if you think artists should be paid give them money directly, or go to shows and buy merch.
nearly all intellectual property barriers make no sense in a post-internet world. we effectively live in a world without intellectual property barriers (because piracy is easy and prolific) but for some reason people refuse to acknowledge the free and open flow of art and information as a good thing.
That's because there's no such thing as the free and open flow of art if there's little or no art - or at least high quality art - being made, because creators aren't being rewarded.
It's odd how rarely there's no apparent understanding that the flow needs to go both ways - and if it doesn't go both ways, there is no flow.
I have an unusual perspective on this because 90% of the music I listen to is remixes and 90% of the literature I read is fanfiction.
Which are works of art where a good fraction of the work is done by unpaid amateurs who are at risk of being sued by the "original artists" (or rather their labels/publishers).
The point is, from that perspective, copyright is an existential threat to a very large fraction of the art I consume.
If artists don't get paid directly by sales to consumers absolutely nothing bad will happen. Society will have an abundance of artistic output and artists will find ways to monetise their art anyway. Don't pretend otherwise.
Sure, some middle layers become obsolete, but the point of art wasn't to provide food for its one time symbiotic parasites.
straight men commenting on the attractiveness of women's bodies is pretty blatantly sexual. what other reason is there to make that kind of comment? "pure aesthetics"? like Wow Jessica from accounting's body is consistent with Greek Ideals about Archetypal Female Beauty. come on.
Commenting on someone's bathing suit is not inherently sexual, because we do it in non-sexual contexts; for example, I complemented my nephiew's new swim trunks earlier this summer.
A particular complement might be sexual, but we shouldn't assume that. For all we know, the guy is gay, and we are now discriminating against that.
Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not inherently sexual. Have you never admired a female athlete, the way you admire a male athelete?
> Commenting on someone's bathing suit is not inherently sexual, because we do it in non-sexual contexts; for example, I complemented my nephiew's new swim trunks earlier this summer.
The person wasn't commenting on the bathing suit but on how a coworker's body looked in a bathing suit.
I suppose without additional context we will not know whether it was indeed sexual or not, but if it didn't make anyone uncomfortable I don't see why anyone would bother reporting it.
>Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not sexual. Have you never admired a femal athlete, the way you admire a male athelete?
I am bisexual so the analogy doesn't quite work lol. and yes sometimes that can be non-sexual, but a workplace is not a place to make those kinds of comments because it is a VERY thin line and can easily make someone uncomfortable. and 99% of the time men commenting on women's bodies is sexual or has sexual undertones so it's really a corner case here. when's the last time you heard a straight man say something like "wow she always has super cool outfits and I love what she does with her makeup" or whatever lol.
> 99% of the time men commenting on women's bodies is sexual or has sexual undertones
Stereotyping is ok, as long as we do it for the right reasons!
> when's the last time you heard a straight man say something like "wow she always has super cool outfits and I love what she does with her makeup" or whatever lol.
The same time the same straight men wasn't called sexual harasser for such comment. So you basically say "men complimenting women coworkers are sexual harassers" and then ask "why don't men compliment women coworkers more in non-sexual context?". I hope you can see a case of circular reasoning here.
no i made a distinction between commenting on the attractiveness of a woman's body and something that is purely aesthetic and non-sexual (clothing and makeup)
I used to have conversations like that with a female roommate, and since then, have developed some interesting ideas about human-born artwork.
It sounds to me like the phenomenon you are describing is a form of dysfunctionality that is not universal to all men. It is incorrect, specifically sexist, to insist that all men can only see woman for their sexual potential. Please stop, you are doing us all (including women!) a great disservice.
that's good, most women don't really want unsolicited comments from strangers on their appearance, and frequently experience unwanted comments. I know women who literally every time they go out get catcalled.
How did you know this was a straight man talking about a woman?
> "pure aesthetics"
You do not think people can appreciate the beauty of human body without wanting to immediately have sex with it? Ever been to a museum? Especially classical section? A lot of skin there. Apparently, those people were real maniacs and sexual predators...
I think the exact wording and context is important here.
"Hey Googlette, you look really good in a bathing suit" is a comment about how the woman's body looks in a revealing outfit. I'd say this is generally unprofessional, though in some contexts (perhaps she'd just been expressing a lack of confidence in her body), it could still be appropriate.
"Hey Googlette, that bathing suit looks really good on you" is a comment on the particular bathing suit and how the combination works well. It's potentially more of a comment on her good choice and fashion sense than on her body. If the bathing suit is particularly risqué then it might be inappropriate but if it's just a normal bathing suit I don't think it'd be any more inappropriate than "your new haircut looks really good" or "is that a new top? It looks really good".
a good rule of thumb is just to never make any comments about a female coworker's body. it's very easy to cross over to unprofessional territory and make someone feel uncomfortable or degraded. that's the rule I've followed my entire life.
First situation that comes to mind is in a conversation where the coworker has raised the subject in conversation:
"I've been working out a lot the last few months. I managed to lose a lot of weight and I think I look good."
"Yeah, you looks great, that work definitely paid off."
The coworker brought it up, which indicates that they're comfortable talking about it and the comment is a celebration of the coworker's achievement rather than any kind of expression of sexual desire.
And then of course there are professions where the body is directly relevant to the work, like acting, modelling and sports/atheleticism.
All this really depends on context though. In a corporate office where everyone's barely more than strangers, I don't think even the situation above would be appropriate. In a small business where a "coworker" is as much a close friend as a colleague, I think the threshold for what's acceptable is very different.
You asked for an example after already seeing that one, clearly giving it to you again would just lead to pointless debate so it makes sense to give you a new one.
Your comment was one of the points argued in the memo.
It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else:
>increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies.
This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.
Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment. That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all.
I understand that part, but I don't understand how that sentence relates to the second:
"That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all."
If there's a missing "if" before the "it's" in his first sentence, I can only assume he means it takes effort to restrain oneself from being unfiltered, but there's an uncanny taste of an insult I can't pinpoint.
(I'm not the OP, so I might be misrepresenting taysic's views here.)
I think for clarity I'd add a comma:
> Usually, if it takes work to distinguish, it's not worth it within a work environment.
Such that it's read as:
> Usually, if it takes work to distinguish [whether it's worth it,] it's not worth it within a work environment.
The idea is that in a professional environment, part of "being professional" is avoiding those situations where your comments might be read as unwelcome. With a viable rule of thumb being to just err on the side of assuming they'd be unwelcome in any case where you have to think about it.
I see now looking through that lense it makes sense. After re-reading my comment he was replying to I think I understand exactly what the OP was trying to convey.
"If you have to consciously figure out if comments are malevolent or not, you should find a new workplace."
And that "that's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all," implies more real work is done when you're not playing office politics, and everyone comes out happier because of it.
In retrospect, it seems like a silly thing to try and figure out.
your intentions don't excuse inappropriate behavior.
if you really didn't intend to say something that made someone feel disrespected, your response should be "Oh, I am so sorry, I won't make that kind of comment in the future", not "Well you're wrong for being offended." that kind of response is basically saying "your feelings don't matter, all that matters is what is going on in my head and not what I actually did and how it actually made you feel"
There's a difference between "sexual harassment" and "sexual harassment to a level that's criminal". I think it's reasonable to say that something is simultaneously inappropriate at work and not something you should be arrested for.
Is the primary authority's (EEOC) definition of sexual harassment:
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.[0]
And is the primary authority's (EEOC) definition of harassment in general:
Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.[1]
Neither of which make the remark in-question constitute of sexual harassment or harassment in-general. I'm sure there is a proper word that accurately describes unwanted remarks about a person's body, but by calling it sexual harassment you are marginalizing the serious cases of sexual harassment that fit under the legal definition.
Mind you, by that definition it's easy to construe it as borderline "unwelcome sexual advances" or "verbal harassment of a sexual nature".
That said, I acknowledge it's very situational whether something might be read as unwelcome. Which is why avoiding these things in a professional context seems pretty wise.
Anyway, since we're replying here to door's comment... I think they're right regardless of whether we want to call it "sexual harassment". If you offend someone in a way which feels creepy / harassing to them, even assuming that you absolutely meant it in a non-sexual non-flirtatious entirely-platonic matter, your should apologize, maybe clarify your intentions, and say you'll do better in the future. Attempting to argue that you didn't mean it that way so they shouldn't be offended is counterproductive.
I agree with you there. If someone unintentionally offends another, an apology, followed up with extras (e.g clarification) where needed, is the correct course of action.
My only gripe was with semantics, which have the potential to do more harm than good.
As a person of grammar, I'm offended by the fact that you don't capitalize the first word in your sentences. It doesn't excuse your inappropriate behavior that you may not have intended it.
no one is saying you can't say things, they are just saying you can't say things in certain places. there have ALWAYS been regulations, both legal and market, on what you can say on tv, radio, in newspapers. 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it.
now we have large mainstream internet communities like reddit that also put justifiable limits on what can be said. no one is saying you cant start a racist irc channel or bbs board, they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
> 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it.
The New York times also never publicly advertised themselves as a "Free Speech Platform" that was "open to all persons and views"
>they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see
Well one, it is clear you yourself are not a supporter of Freedom of Speech.
Two, so do you believe that a massive platform with millions of people should be forced to sensor speech you find to be "horrible"
One of the things I always question when people start classify speech as "horrible" is who subjective it is. For example I think it is "horrible" that the christian region is given prominent placement in society. I believe the views of the Christian Region to be "horrible" and I consider indoctrinating children into said religion to be abuse. Would you support a massive platform banning all references to Christianity? And if they did would support them calling themselves "Supporters of Free Speech" while doing so?
//and before the Christians get all butt hurt, I oppose any and all organized religions, I think they are all bullshit. Christianity however is the most popular religion in America so I use it to highlight my point
if you think that calling racism or nazism horrible is "subjective" then you clearly have no solid principles and this conversation is over
i think you're wrong about christianity, and we can debate whether or not advocacy of it should be allowed on a public platform. i think comparing it to nazism, targeted harassment, child porn/revenge porn, and hate speech (really the only things banned on reddit for example) is delusional
thats the nature of the free market - if you don't like patreon, start your own more nazi-friendly site and see how it goes (hint: poorly). the state is unique in that it has a monopoly on regulating speech - a state should have very very little power in regulating what can be said, because you can't avoid the state. you can always find an internet community that will allow you to say something truly vile.
even the most insane libertarian couldn't defend that position. by your definition doxing, targeted harassment and child pornagraphy is "free speech"
free speech means everyone can participate in a marketplace of ideas, where competing perspectives challenge each other to expose the truth. i don't think you could defend targeted harassment and advocacy of violence by that measure.
transactions are public but if no one knows that a public key is yours it's difficult to trace. and like you said, there's tools to anonymize your bitcoin transactions completely
Tumbling is supposed to make tracking non-trivial. Anyways you can always convent to another coin, especially one with more anonymity, and then back to Bitcoin.
no, but the impact of something like, reducing coal by 10% and increasing nuclear by 10% is. the advantage is a slight reduction in emmisions and a slight increase in the possibility of a severe nuclear disaster. that's certainly a debate to be had, but one side isn't "more rational" than the other.
Why not? These billionaire capitalists don't force people to work for them nor do they force people to buy their products and services - but people do in large numbers. A sort of democratic vote against your submission. Are the people who don't buy into their products suffering in some way? Explain!
What a strange condition. Why not I want to live in a world where people aren't hungry? What about a world without suffering? A world without conflict and scarcity?
If iPhone manufacturing is your only gripe with this world we find ourselves in, I'd say we've got it pretty good.
pretty much every technological advancement and the quality of life improvement that came with it is through capitalism. There's a reason that Cuba and Soviet Russia were basically trapped in time
nearly all technological improvements are built, at their core, on work that was done by publicly-funded research or volunteer/non-profit work. the internet is a good example
people aren't equal so you're going to have inequality unless you regulate things so everything is equal outcome, in which case you will end up with a failed civilization due to there being no reason for talented people to work hard because they get no benefit for doing so.
theres a difference between inequality in the sense of "a junior developer makes 60k, a senior developer makes 100k" (what you're talking about, and which is totally fine) and the inequality that actually exists, whereby a small number of extraordinarily wealthy people control a massive proportion of wealth while those in poverty lack access to food security, healthcare, childcare, the basic necessities of life.
>whereby a small number of extraordinarily wealthy people control a massive proportion of wealth while those in poverty lack access to food security, healthcare, childcare, the basic necessities of life
May be a more important question is why those people lack those things you mentioned. If for instance Bill Gates/Jeff Bezos never existed, would it make those poor people richer? You are not addressing the problem when you simply vilify the rich as the cause of the poor's woes. Your argument is intellectually dishonest and I think it stems from unnecessary envy.
if you think artists should be paid give them money directly, or go to shows and buy merch.
nearly all intellectual property barriers make no sense in a post-internet world. we effectively live in a world without intellectual property barriers (because piracy is easy and prolific) but for some reason people refuse to acknowledge the free and open flow of art and information as a good thing.