Again, no.&nbsp; As I have noted, there is no perfection.&nbsp; But there *is* sufficiency.&nbsp; You seem to suggest that there's going to be this vast minefield of things that are going to get you keel-hauled for doing, and that's just not true.&nbsp; With respect - some folks in this discussion may not realize it, but they are asking for 100% reliable rules for social interaction - they want to be able to enter an interaction with 100% certainty that either they won't offer offense, or won't be offended (or that any offense they see will with 100% certainty be dealt with).&nbsp; That's making perfect the enemy of good, and isn't realistic.&nbsp; And it isn't even required.We do not need to work to the goal of nobody ever having something they don't like in front of them.&nbsp; We merely need to bring the number of issues down to the point where they are not oppressive or scary.&nbsp; And, no, we don't need to agree on the details of meritocracy in hiring to reach that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6878345, member: 177"] No. I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs. It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported. The post has missed the point of the thread, really. And this is common - it is rather like the "not all men" argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand. You say that, but it happens pretty regularly. I had to report such an issue myself at my local sci-fi con in January. There's a large chunk of people who do not agree with you on the morality of groping - they think it is okay for them to do it! Worry about those hose-heads first, and worry about agreeing on hiring practices later. There's a whole lot of supposedly clear-cut stuff that needs to be worked on. Again, no. As I have noted, there is no perfection. But there *is* sufficiency. You seem to suggest that there's going to be this vast minefield of things that are going to get you keel-hauled for doing, and that's just not true. With respect - some folks in this discussion may not realize it, but they are asking for 100% reliable rules for social interaction - they want to be able to enter an interaction with 100% certainty that either they won't offer offense, or won't be offended (or that any offense they see will with 100% certainty be dealt with). That's making perfect the enemy of good, and isn't realistic. And it isn't even required. We do not need to work to the goal of nobody ever having something they don't like in front of them. We merely need to bring the number of issues down to the point where they are not oppressive or scary. And, no, we don't need to agree on the details of meritocracy in hiring to reach that. [/QUOTE]

Verification