undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmmt7y ago0 comments

> In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.

How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)?

To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention.

I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.

0 comments

DoreenMichele7y ago

I'm not pretending to be judge and jury, just a human being who has opinions when I read or hear about things. Not all situations are as cut and dried as "He was the CEO, she was an underling and there was some rule against it."

Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer.

I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that.

And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.

mmtOP7y ago

> And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.

I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading of what I said.

I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse