Hacker News Reader

>cannot be considered offensive >Both of these appear reasonable to me.

That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given.

But far more importantly, students should not be given protection from being offended. Harassment, sure, but offense? That's part of growing up.

>That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given.

I agree with the principle in theory. Of course outright banning anything "offensive" without clearly defining what is and is not offensive is very open to interpretation and can be abused. But when it comes to writing rules regarding offensive communication and harassment I think it's better to be over-zealous and treat all incidents on a case by case basis, especially in organisations where they're more concerned with incidents being made public and the organisation getting bad PR.

Also an important point is the "cannot be considered offensive" rule is an IT policy, not a general university one. Every employer I've had has made me sign an acceptable use policy from IT that says (among other things) "don't send offensive emails". It's not that much different. As I said in the original comment, the site is an oversimplification of a complex problem, and generic IT policies shouldn't really be considered anti freedom of speech for various reasons.

> ‘Users must ensure that the content and tone of their email messages cannot be considered offensive.’

This doesn't seem reasonable at all. "Considered offensive" - those are just weasel words. How can I be expected to have a perfect model of other people's minds and the things they would be upset by?

Just replied with a longer argument here

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880

tldr is that it's an IT policy not a university one, and every single employer whose email server you ever used has exactly the same policy in place. I actually looked up a few more universities and all the times the "no offensive speech" policy was cited it was an IT policy.

> guideline that sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted comments which makes someone uncomfortable’

> Both of these appear reasonable to me.

How is that reasonable?

Essentially it makes sexual harassment entirely subjective.

That is ridiculously open to abuse.

I think you're in agreement. I believe your parent post intended "reasonable" to mean in the sense of "reasonable to be considered an impediment to free speech".

Apparently my old university gets an amber light too because " Sexual Harassment is Never OK".

That particular xkcd gets linked a lot in this debate. I really wonder what happened between when the author drew that comic and when he drew this one: https://www.xkcd.com/137/

I don't see any incompatibility there?

Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them.

The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.

> he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear

Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.

"Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. They aren't running into obscure codes, they're being jerks for fun and profit.

> "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me.

And who gets to decide what is acceptable?

My college had an atheist club that hung up a banner saying "Religion is for the feeble minded" - that's offensive to billions of people.

Can we shut them down and boot them off campus?

My college also had communist clubs with communist slogans - many of my extended family were killed by communists so that's obviously offensive.

Can we shut them down and boot them off campus?

> The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend.

By the time people like Milo come along hundreds of legitimate speakers have already been silenced - that's how people like Milo realize it's an easy and lucrative market to take advantage of.

That's a bad comparison. Clubs like those, especially at a public college actually ARE protected by the 1st amendment. You can choose not to join, but cannot prevent them from meeting. The only thing the school can do is limit the non-student guests a club brings, and even that power is typically limited to in cases of security concerns, which can often be remedied if the club helps foot the costs for increased security (see: UW Milo visit where counter protestor was shot)

Twitter and Reddit and the like are public platforms that belong to a private entity. So it's private property and the people who own it can curate or be selective if they choose.

All that said, I'm no fan of "no-platforming", but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level. I went to a college where random fire and brimstone preachers would stand in front of the library, bang on buckets and call women "whores" as they passed by. Nobody invited them, they just wanted an audience. And though I hated those guys, I understand their right to do that (with a permit) and to say whatever. Likewise, it was my right to laugh in his face, call him an asshole. Because he was being a jerk.

> Clubs like those, especially at a public college actually ARE protected by the 1st amendment.

In UK universities they have no such protection, and similar clubs have been shut down.

My alma mater, University College London, banned the Nietzsche Society: https://thetab.com/2014/06/03/thus-spake-the-su-14611

> That's a bad comparison. Clubs like those, especially at a public college actually

I feel like we have our wires crossed - the parent was talking about university/college policy and not social media.

I'm saying if universities/colleges want to police speech for any offensive content then they need to apply the policy uniformly and ban the atheist and communist clubs.

> but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level.

I think the crazy preachers are a bad example - a normal person who just wants to give an interesting talk does not want to put up with screaming protestors. They don't want the stress. They don't have a security detail. Etc.

The people who don't mind are the crazy preachers and the people who get paid for controversy like Milo.

The moderates have already been de-platformed.

Maybe he realised that speech has consequences beyond an employer not hiring him, and decided to take responsibility for those consequences?

And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better?

Or, in short, he grew up.

Define "sexual", define "harassment".

I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument.

I don't think it is.

I have seen it said before that if you ask a girl out once its fine. If she says no and you continue to do it then its harassment. Except that how a lot of relationships begin. Pretty sure that the story of how Barack Obama got Michelle.

At one end of the spectrum its obvious. At the other end it's not.

Just because some people ended up in a relationship this way doesn't mean the behaviour should be encouraged.

Sure, some people won't mind being asked out repeatedly, or maybe even find it flattering, but some people will find it very uncomfortable, and forcing those people to deal with that just so some people get to enjoy a silly courtship ritual is not really fair.

> but some people will find it very uncomfortable

And are they being reasonable or not?

I know people who find it very uncomfortable to leave their house.

I know people who find it very uncomfortable to talk to someone they don't know.

I personally find any kind of sales and advertising incredibly uncomfortable.

Almost everyone finds it very uncomfortable when they have their views challenged.

Just because something makes some people uncomfortable doesn't make it bad.

What exactly do you think it mean for someone's experience of discomfort to be "unreasonable"? And why do you think that justifies taking actions that we know are likely to cause someone else discomfort?

I can't say I find your examples particularly justifying. I think we should leave agoraphobic introverts alone if that's what they want. I think sales and advertising are obnoxious and society would be better without them. And I think people should be free to explore different views at their own pace, as long as they're not hurting anyone. Or if they are hurting someone, then that discomfort caused by challenging their views is justified, but it's still a bad thing in itself.

> What exactly do you think it mean for someone's experience of discomfort to be "unreasonable"?

Way outside of the norm. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at?

> And why do you think that justifies taking actions that we know are likely to cause someone else discomfort?

1. Is causing discomfort immoral? Sometimes but it can also be a good thing.

2. What makes you think it's likely to cause discomfort? It's a tiny minority who are truly bothered.

The reason guys will ask multiple times is because it works - Millions of happy relationships have started after an initial rejection.

3. Why do you only consider one persons discomfort?

Not being able to find a life partner is incredibly discomforting.

What about the discomfort faced by the many many women who like being chased?

>Way outside of the norm.

>It's a tiny minority who are truly bothered.

I don't think women feeling harassed by men's advances is remotely "outside the norm", or a "tiny minority". It's very common, which is exactly the problem.

>What about the discomfort faced by the many many women who like being chased?

If people like this kind of courtship, they should be willing to communicate that, rather than making it impossible for anyone to say "no" just so they can get their kicks. If there's no safeword for this "chasing" it shouldn't be considered consensual.

> I don't think women feeling harassed by men's advances is remotely "outside the norm", or a "tiny minority". It's very common, which is exactly the problem.

By college students on campus?

That's not at all the impression I get from my daughter or her friends who finished college recently.

Her opinion is the men are way too timid.

> If people like this kind of courtship, they should be willing to communicate that

Why? Why isn't it up to the minority of people who have a problem to communicate clearly?

> impossible for anyone to say "no" just so they can get their kicks.

It doesn't make it impossible to say no. What are you talking about?

What it means is a women might have to say no a couple of times over time or make it clear they have no interest at all.

I've asked a friend to meet up for coffee 3x this fortnight and he has said no each time. Should I never ask him again to get coffee?

If I keep asking him does that mean he can't say no?

> I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument.

Your comment honestly does make me feel uncomfortable.

Why is it ok on hn to make unwelcome and uncomfortable comments but not in a university setting?

Can we label you a harasser?

Your tone feels threatening. I hope you don't bring that attitude to the campus...

If you've got an actual argument to make then please make it, I really don't have the time or patience for no-effort bait comments like

>Define "sexual", define "harassment".

My argument is the same as what's described in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16912248