I wanted to correct a small mistake. The “groomer” that was mentioned was apparently (according to the TIME article) the same man who allegedly attempted to put his penis in a former girlfriend’s mouth while she was sleeping, so maybe that’s a point in favor of using that person as an example. It’s written very subtly: “Another woman, who dated the same man several years earlier...”. Although, I agree that it’s odd that the article used the “grooming” framing when both parties were adults.
Aside from that, thanks for writing this. I’m glad that there are people who are brave enough to write about topics like these. I was skeptical about many of the claims expressed in the TIME piece, and I had problems with its portrayal of various types of people the journalist probably just didn’t like, but voicing skepticism publicly is a challenge. Someone has to do it for a community to be healthy.
I wish we didn’t give that much power to magic words like “offensive” or “uncomfortable”. It trivializes serious issues and equates them with “someone said something once that I don’t like”. It’s also a troubling dynamic to expect people to punish others severely for small harms.
In addition to outright lies by bad actors, there are also (rarer) forms of falsehood where someone is insanely confident that things played out the way they believe it did (and may not admit to being wrong even when faced with concrete, contradicting evidence). Those situations might be slightly more common in social environments (like EA) where everybody’s busy, all the time, and the person in question is just one out of many an accuser interacted with, but had gripes with.
There’s always a risk of another wave of intolerance in the future (from the left, or the right, or something else). If one’s own tribe comes into a position of ideological power at some point, the right thing to do is to guard against one’s own tendencies to suppress the other tribe, and be brave enough to speak up against peers who do.
“Grooming” was a direct quote from the person who experienced the incident: “I had a sense that he was grooming me.” Quoting what your interviewee said is perfectly appropriate. The article discloses that the person was a 22-year-old college student at the time; there is no attempt to hide that at all. While “grooming” is used outside of its common meaning, it seems clear enough what the interviewee was trying to communicate here.
Yes, I was aware of that. Nonetheless, the article chose to use the “grooming” framing to describe the scenario, as well as put special emphasis on the “groomer” being “nearly twice her age”. It’s clear that the TIME journalist is trying to communicate personal opinions and/or appeal to crowds that stigmatize relationships between adults who have large age differences:
“One recalled being “groomed” by a powerful man nearly twice her age… Another told TIME a much older EA recruited her to join his polyamorous relationship while she was still in college.”
“Joseph was 22 and still in college; he was nearly twice her age.”
In my view, the other person’s age is fair commentary here. “Powerful” is rather vague and indefinite—the other person’s age provides support for the conclusion that the other person was indeed in a position of power/influence such that there was a serious power imbalance here. And that imbalance is what makes what the man said particularly inappropriate in what was supposed to be a professional-related context.
I wanted to correct a small mistake. The “groomer” that was mentioned was apparently (according to the TIME article) the same man who allegedly attempted to put his penis in a former girlfriend’s mouth while she was sleeping, so maybe that’s a point in favor of using that person as an example. It’s written very subtly: “Another woman, who dated the same man several years earlier...”. Although, I agree that it’s odd that the article used the “grooming” framing when both parties were adults.
Aside from that, thanks for writing this. I’m glad that there are people who are brave enough to write about topics like these. I was skeptical about many of the claims expressed in the TIME piece, and I had problems with its portrayal of various types of people the journalist probably just didn’t like, but voicing skepticism publicly is a challenge. Someone has to do it for a community to be healthy.
I wish we didn’t give that much power to magic words like “offensive” or “uncomfortable”. It trivializes serious issues and equates them with “someone said something once that I don’t like”. It’s also a troubling dynamic to expect people to punish others severely for small harms.
In addition to outright lies by bad actors, there are also (rarer) forms of falsehood where someone is insanely confident that things played out the way they believe it did (and may not admit to being wrong even when faced with concrete, contradicting evidence). Those situations might be slightly more common in social environments (like EA) where everybody’s busy, all the time, and the person in question is just one out of many an accuser interacted with, but had gripes with.
There’s always a risk of another wave of intolerance in the future (from the left, or the right, or something else). If one’s own tribe comes into a position of ideological power at some point, the right thing to do is to guard against one’s own tendencies to suppress the other tribe, and be brave enough to speak up against peers who do.
“Grooming” was a direct quote from the person who experienced the incident: “I had a sense that he was grooming me.” Quoting what your interviewee said is perfectly appropriate. The article discloses that the person was a 22-year-old college student at the time; there is no attempt to hide that at all. While “grooming” is used outside of its common meaning, it seems clear enough what the interviewee was trying to communicate here.
Yes, I was aware of that. Nonetheless, the article chose to use the “grooming” framing to describe the scenario, as well as put special emphasis on the “groomer” being “nearly twice her age”. It’s clear that the TIME journalist is trying to communicate personal opinions and/or appeal to crowds that stigmatize relationships between adults who have large age differences:
“One recalled being “groomed” by a powerful man nearly twice her age… Another told TIME a much older EA recruited her to join his polyamorous relationship while she was still in college.”
“Joseph was 22 and still in college; he was nearly twice her age.”
(emphasis mine)
In my view, the other person’s age is fair commentary here. “Powerful” is rather vague and indefinite—the other person’s age provides support for the conclusion that the other person was indeed in a position of power/influence such that there was a serious power imbalance here. And that imbalance is what makes what the man said particularly inappropriate in what was supposed to be a professional-related context.