[edit] deleted because I realise i should not engage with this post for the reasons I clarify below (I know the person & a few of the reasons they were reported, I find this emotionally-charged and overwhelming and don’t know how to be neutral or “objective” on the basis of the post alone)
FWIW, I read your post and appreciated it. (I’m the same Kip who commented on it when you posted it initially. Hi!)
But “Men who upset women in EA don’t care about women’s feelings” was roughly one of my takeaways from the post! So I don’t think it’s an unfair interpretation. I didn’t see it as the main thesis, but I found that point interesting and memorable.
Here’s the snippet that gave me that takeaway (emphasis added by me):
> it turned out, the problem wasn’t that my cues were too difficult to read. Or that I was too passive or too fawning or too inarticulate. That was mostly a convenient story. The problem was: they did not care what I wanted if it contradicted what they wanted.
The above snippet makes it sound like EA guys were fully blaming you for communication issues, and they didn’t care what you wanted. And it seems to claim that their lack-of-care was the core problem.
OP sounds like a counter example for this pattern; he (at least partly) blames himself for being clumsy, and expresses (in many ways) that he did actually care about “what they wanted.”
Hey Kip! That makes sense to me. I think I basically just can’t objectively comment or reflect on this post because I know OP and the details of some of the stuff they were reported for. So I won’t say anything more meaningful here, but I appreciate your comment :)
Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).
[edit] deleted because I realise i should not engage with this post for the reasons I clarify below (I know the person & a few of the reasons they were reported, I find this emotionally-charged and overwhelming and don’t know how to be neutral or “objective” on the basis of the post alone)
FWIW, I read your post and appreciated it. (I’m the same Kip who commented on it when you posted it initially. Hi!)
But “Men who upset women in EA don’t care about women’s feelings” was roughly one of my takeaways from the post! So I don’t think it’s an unfair interpretation. I didn’t see it as the main thesis, but I found that point interesting and memorable.
Here’s the snippet that gave me that takeaway (emphasis added by me):
> it turned out, the problem wasn’t that my cues were too difficult to read. Or that I was too passive or too fawning or too inarticulate. That was mostly a convenient story. The problem was: they did not care what I wanted if it contradicted what they wanted.
The above snippet makes it sound like EA guys were fully blaming you for communication issues, and they didn’t care what you wanted. And it seems to claim that their lack-of-care was the core problem.
OP sounds like a counter example for this pattern; he (at least partly) blames himself for being clumsy, and expresses (in many ways) that he did actually care about “what they wanted.”
Hey Kip! That makes sense to me. I think I basically just can’t objectively comment or reflect on this post because I know OP and the details of some of the stuff they were reported for. So I won’t say anything more meaningful here, but I appreciate your comment :)
@titotal, note that this reply sort of stands in contrast to your original message.
Hi, I read the piece a while back. I liked some bits and disliked others. Mainly I wanted to give some context for my piece.
I don’t think my piece is deeply engaging with yours, nor is it intending to.
On harms versus intent, I agree harms matter more.
But I disagree on the last point. I think harm probably is sometimes the result of people with different norms/ preferences/ boundaries interacting. And I think EA takes particular sides in these cases.
The way you’ve formatted this post makes it seem like my article and the time article are examples of the thesis, you might want to clarify that.
thanks for updating! I realise I’m becoming overwhelmed since it’s very obvious to me who wrote this post, so I’m just going to bow out and delete my comment (so as to prevent me thinking about this post any further).