Even if you gave someone a 5-minute sample of the excruciating pain, they’d still choose the 1-hour version over the death of their child, guaranteed.
This seems very clearly not guaranteed for some arbitrarily large amount of pain.
allskies
Karma: 163
I suppose so—without hearing the other side we can’t know for sure. He does say there was “oversharing from both sides”, though.
I don’t think we have nearly enough infortmation to make conclusions like the ones you’re making here.
For example, we have no idea what sort of exchanges the parties had previously. We do know, from the OP, that this wasn’t a comment made to a stranger, which would be considerably worse—their relationship was established, was “unusually direct and honest”, including talking about sexual things and “oversharing”. For all we know the first person to make a sexual comment might have been the woman in question, thus setting the tone for him to make his comment. I think that would be a significant mitigating factor in how “bad” Owen’s actions were (ie could be reasonably have expected the comment he made to be in keeping with the tone of the relationship they already had).
This needn’t excuse making someone else feel uncomfortable, but the context of which we have no knowledge is hugely important in establishing just how bad an infraction this was.
One set says: OCB overstepped the mark severely, he should have known better, I am devastated, this is a huge problem that needs to be solved promptly at a community level. We need to kill our darlings, like polyamory and sleeping around in the community as a norm.
Another set says: I refuse to accept any sort of restriction on who I flirt with/sleep with/date in the EA community, even a restriction that would have prevented OCB from having a flirty relationship with the woman in question.
(I could be reading it all wrong; tell me what you see.)
Depends. I think if you’re going to a house party it’s cool. If you’ve just attended what you view as a professional conference, might be weirder/overly familiar (especially if you’re getting in a hot tub with people who might be important professional connections).
I could be wrong. I know a mathematics professor who went to a math conference in Finland and they thought nothing of sauna-ing nude together, as Finns do.
I agree. I feel like there are two totally different sets of people and opinions on this thread vs https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QMee23Evryqzthcvn/a-statement-and-an-apology#comments and it’s making my head spin a bit.
Consensual relationship between adult people, as long as one of them is not a supervisor/senior/grant-maker of another, is none of community’s business, unless we are in church.
But isn’t this sort of relationship exactly the one that OCB had with an anonymous woman which people one thread over are saying they’re feeling shocked, betrayed and undermined by?
There’s no suggestion that there was a violation of consent, only that there was an exchange between two friends who had a very frank relationship, and that OCB said something rather crude (for which he apologised). He at the time wasn’t a supervisor/grant-maker of the woman in question.
I would be cautious of spending too many weirdness points on those things (to your point about newcomers finding them a bit weird), but I don’t think anyone is feeling coerced to join a cuddle puddle/get in a hottub at those sorts of parties.
Most of the EAG afterparties I’ve been to have mostly just been pretty standard drinking in someone’s house or a bar.
Strongly agree with your general point – but I feel like you’re not the demographic this post is aimed at (i.e. not a socially-awkward man).
I guess I’d just say that the missing context from the TIME article seems hugely important in understanding exactly how much of a boundary/norm violation this event was.
Not that I endorse it, but Aella’s position that in 80% of the anecdotes the accused did nothing wrong is not incompatible with this anecdote being (mostly) accurate.
If anything this post supports some of the criticism – the account in the TIME article suggests OCB was responsible for finding promising students and placing then in high-profile jobs (neither of which was the case). It makes no mention of the fact he and the accuser were seemingly already friends with an “unusually direct and honest” relationship (a statement the accuser presumably agrees with, as she’s had a chance to vet this post). And that once he learned he had overstepped he was horrified and sought to make amends.
In my mind that’s a lot of important context that was elided, and suggests an awkward misstep rather than something more sinister.
Difficulty here is mass-scale production, which has to be done at great expense in sterile bioreactors IIRC (my biochem days are way behind me).