They're meant to further empower accusers and reduce burden of proof and remove the need for critical thinking, empathy, and nuance. Accusations equal guilt.
Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?"
It's quite common to have someone express a personal opinion that they themselves don't interpret as harassment (e.g. because they don't belong to the group they're talking about, they see no issue with the way they talk or maybe they might be upset) only to be incredibly surprised and defensive when someone later calls them out.
With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all.
There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense where none could reasonably be presumed to have been given, and to blow minor transgressions out of proportion.
“When victimhood becomes currency, there are bound to be counterfeiters.“
> With the way that the realm of what is socially acceptable to say has been shifting so constantly in recent years, the only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all.
Really, since the norms change so quickly, the only safe thing is to say nothing at all. Over the last 10 years I’ve seen a lot of my favourite progressive authors torn to shreds on social media for being monsters. The problem is that they were trying to be open minded and progressive in the 30s or 50s or 80s instead of today and that’s unforgivable and their work should be banned for not anticipating future cultural shifts. It doesn’t matter that they were trying their best and lived in a time and place that wasn’t 2021 Twitter
Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups.
There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.
> The only way someone who is not terminally online could be sure to avoid offending someone would be to become a mind reader, or to not say anything at all
It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.
> There is also the fact that in this modern social climate, victimhood has become a valuable currency. There is incentive for people take offense where none could reasonably be presumed to have been given, and to blow minor transgressions out of proportion.
People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent. Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?
>Society changes and evolves. With it, we start recognising and understanding ever-smaller demographic groups
It is not a natural change. It is being forced on people. Words and understandings of concepts change of course, but in the past society would slowly start accepting the change. Now a days when a word changes if you don't start using the new definition that day you are a bigot. People don't do well with sudden change.
> There was a time when making jokes at the expense of women was ok, there was a time when making fun of gays was ok, there was a time when mocking trans people was ok... now it's not.
Jokes are jokes. If it is wrong to make a joke about women then it is wrong to make a joke about men. Anything else is sexist discriminatory double standards. Either you can joke about anything or nothing.
>It's just society developing empathy. Think most people understand that how we see other groups of people is not a fixed thing.
Society is losing empathy. We used to understand people could make mistakes and improve themselves. Now the first time you make an innocent mistake you are canceled. You are thrown out of polite society and defamed on social media. That is the opposite of empathy.
>People are getting "called out" and "cancelled" more than ever, for sure. But I don't think it's necessarily victimhood. Given the original topic, it's interesting that this is how you're attributing intent.
The person you were responding to was not saying that a person being canceled is a victim (though they possibly believe that). They were saying that people cancel other people so the person doing the canceling can play the victim regardless if they actually took offense.
>Do you feel that there might be genuine reasons for acting the way they do? Could the grievances be genuine?
I don't think anybody would deny some people are offended about things. I just don't think that matters. If I say hello to somebody and they are offended by that should I be canceled for it?
> Or maybe it just puts more responsibility on people to think "how could my intent be read?", "what impact might it have?"
How can you possibly read any possible minds. Even if you can predict the 'reasonable' person, outliers can take offence and you don't know what can offend them.
People can and do take offence at anything. This leaves two possible solutions.
1) Eventually fuck up.
2) Immediately leave the community and find greener, less insane pastures.
I've taken #2 in almost all cases, because I'm definitely going to screw up because I'm human.
> You act like fucking up is the end of the world.
People stopped forgiving and forgetting years ago. Every mistake people make follows them forever now. “Fucking up” is the end of the world for their careers since nobody wants to hire somebody who was publicly outed on Twitter for whatever they allegedly did
Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?
I think you're overlooking the role that rapport plays in this. If you don't have a rapport (it's a new relationship, for example), one doesn't have that to rely on (this describes a significant portion of online interactions, like this one!).
If one has a solid rapport with someone, and that person says something that one find upsetting, one's much less likely to attribute that behavior to malice, because rapport is just social context.
> Apparently people who are concerned with this are “not willing to accept the effort of empathy”?
I think a more accurate thing to say is that those who are harmed and cannot contextualize it to be reasonable are not willing to enable that harmful behavior by the person that has harmed them. Empathy is just the act of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes to gain respect for their perspective". I can empathize with an asshole and decide that their behavior needs to be called out _despite_ OR _because of_ the context I have for that person (e.g. I might be more likely to call out inappropriate behavior in those with power than in those without power, with whom I might work more closely to come to an understanding privately, as there's really no use kicking someone when they're down).
You can't have rapport with a Twitter mob. Individuals, yes, but I've seen time and again when individuals are pressured by the mob until they finally turn on the friend who 'made a mistake' and excoriate them even more fiercely than the mob itself has.
Keep in mind how this CoC change started: it wasn't by a one-on-one rapport with an individual.
And also keep in mind the freezing effect you're having on people new to the industry who need mentorship to help them mature. Sometimes you're screwing up because you're young and need to temper your own tongue.
And sometimes the screw-up isn't actually a screw-up, and a mountain gets made out of a molehill. This is more often the case than anything else, as this entire post demonstrates, and it would be wrong to conclude the premise as part of the argument.
The rule is not meant to attack people who make good-faith mistakes/unintended consequences. It instead is intended to stop defending people who make ill-intentioned comments and attempt to hide them as mistakes; or who refuse to back down from a mistake even after being told it was a mistake.
For example, if someone from Eastern Europe says something like "it's alright 'cause it's all white", someone from the USA who knows the history of this phrase may take offense. If the person from the USA feels that this may have been an attack, they should be free to raise this issue, and the person from Eastern Europe should apologize for making them uncomfortable, even if it was unintentional. As long as they do this, no further harm should happen to either person.
However, if the person who made the comment refuses to apologize/explain, or keeps repeating this comment since "to me it's not offensive, it's just a joke/reference" etc, then this should be considered a problem and someone with authority should intervene.
Similarly, if the person who took offense refuses to accept the mistake after an apology or explanation was given, then once again someone with authority should intervene and correct this error on this other side, as it unnecessarily creates a hostile working environment.
This is the intended reading of that line. Of course, that line can also be mis-applied by immediately punishing the person from Eastern Europe in my initial example.
Note: I used "person from Eastern Europe" in my example because that is where I am from, and because I have personally seen others around me using references to US culture without knowing the full context in just this way, without ill intent but in ways which would probably shock someone who assumes that the context is well known (for example, casually addressing peers using rap lyrics containing the infamous N-word).
It is impossible to evaluate what could be interpreted as harassment. Maybe 10 years ago you could have, but today everything is harassment. Words are changing meaning and becoming offensive so fast people cannot even keep up.
