> The problem is how to reduce how often actual sexual harassment happens. "Taking it more seriously" is a very vague and ineffective way to do that.

Taking it seriously is a prerequisite for any effective mechanism for reducing sexual harassment.

I feel like when this all started out the problem was really taking it more seriously. People would talk and complain about it and no one would take them seriously. So the group managed to scrounge together enough power to force it to happen.. And then some of that power got misused. It's still better than it was before it started, though.

> The problem is not that we need to take, for example, sexual harassment "more seriously". The problem is how to reduce how often actual sexual harassment happens. "Taking it more seriously" is a very vague and ineffective way to do that.

Try replacing "sexual harassment" with "murder" or "robbery" and see if it still makes sense.

Maybe I could refine it to, what motivates many people who are attracted to wokeness is an earnest desire to do good things. I do think good comes out of it, along with bad. But we can set that aside and refine the point that I don't think the majority of people who initially went along with wokeness were aggressively conventionally minded nor prigs. I think his essay would be more persuasive if he acknowledged that there is an earnest desire to do good mixed in with it, which makes it a thornier issue. Otherwise, people who were or are into wokeness who are not prigs, or merely afraid of running afoul of etiquette, will probably dismiss the essay.

    The problem is how to reduce how often actual 
    sexual harassment happens. "Taking it more 
    seriously" is a very vague and ineffective 
    way to do that.

Why do you perceive some sort of conflict or paradox between "taking it more seriously" and coming up with an effective way to prevent it?

I mean, that is "taking it more seriously."

    a definition of "harassment" that is highly 
    subjective and doesn't necessarily correlate 
    very well with actual harassment.

I swear, this whole topic is just an ouroboros of people talking over each other about vaguely defined terms.

You complain that "wokeness" has a "highly subjective" definition of harassment that "doesn't necessarily correlate well" with reality.

"Wokeness" itself is an incredibly vague and amorphous term, primarily wielded by those who oppose it. It barely exists except in the minds of its opponents, and certainly does not have some kind of governing body or like, official position on harassment or anything else.

If you feel that some specific person or institution is doing a shitty job of addressing harassment, or if you have some specific ideas of your own, those would be great things to bring to the table.

But accusing a vague and amorophous thing about being too vague and amorphous about another thing is... man, please, stop.