Page 4 of 9
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:08 am
by Shiritai
shau wrote:
The thing is though, this whole thing really has very little to do with what happened in an elevator in four o'clock in the morning. The only thing that has really happened here is that a young woman found a particular sexual advance creepy and asked that similar advances not be made in the future. And that one little statement has been more than enough for the half the internet to lose its fucking mind. People here are seriously arguing their civil rights were violated. And this makes me very sad, because people really are paying attention to this shit and it could absolutely have a chilling effect on whether or not a woman reports sexual harassment, molestation, or even rape. Because if Watson gets this much shit just for saying she felt something was inappropriate, what will they have to deal with?
If she just said it was inappropriate, or creepy, or whatever, this never would have ballooned like it did. No, Watson said elevator guy was
sexually objectifying her, in her own words, "... dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question." Propositioning someone and then backing off when they voice disinterest is not
sexually objectifying; it's quite the opposite, treating them as a person.
And then later the whole thing became "all men are potential rapists", but that's a different mess altogether.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:38 am
by TheJerkStore
FrankTrollman wrote:
Dragon Child, I don't normally say this: but if I met you in real life I would punch you in the dick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZMbs5PC64
Lol. Are you 14, Frank? If you can't argue without making physical threats then you don't have a point. Pathetic.
EDIT: But yeah. You, Matticus, and Kaelik are either rape apologists or autists who don't understand that when anyone says they're tired, you DON'T continue to badger them. That is an actual tactic date-rapists use, badgering during a moment of weakness.
The guy was in the wrong, and the fact that you're pulling more and more incoherent babbling reasons out of your stank, unwashed assholes tells me that I shouldn't trust anyone woman I care about in your presense for any length of time.
Seriously, just stop. You're not even forming your thoughts into coherent sentences anymore, you're babbling like babies.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:04 am
by TheJerkStore
DragonChild wrote:
This conversation I think is pretty much over and making me wonder why I even bother coming here anymore.
Bro, I'm with you. I came here because of the rep this board has (as a no-holds-barred logic bomb right to the face). Instead, I see a hugbox for people so dysfunctional I can't imagine most of these people actually holding a job for any length of time.
I see nothing really new created, just the same ideas repeated over and over, louder and louder with more swearing as if that means anything when your ideas are bad. Sorry, Den. Bad ideas don't get better with volume and swearing.
There is no logic, no discussion, no truth to be found here. Just a bunch of hand-flapping autistic [EDITED] screaming and shitting their pants. The signal-to-noise ratio is the worst I've ever seen, and I'm a fa/tg/uy.
please don't evade the filter in order to post slurs. --Z
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:19 am
by sabs
TheJerkStore wrote:FrankTrollman wrote:
Dragon Child, I don't normally say this: but if I met you in real life I would punch you in the dick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZMbs5PC64
Lol. Are you 14, Frank? If you can't argue without making physical threats then you don't have a point. Pathetic.
EDIT: But yeah. You, Matticus, and Kaelik are either rape apologists or autists who don't understand that when anyone says they're tired, you DON'T continue to badger them. That is an actual tactic date-rapists use, badgering during a moment of weakness.
The guy was in the wrong, and the fact that you're pulling more and more incoherent babbling reasons out of your stank, unwashed assholes tells me that I shouldn't trust anyone woman I care about in your presense for any length of time.
Seriously, just stop. You're not even forming your thoughts into coherent sentences anymore, you're babbling like babies.
In what universe is asking someone up to your hotel room once badgering? And how is, "want to go get some coffee" objectifying as a piece of meat?
If you call someone a rape apologist to their face, you should expect some violent reaction. Unless they actually are one. Which noone has been yet.
Even walking up to a complete stranger and saying, "Fancy a shag" is not attempted rape.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:21 am
by virgil
I hope you see the irony (or is it hypocrisy) in accusing people on the Den of being rape apologists, attempting to place yourself on the moral high-ground, while using language such as "hand-flapping autistic f@gg0ts," which I find surprisingly offensive.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:28 am
by Dean
TheJerkStore wrote:Just a bunch of hand-flapping autistic f@gg0ts
Shame you couldn't teach us more of your noble moral truths about civil rights. Here me and my group of autistic homo's will just have to try to find out what's moral without you our shining white knight. If only us dumb queers could have taken more from you.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:03 am
by Grek
With Watson, was the man who invited her up to his hotel room one of the people who attended her seminar? I can definitely sympathize with her if, after attending her "don't go around constantly soliciting casual sex at these conventions, it's creepy and makes the event into a hostile environment for women" speech, a man did exactly the thing she said not to do. Less so if she just went berserk on some random guy who happened to be at the convention and didn't know that Watson was outspokenly opposed to receiving offers of casual sex.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:17 am
by Username17
If you feel the need to insult homosexuals and the mentally ill while supposedly defending the rights of oppressed groups of people to feel comfortable, you should consider the possibility that in fact you are in the wrong.
Now, I know that my position is that you can't know for sure what will make someone feel uncomfortable, and you can't be expected to avoid the triggers of people you don't know. But throwing around hate speech like "f@ggots" and "autists" is well over the line of what I'm prepared to defend. Insults which are designed to marginalize and offend groups of people are in fact things that you could damn well be expected to know will be hateful and offensive to those groups.
Which is very much not like being asked to successfully guess whether a person will feel more comfortable in an elevator because they are standing in one of the most monitored and secure locations in a large convention hosting hotel, or less comfortable because it's literally an enclosed space. Remember: no one is saying that people don't have the right to be uncomfortable, and no one is saying that people don't have the right to have their wishes respected.
But telling someone that you are treating someone a particular way because they might be a rapist is flat offensive. You have the right to cross the street when you see a big strong (black) man on the same sidewalk as you. But it's still offensive when you do that. If that person had no intention of mugging or raping you, and you treat them like a heinous criminal that's offensive. And being surprised that people are offended when you do that is really weird. if you call someone a rapist, they are going to get mad at you. That is a thing that is going to happen. Because it's deeply insulting. Unless it's South Africa and they are one of the one in four South African men who apparently think being a rapist is a cool thing to be. But that is offensive on a whole different level.
-Username17
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:02 am
by Starmaker
Maj wrote:Starmaker wrote:She was offered coffee.
At 4 AM in some dude's hotel room.
And... so what? People have different standards of what's acceptable. I keep hearing the same concerns over and over since I was a teen, and they don't become less ridiculous. "Omg my [male] friend asked me out to the cinema to see a popular movie of mainstream appeal, and I refused because he's a dude and I'm a chick and obviously he might ask me to have sex and I will have to agree and I don't want to." The hell? How do people receive an offer of "let's see $MOVIE and rage about deviations from the book" and hear "and then you owe me sexual services or I will murder you"?
When I traveled by train this summer, I entrusted about half my total wealth to literally random strangers. Now, some people have never traveled by long-distance trains in a quarter of a century, and they will insist that you take all of your luggage to the 2x2' john and do your business hovering over the dirty seat with a 50 pound backpack weighing you down or train thieves will jump at the chance to leave you stark naked in Siberian wilderness. And even seasoned dudebros who aren't afraid of movies and elevators and northern exposure said I was utterly crazy to accept an offer to spend a stormy night in an unfinished grocery booth with three drunk station wardens when the alternative was
freezing to death taking a $50 taxi home.
TL;DR you have the right to refuse a decent offer when you think it's too good to be true (or for any other reason). But you don't have the right to say it was indecent if you don't have evidence.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:18 am
by tussock
Frank Trollman wrote:He's completely right. And the people who threatened to boycott him over him being anti-feminist are completely bugfuck insane.
The thing is, he's explicitly telling people to not listen to a women about what she feels, while talking about how women should actually feel and what they are "allowed" to complain about while being proper feminists. I love the guy, but he's a gigantic asshole. It's a bit like ...
deanrule87 wrote:I think fighting for Women's Rights is arguably the most important thing in the first world and I hate virtually every feminist article I read. This is an upsetting and harmful movement which, should I have one, will make my daughter's life worse and it disgusts me.
That's an actual thing said right here in this thread. How Dude McDude there is a better feminist than women are, and all women who are feminists are actually crazy and no one, especially young women, should listen to anything they have to say about anything. Because only men can really know what helps women.
That's misogyny. With words meaning things. That's what misogyny is. The opposite of feminism.
--
As an aside.
[*]Could people please stop using the word "rights" in a conversation that is not about state mandates and the courts? Because what you're all talking about is "manners". She's a blogger, not the government.
[*]Lets face it, the government getting that many death threats would get shit done about it. There really was a great many men who thought the proper response to hearing a woman's thoughts was threatening to rape and murder her.
[*]Also hanging shit on Asperger folk, don't do that, not to mention knowingly ducking the [EDITED] filter. Just let it filter, dude.
[*]And stop telling the world that women are wrong to feel threatened by men. Or feel anything about anything, but also she really did get a great deal of
threats. People are suggesting someone who gets a lot of actual rape threats should not feel threatened about men who aren't listening and want sex.
https://twitter.com/Thunt_Goblins/statu ... to/1/large
Heh, ogres. Which comes from ...
www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics ... culture-is
Rights and shit, yeah.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:38 am
by Username17
Tussock wrote:That's an actual thing said right here in this thread. How Dude McDude there is a better feminist than women are, and all women who are feminists are actually crazy and no one, especially young women, should listen to anything they have to say about anything. Because only men can really know what helps women.
That's misogyny. With words meaning things. That's what misogyny is. The opposite of feminism.
Oh wait, except for the part where that's completely bullshit. Read the statement again:
deanrule wrote:I think fighting for Women's Rights is arguably the most important thing in the first world and I hate virtually every feminist article I read. This is an upsetting and harmful movement which, should I have one, will make my daughter's life worse and it disgusts me.
Did you see the part where he said that the articles in question were written exclusively or even mostly by women? No. He didn't mention the sex of the people writing the articles at all. Because it's not relevant. It's the quality of the arguments being presented that matter, not the sex of the people making those arguments.
When deanrule says that he feels the feminist movement is being coopted by people presenting terrible arguments in favor of terrible societal changes that will make the lives of women worse,
he's talking about you! Are you a woman? Is it misogyny to tell you that you are wrong? Would it be misogyny to tell you that you're wrong if you were a woman?
Game. Set. Match.
-Username17
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:12 am
by tussock
Well, my whole argument should have been to tell you shut up and listen, but then you'd just tell me to shut up and listen. And here we are anyway. Did you see the rest of my post? It was better.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:34 am
by Blade
What I find the most telling in this thread is all the people saying "this is dumb because she expected him to know what she was thinking, how are we supposed to do that?"
To me, that's a sign of a lack of empathy and basic social skills like being able to read non-verbal cues.
And stuff like "if she's frightened, tough luck for her, I've done nothing wrong." don't make it any better.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:54 am
by Username17
tussock wrote:Well, my whole argument should have been to tell you shut up and listen, but then you'd just tell me to shut up and listen. And here we are anyway. Did you see the rest of my post? It was better.
No, see, it's actually not better. Your whole argument is based on rank hypocrisy. deanrule said that he disliked a large amount of the recently penned feminist literature that he had read. You accused him of being a sexist who discounted the opinions of
women. But the irony here is that deanrule hadn't even
mentioned the sex of the authors he disagreed with, and might not even know in many cases. You
assumed that the femin
ists were femin
ine. Which, of course, is
actually sexist.
If you make an assumption that a set of views are necessarily associated with having a particular sex, that's sexist prejudice. In the extremely literal and unambiguous sense of the term.
The rest of your post isn't better. The first part is where you mischaracterize Dawkins' position as telling people "to not listen to a women about what she feels," which is not what he said. He said that what she felt was irrational (objectively she was in one of the most secure locations in the entire building, and no one actually harmed her or demonstrated any intention of doing so), and contrasted it with other problems that people really have that make people actually die.
Now he said it in a condescending way. But since she was fucking wrong, that's hardly inappropriate.
Then you have a series of asides which are pretty much bullshit. The first one is you asking people to stop talking about "rights." But the discussion
is about rights. It's about where your right to not feel uncomfortable ends and my right to express myself and my sexuality begins. That is a real thing, and Rebecca Watson is on the wrong side of that real thing. Homophobic people don't have the right to tell gay people that they can't hit on people in their presence - even though it makes them uncomfortable. Homophobic people
do have the right to tell gay people not to touch them without asking. Homophobic people
do have the right to turn down gay people and expect the gay people to not continue asking for sex (as that would be harassment).
Rebecca Watson is asking for the first thing. The thing she
doesn't have the right to. The demand that other people not express their sexuality in ways that make her uncomfortable
before even knowing that it makes her uncomfortable. In short, she is making a demand that is equivalent to homophobes demanding that gay people not let people around them know they are gay. Something which is in fact treading on the rights of expression and personal sexuality of the people around her.
This discussion throws the word "rights" around, because human rights are very central to the discussion and extremely important to unraveling why exactly it is that Rebecca Watson is wrong.
-Username17
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:08 am
by DSMatticus
tussock wrote:Well, my whole argument should have been to tell you shut up and listen, but then you'd just tell me to shut up and listen. And here we are anyway. Did you see the rest of my post? It was better.
No one cares that when you say a stupid thing and are told it was a stupid thing you wish people had not told you that thing was stupid and instead talked about other things that (you hope) are less stupid.
tussock wrote:And stop telling the world that women are wrong to feel threatened by men.
That is not the argument. Women can feel threatened by men if they want. Cashiers can feel threatened by the black men in their store late at night. It's offensive, but even people who otherwise mean well and know better are sometimes accidentally intimidated. The argument is that when you use "I felt threatened" as a justification for claiming men who have not violated your rights (i.e. harassment, assault, or worse) or otherwise acted in malice have done something wrong (as she did, because she turned it from a conversation about personal discomfort to a prescription for male behavior to a discussion about sexual objectification), you are being sexist.
It is very similar to a cashier asking black people to stop coming into the store late at night because it makes them feel threatened. Now, black men are obviously a considerably more underprivileged group than white men and that is a far more pressing social matter, but I'm not really getting into that. The point is that it's the exact same "____ label intimidates me, and I wish they'd do the things I want them to do that make them less intimidating to me." It really doesn't matter what the label you put in the blank is, that's a very imposing request. If I know you're going to say no then obviously I should respect that and skip asking, but people aren't mind readers and some women will answer yes to that question and there's nothing wrong with that on either side.
A man in an elevator politely asked Rebecca Watson if she wanted to come up for coffee. It is very likely that he was implying sex. Rebecca Watson said no, and he accepted her refusal and went on his way. He may have heard Rebecca Watson say she was going to bed, but I have no idea why some of the people in this thread think "I'm going to bed" is a massive commitment about which people could never possibly want to do something else given the invitation. He may have heard her talk about about how women were being mistreated at the convention and harassed and coerced, but he was clearly not one of those people and completely respectful of her rights and boundaries.
Being asked for sex in a confined space (which almost certainly had cameras and would expose itself to far more public spaces every thirty seconds) made her feel threatened. That's a shame, but the man didn't actually do anything that warranted Rebecca Watson's perceptions of possible future aggression. And once everything was said and done, he did not live up to Rebecca Watson's perceptions of possible future aggression. Rebecca Watson was afraid because there exist men who do violate women's rights by badgering them/groping them/raping them, but there wasn't any legitimate reason to believe this man was one of those men. And when she went on to tell men that they are scary even when they don't do the scary things she is afraid of because
other men do the scary things she is afraid, and that is why all men everywhere should endeavor to be less scary... she was being horrifically sexist. It is Geraldo Rivera telling young black men not to wear hoodies because he is scared of them (whether or not they're actually violent criminals) and they would be less scary if they didn't wear hoodies.
I would tolerate Rebecca Watson's discomfort. I would frown at it, and be slightly offended, because I am a man and I am not a rapist and when Rebecca Watson is afraid of
me because
other men are rapists she is reducing me to one of her negative stereotypes of the labels I happen to wear and she is genuinely diminishing me as a person in her mind. But only slightly offended, because I am a white male and my privilege is genuinely off the charts. But the part where she turns her discomfort into my moral imperative is really quote offensive. It is offensive when racists try to do it to minorities. It is offensive when homophobes try to do it to homosexuals. It is offensive when a subset of the feminist community tries to do it to men.
That's it. That's the whole story. I am asking Rebecca Watson not to censure men as though they are sexual predators unless they are actually sexual predators. She can, in fact, be afraid of all the men she wants to be.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:22 am
by Username17
Blade wrote:What I find the most telling in this thread is all the people saying "this is dumb because she expected him to know what she was thinking, how are we supposed to do that?"
To me, that's a sign of a lack of empathy and basic social skills like being able to read non-verbal cues.
And stuff like "if she's frightened, tough luck for her, I've done nothing wrong." don't make it any better.
Do you not spot the hypocrisy in your argument? Here, I'll spell it out for you:
Empathy goes in two directions. Two people who have apparently not said anything at all to each other directly are sizing each other up and guessing what their motivations and responses to future events might be. One person concludes that there is a non-zero chance that if they ask the other to go back to their room and have coffee, that they will accept the offer. Now, as we know, it is historical fact that the offer was not accepted, so your contention at this point is that the first person's assessment that there was a
chance of their offer being accepted was a bad assessment on the grounds that the offer
was not accepted. Already, you should be seeing a
little bit of the holes in your argument. The fact that I
did roll a 12 doesn't mean that there was
no chance of me rolling a 20.
But consider the empathy failure that Rebecca Watson has admitted to. She concluded that there was a non-zero chance that this guy who was heading back to his own room on the same piece of mass transit as she was who had just asked her if she wanted to go to his room and drink coffee was setting an elaborate rape trap. Indeed, she said she felt uncomfortable because in her assessment there was a non-zero chance that she was about to be sexually assaulted right there in the elevator in full view of the security camera. Now we can't actually know that the man
hadn't hastily converted his hotel room into a pain dungeon in case he happened to share the lift with an attractive woman on his way to bed at 4 in the morning, but we
do know that in retrospect he did not in fact rape her or even harass her by asking more than once.
If you're going to say that the man's empathic assessment that there was a non-zero chance that she might accept his offer of caffeinated beverages was bad because in retrospect she did not accept his offer, how can you not say that Watson's empathic assessment that there was a non-zero chance that she might be sexually assualted in the elevator was bad because in retrospect nothing remotely like that occurred? And if acknowledge that the woman's empathic assessment was so bad that she was unable to tell whether an apparently sincere offer of coffee was a prelude to sexual assault or not, how can you
possibly make the straight face claim that all people should have sufficiently powerful empathy that they can determine whether the chance of someone accepting a free drink of coffee is zero or not?
This really seems like special pleading combined with a form of gambler's fallacy.
-Username17
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:28 am
by ishy
As a hypothetical question for those who feel Rebecca is correct, if Rebecca was male (yet still had the exact same seminar etc) and the person who asked her was a woman or a gay man, would there be a problem in that case?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:32 am
by DSMatticus
Blade wrote:
What I find the most telling in this thread is all the people saying "this is dumb because she expected him to know what she was thinking, how are we supposed to do that?"
To me, that's a sign of a lack of empathy and basic social skills like being able to read non-verbal cues.
I personally think "don't take this the wrong way, but would you like to come up to my room for coffee?" in front of a camera in what is actually quite a public space (or will be in 30 seconds, what with opening up to a hotel floor) is an incredibly mature and responsible way to tackle the issue of asking people if they want to come spend time with you and possiprobably have sex. It's not coercive, it's not vulgar, it's not demeaning, it's not any of the many legitimately bad ways men sometimes approach women. And if you are suggesting that knowing which women will and will not want to do that with you is just a matter of basic human empathy, then dear god every man and woman on this planet is envious of you. Us lowly mortals frequently have trouble telling if the people we've known for months want to take the relationship further, and apparently for you it's just normal to look at total strangers and know.
Blade wrote:And stuff like "if she's frightened, tough luck for her, I've done nothing wrong." don't make it any better.
The problem with this is that finding examples where people are frightened where the
frightened people are in the wrong (to clarify: if they expect their fears to be accomodated) is really easy. There are cashiers in the real world who are intimidated when groups of young black men enter their store. There are people who cross the street to avoid coming into proximity with young black men. These people exist. They are real. Their fears are real. And their fear doesn't give them a justification for asking black youth to behave in certain ways.
If Rebecca Watson was afraid
because of some malicious or injurious act, then that man is in the wrong and likely guilty of a crime. If Rebecca Watson was afraid
in spite of the lack of any malicious act, then no one is really "in the wrong." If Rebecca Watson then claims that her fear creates a moral imperative for the man who was interacting with her to have not done the things she found intimidating, she is plainly in the wrong.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:25 am
by Blade
That someone is frightened by something (s)he shouldn't be is wrong.
This applies both the cashier frightened by black guys and the girls frightened by a friendly male.
But even if it's wrong, it doesn't make it right to not react to that fear. No matter if the person's fear is justified, what's right is to do everything you can to appease that person. If that means not interacting with him/her at all, then that's what you do.
So what if you can't read what the person want? If there's a 50% chance that that person wants to have sex with you and a 50% chance that she's afraid of you, but you can't tell?
Well in that case you refrain. Because it's morally better to lose a chance of having sex than to risk causing trouble to someone.
But you have the right to be an asshole. You even have the right to say that it's better to be an asshole. You'll be morally wrong in my opinion, but you have that right.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:35 am
by Whipstitch
This was one of those scenarios where I think Dawkins eventually said something that was broadly correct, but the way he initially opened his argument was basically like watching a dude trying to throw a fancy dinner party, except instead of putting on a nice dinner jacket he just started smearing shit all over himself.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:51 am
by DSMatticus
Blade, I think you really need to consider what you're saying and follow it through to its logical conclusions in all of the examples, not just one. You are being blinded by sympathy for women in general, and if you consider the other examples I hope you will find your sympathies reversed.
A young black man named Aaron is walking down the street. A little while down the street, he will pass a young white man named Bob. Aaron correctly believes with absolute certainty that Bob is afraid of being close to him. What obligations, if any, is Aaron under? Is failing to meet those obligations criminal, or merely inconsiderate/assholish?
Then consider instead that Aaron only thinks Bob might be afraid of him, but is not sure. He figures the odds are half and half. What obligations, if any, is Aaron under? Is failing to meet those obligations criminal, or merely inconsiderate/assholish?
Then consider instead that Aaron is going to a gas station late at night to pick up some snacks, and Bob is the cashier. Bob is clearly afraid of being alone in the store with Aaron, and Aaron correctly believes this to be true with absolute certainty. What obligations, if any, is Aaron under? Is failing to meet those obligations criminal, or merely inconsiderate/assholish? As above, does reducing Aaron's certainty in anyway change those obligations?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:40 pm
by Blade
I don't see how your examples show anything different. Nor why the fact that Aaron is black and Bob is white changes anything.
If Aaron just goes on his way in your first example, and buy his snacks in the second, then everything is alright. In the second case, things like being polite might also help.
If he, for some reasons, decides to take out a knife when he sees Bob, insults Bob for no reason or jumps at him screaming "Boo", he'd be an asshole.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:54 pm
by Kaelik
Blade wrote:If Aaron just goes on his way in your first example, and buy his snacks in the second, then everything is alright. In the second case, things like being polite might also help..
Buying snacks from Bob is literally the same thing as asking Rebecca Watson for sex. It is doing the thing which you think might upset someone anyway, because it shouldn't, and if they are upset they are in the wrong.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:12 pm
by Blade
@Kaelik : I think that's where you've got it wrong.
Bob is the cashier at a shop. He's expected to interact with buyers. He's here to provide Aaron with snacks.
Rebecca Watson is not there to give you sex. If you do think so, then you're clearly what the feminists are fighting against.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:22 pm
by DSMatticus
Blade wrote:I don't see how your examples show anything different. Nor why the fact that Aaron is black and Bob is white changes anything.
If Aaron just goes on his way in your first example, and buy his snacks in the second, then everything is alright. In the second case, things like being polite might also help.
If he, for some reasons, decides to take out a knife when he sees Bob, insults Bob for no reason or jumps at him screaming "Boo", he'd be an asshole.
See, your response is for Aaron to ignore Bob's discomfort. Bob is genuinely afraid and would prefer if Aaron crossed over to the other side of the street/left the store. But Aaron completely ignores those fears (even when he knows of them!) and walks right by Bob/buys snacks from him. And the only thing that will make you condemn Aaron, in this situation, is if he commits the crime of harassment or assault or something. Bob is afraid, and would like Aaron to do X, but when Aaron fails to do X (either deliberately or through uncertainty) you hold him no ill-will at all. Because you understand that Bob's fears are not valid moral impositions on Aaron's actions.
Here: a young white man named Bob is walking down the street. A little while down the street, he will pass a young white woman named Alice. Bob correctly believes with absolute certainty that Alice is afraid of being close to him. What obligations, if any, is Bob under? Is failing to meet those obligations criminal, or merely inconsiderate/assholish? Do these obligations change if Bob is unaware that Alice is afraid of him?