In Which Res Ipsa Abandons the Illusion of Control Over What People Post In a Thread f/k/a Thinking About ...

[Some Schmo]

Maybe a better way for me to draw the distinction is between focussing on "intent" and "impact." Those are two different things. I suspect we've all had an experience where our words clearly hurt someone even though we had no intent to do so. The problem we're trying to address isn't intent -- it's impact. So why do men tend to steer these conversations towards the man's intent?

Well, you write what you know. I hear what you're saying though.

In substance, I think your "guilty/innocent" distinction is just a different wording for my "good guy/bad guy" distinction. Because the focus is on the man's intent, innocent is the same as good guy and guilty is the same as bad guy.

But let me follow your own logic for a minute. You and I agree that sexist comments cause harm. I think that the question of whether we choose to value reduction of harm to others has moral implications, and I think we agree on that. But that's a different issue than treating sexism as a moral defect vs. making a statement or taking an action that has a harmful effect. The LEO that shot a man the other day said she meant to grab her taser. Whether she intended to shoot her gun or she made a mistake, the guy is still dead. Her intent is irrelevant to the harm.

Absolutely.

If we stop treating sexism as a moral defect, we can focus on the harm and how to reduce it. If we conclude that Lem is at fault because Analytics had a justifiable motive, we haven't addressed the problem at all. In fact, we've simply reinforced the notion that it's okay to say something sexist as long as you don't subjectively hate women. Focussing on who is at fault and who "owes" whom and apology simply avoids the issue that you and I agree is important. Lem and Analytics are both adults who are fully capable of navigating interpersonal relationships.

OK, I hear what you're saying here, but let me try to reword this a little to more accurately reflect my view.

I haven't concluded that Lem is at fault which made Analytics' move justifiable. I've concluded they both had a part to play in the miscommunication you pointed out. It's nobody's fault; miscommunications happen. That doesn't give Analytics the right to say what he did, but I'm empathic to his frustration.

In short, I'm empathetic to both of their frustration. And as messy as that thread was, in the end, it seems Lem got what she wanted. Analytics sounds like a changed man, vowing never to use those words again. That's a positive outcome, no?

[Lem]

But let me follow your own logic for a minute. You and I agree that sexist comments cause harm. I think that the question of whether we choose to value reduction of harm to others has moral implications, and I think we agree on that. But that's a different issue than treating sexism as a moral defect vs. making a statement or taking an action that has a harmful effect. The LEO that shot a man the other day said she meant to grab her taser. Whether she intended to shoot her gun or she made a mistake, the guy is still dead. Her intent is irrelevant to the harm.

If we stop treating sexism as a moral defect, we can focus on the harm and how to reduce it. If we conclude that Lem is at fault because Analytics had a justifiable motive, we haven't addressed the problem at all. In fact, we've simply reinforced the notion that it's okay to say something sexist as long as you don't subjectively hate women.

Your analogy is excellent here. I think it is terrible she made that error, and I'm sure she will pay the price, but noting it is an error hopefully will generate further analyses re: what events or situations may lend themselves to such an error, and what policies could be put in place to prevent such errors.

Such policies (including those involving mental mindsets) are not backward looking, focused on moral defects, but rather forward looking, to consider why and how could be changed. It also contains another issue, to proactively do one's own work to explore such issues. In the other thread, it was pointed out that asking a woman to explain to a man what words are sexist is shifting that burden inappropriately. The cops shouldn't ask the victims of tasker/gun use to be responsible for investigating the situation, they should take responsibility for the investigation themselves.

[ajax18]

what events or situations may lend themselves to such an error, and what policies could be put in place to prevent such errors.

Maybe sexually assaulting and robbing a woman, then riding around with expired tags, getting arrested, then trying to run and violently get away? I'm not saying he deserved to die but would you agree that behaving this way might increase the chance of law enforcement making an error in the heat of the moment?

[Res Ipsa]

The quote feature seems to be bugged.

[Jersey Girl]

delete

[Res Ipsa]

The quote feature seems to be bugged.

No, he's not using it correctly.

I stand corrected.

[Jersey Girl]

No, he's not using it correctly.

I stand corrected.

I stand deleted. Zipping it now.

[Analytics]

Could I just clarify? By 'playing the sexism card,' are you referring to my public objection that you said "your thinking is cloudy. Are you on your period?"

No. I am referring to this post:

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right? I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data? If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)

I could have politely responded with an attempt to clarify my point that "full-time missionaries" refers to nothing more nor less than the statistic so-labeled in the Church's annual report, but rightly or wrongly, I believed you'd respond to my attempt at clarification with something like:

I get your point on terminology. But I think his point may have been that if a greater percentage of full time missionaries are female today than, say, in the 80s, then the number of full time missionaries may not be as accurate an indicator of church growth and active membership over time than other numbers.

No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries. If one wants to distinguish between the percentage of male and female missionaries and its impact on membership, then define it as such. Defining "full time missionaries" as exclusive of "sister missionaries" means you are defining "full time missionaries" as men, with the "sisters" as a separate category. That is sexist.

[ajax18]

The cops shouldn't ask the victims of tasker/gun use to be responsible for investigating the situation, they should take responsibility for the investigation themselves.

Maybe the officer was on her period or something.

[Res Ipsa]

OK, I hear what you're saying here, but let me try to reword this a little to more accurately reflect my view.

I haven't concluded that Lem is at fault which made Analytics' move justifiable. I've concluded they both had a part to play in the miscommunication you pointed out. It's nobody's fault; miscommunications happen. That doesn't give Analytics the right to say what he did, but I'm empathic to his frustration.

In short, I'm empathetic to both of their frustration. And as messy as that thread was, in the end, it seems Lem got what she wanted. Analytics sounds like a changed man, vowing never to use those words again. That's a positive outcome, no?

I really appreciate your willingness to talk this through.

I don’t know whether Lem got what she wanted. I’d have to ask her.

I don’t expect Analytics or anyone else to have an epiphany based on a single conversation. I certainly didn’t

I think our conversation is a positive outcome. Overall, I have no idea.