unsolicited sexual advances

[nice90sguy]

I sum it up as "The only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance".

 

[CEOescape]

It is that time of the year that with Holiday Parties, NEW YEARS Women dress in their sexiest cocktail dresses, Guys looking their best, Bands playing.. ADVANCES ARE BOUND TO HAPPEN.
So if you are prude enough : Stay the Hell at Home!!!!!!

 

[FeralSmile]

I sum it up as "The only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance".

Ah, that's Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think you're ignoring a lot of nuance there. Voltaire is great! Big fan. But almost nobody single-mindedly pursues that fight to defend all speech at all times. I sincerely doubt you do.

Do you go on social media and argue in favor of Nazis and antisemites being able to freely express their bigotry? Why not? If you really will fight to defend everyone's right to say anything at all, where do you draw the line?

Do you post here arguing passionately that rape and bestiality and underage porn absolutely must be allowed? I mean, doing so would be consistent with Voltaire's proposition, wouldn't it?

But you don't do that, I imagine, because that aphorism is an oversimplification; it's a nice general principle but it only applies in some places.

What I think you're not accounting for there, and what I was getting at with the posts you took issue with above, is that there's a profound difference between the freedom of speech allowed by the government, and the freedom of speech that private individuals and companies offer. In the former, yes, free speech is free speech, and very little is and should be forbidden. Censorship imposed by governments is innately bad in almost all cases. That's the point of the First Amendment. But in the latter, you probably don't seriously expect Literotica to publish stuff that the owners find morally or legally objectionable, just as you probably don't expect to be able to walk up to your boss, insult them to their face, tell them you plan to do your job as poorly as possible, complain about how the company does nothing of value... and still keep your job.

Because speech does have consequences. It must. That's how societies work. That's how interpersonal relationships work. That's how people work.

And these ideas aren't in conflict the way you seem to suggest: you can both be anti-government censorship, and fight to prevent it, but at the same time allow private individuals the right to impose consequences for speech as they choose. And you can support that right even if you don't agree with their choices! Even if you think their limits to free speech hurt society, or are immoral! You can hate the Hays Code but still agree that it was lawful, and think it hurt America while still thinking the MPPA had the right to do it.

I support free speech. People should be able to say what they want, in general. But that doesn't mean you have a right to come to my house and write on my walls. And that's precisely the same as e.g. Literotica being within their rights to impose rules restricting speech here. AND... speech does have consequences, in the form of feedback and social and political and economic and legal repercussions. Because it must. Because not having any consequences is literally inconceivable in this world we live in.

And, returning at long last to the topic, you have the right to make unwanted advances in a rude and offputting way, but you should also expect rejection and sometimes anger and disgust.

It's a fun topic, but it's, again, a lot more nuanced than citing Voltaire and moving on.

We'll start from the bottom, no one is claiming this is as simple as citing Voltaire and moving on. This has been a long running discussion and your response is a bit patronizing.

As for the rest, you claim, without evidence to know what I do or don't do. Then proceed to explain why I don't do something when you have no idea if I do.
Again, very presumptuous of you and a bit patronizing as well.

As for speech and consequences, you seem to be failing at understanding that words have different meanings in different contexts.
When people are arguing that free speech should have consequences they are invariably arguing for some form of cancel culture. They aren't arguing for the idea that "if you say things I don't like I won't associate with you." They are arguing, that people should be in some way punished i.e. "consequences" the other term thrown around.

No one is arguing people should be allowed to go into your house and write on your walls. You are making a silly analogy to district from the real topic. No one is arguing Laurel doesn't have the right to publish or not publish whatever stories she wants, or allow or disallow any comments she wants.

Let me give you a clear and appropriate analogy.
If you write a letter to the New York Times, they are under no obligation to print it. However, if they do print it and people decide they need to dox you and get you fired from your job for holding an unpopular opinion, then those people are wrong. Even if they hide behind the "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences" line.
As I mentioned earlier, people invariably think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong, but will support that silly line.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Ah, that's Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.

There are several problems with his theory, the most obvious of which is the assumption that censorship is the only way to prevent NAZIs.
He's just using a scare tactic to advocate for censorship, ironically exactly what the NAZIs did. You know, suppress dangerous "misinformation" for the good of the people.
Everyone assumes they are on the side of the Angels.

 

[StillStunned]

There are several problems with his theory, the most obvious of which is the assumption that censorship is the only way to prevent NAZIs.
He's just using a scare tactic to advocate for censorship, ironically exactly what the NAZIs did. You know, suppress dangerous "misinformation" for the good of the people.
Everyone assumes they are on the side of the Angels.

Gave you a like for the Mitchell & Webb pic. Brilliant sketch.

 

[djrip]

We'll start from the bottom, no one is claiming this is as simple as citing Voltaire and moving on. This has been a long running discussion and your response is a bit patronizing.

As for the rest, you claim, without evidence to know what I do or don't do. Then proceed to explain why I don't do something when you have no idea if I do.
Again, very presumptuous of you and a bit patronizing as well.

As for speech and consequences, you seem to be failing at understanding that words have different meanings in different contexts.
When people are arguing that free speech should have consequences they are invariably arguing for some form of cancel culture. They aren't arguing for the idea that "if you say things I don't like I won't associate with you." They are arguing, that people should be in some way punished i.e. "consequences" the other term thrown around.

No one is arguing people should be allowed to go into your house and write on your walls. You are making a silly analogy to district from the real topic. No one is arguing Laurel doesn't have the right to publish or not publish whatever stories she wants, or allow or disallow any comments she wants.

Let me give you a clear and appropriate analogy.
If you write a letter to the New York Times, they are under no obligation to print it. However, if they do print it and people decide they need to dox you and get you fired from your job for holding an unpopular opinion, then those people are wrong. Even if they hide behind the "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences" line.
As I mentioned earlier, people invariably think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong, but will support that silly line.

Cancel culture *is* people deciding they don't want to associate with someone because of their speech. If someone is a Nazi, I don't have to buy their book and neither does anyone else. I don't have to host their speech at my college, and if my college does, I don't have to be silent about it, and neither do any of the other students who don't want to provide a platform for Nazism. That's freedom of speech.

To be clear, protesting against the person speaking does not actually prevent them from speaking. It's just that other people get to speak too. And if 10,000 people are protesting the Nazi, maybe the college decides they don't want to host him; that's the college's free speech, doing what they choose to do, taking into account the realities of the world. If an advocate for child rape went up to talk, the college would be likely to not want to associate with that, either. But the Nazi and the child rape enthusiast can still speak all they want, on a corner or in their blog.

 

[SimonDoom]

Cancel culture *is* people deciding they don't want to associate with someone because of their speech. If someone is a Nazi, I don't have to buy their book and neither does anyone else. I don't have to host their speech at my college, and if my college does, I don't have to be silent about it, and neither do any of the other students who don't want to provide a platform for Nazism. That's freedom of speech.

To be clear, protesting against the person speaking does not actually prevent them from speaking. It's just that other people get to speak too. And if 10,000 people are protesting the Nazi, maybe the college decides they don't want to host him; that's the college's free speech, doing what they choose to do, taking into account the realities of the world. If an advocate for child rape went up to talk, the college would be likely to not want to associate with that, either. But the Nazi and the child rape enthusiast can still speak all they want, on a corner or in their blog.

But there is a tension between freedom of speech, as you describe it, and academic freedom. A university is supposed to be a place that permits the widest possible range of expression and exchange of ideas, and that necessarily includes the expression of ideas that some will deem offensive. It's a crucial principle. Once you compromise that principle, it's hard to see where one stops.

The other problem with your characterization of the issue is that you exaggerate the speech that is actually at issue where cancel culture is concerned. It's one thing to be an actual card carrying Nazi and to advocate Nazi views, or to advocate child rape. How many actual cases of such people wanting to speak on university campuses are there? Not many. Almost none, I'd say. But there ARE cases of prominent political speakers, or sitting federal judges, trying to speak, and being shut down, or heckled into silence. There's the case of the female swimmer who spoke out against having to complete against transgender swimmers who had previously competed as males. She was threatened with violence and attempts to shout her down. These people are not Nazis, and reasonable people should not treat them like Nazis, even if they disagree with them. But the reality is that intolerance and cancel culture have become so bad that there ARE reprisals against people for views that are not extreme but don't fit with the local orthodoxy. A number of student organizations at the University of California at Berkeley publicly stated they would not support events at which those with Zionist views were invited to speak. That means, basically, most Israelis. That's crazy. My university schooling took place in the 1980s, and my children recently completed theirs, and the difference in attitudes between then and now is dramatic. Polls show that young people today are less supportive of free speech than young people were when I was young.

The freedom to associate is part of the freedom of speech, but in certain settings, like school, or media, or employment, if it is exercised in a certain way it amounts to de facto suppression of freedom of ideas and expression.

 

[djrip]

But there is a tension between freedom of speech, as you describe it, and academic freedom. A university is supposed to be a place that permits the widest possible range of expression and exchange of ideas, and that necessarily includes the expression of ideas that some will deem offensive. It's a crucial principle. Once you compromise that principle, it's hard to see where one stops.

The other problem with your characterization of the issue is that you exaggerate the speech that is actually at issue where cancel culture is concerned. It's one thing to be an actual card carrying Nazi and to advocate Nazi views, or to advocate child rape. How many actual cases of such people wanting to speak on university campuses are there? Not many. Almost none, I'd say. But there ARE cases of prominent political speakers, or sitting federal judges, trying to speak, and being shut down, or heckled into silence. There's the case of the female swimmer who spoke out against having to complete against transgender swimmers who had previously competed as males. She was threatened with violence and attempts to shout her down. These people are not Nazis, and reasonable people should not treat them like Nazis, even if they disagree with them. But the reality is that intolerance and cancel culture have become so bad that there ARE reprisals against people for views that are not extreme but don't fit with the local orthodoxy. A number of student organizations at the University of California at Berkeley publicly stated they would not support events at which those with Zionist views were invited to speak. That means, basically, most Israelis. That's crazy. My university schooling took place in the 1980s, and my children recently completed theirs, and the difference in attitudes between then and now is dramatic. Polls show that young people today are less supportive of free speech than young people were when I was young.

The freedom to associate is part of the freedom of speech, but in certain settings, like school, or media, or employment, if it is exercised in a certain way it amounts to de facto suppression of freedom of ideas and expression.

It's the job of the university to make those calls and stand up for free speech as they see fit. The university is within their rights to regulate behavior within the auditorium and expel protestors who do not allow the speech to take place. The protestors can protest outside the venue. Student organizations do not have to support any speaker they don't want to support, including Israelis. But the university does not have to fold before every student protest. There is a tension, yes. And I think it is resolved by all parties exercising their freedom. Students are free to protest. Venues are free to ignore those protests, or follow them, as they choose according to their free speech. If one college decides to agree with students and prohibit a Nazi or a Zionist, another college will probably choose differently.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The tension isn't resolved by protesters, if anything it invariably makes the situation worse. You don't want freedom of speech, you want a hecklers veto.
You don't have to protest even speaker who says things you don't like, and not protesting doesn't mean you support it.
If you don't like what a speaker has to say, bring in your own speaker to counter the message.

That said, this has turned into a discussion that belongs in the politics forum, and I'm out.

Good day to you all.

 

[djrip]

The tension isn't resolved by protesters, if anything it invariably makes the situation worse. You don't want freedom of speech, you want a hecklers veto.
You don't have to protest even speaker who says things you don't like, and not protesting doesn't mean you support it.
If you don't like what a speaker has to say, bring in your own speaker to counter the message.

That said, this has turned into a discussion that belongs in the politics forum, and I'm out.

Good day to you all.

Well I just said the protestors can be put outside the venue. Personally, I've never protested anything. But I'll stand up for the freedom of speech of those who do.

 

[AG31]

Since the start of this thread I received the first unsolicited sexual advance of my life. So now I can register an informed response. (The thread seemed to have veered to a discussion of free speech. I'm going back to the original topic.)

The response is that I don't see anything inherently wrong with testing the waters to see if someone is open to exploring a relationship. But I'm guessing the most commonly appropriate response would be what mine was... dismiss the guy as a jerk and move on.

It started when I DMd an author about one of his stories. He said he'd read my bio and looked at a couple of mine, and would I mind if he gave me some feedback (catnip for authors, right?) I offered to copy edit for him, technical stuff only, since most of his stories were not to my taste. So back and forth. Pretty early on I thought something was askew. But I stuck with it on the chance that I was wrong and out of pure curiosity as to where he was going.

Where he was going, for one thing, was a request for a picture of a part of me. I declined. This was weird from my perspective, truly, truly weird, given my age, which he knew.

He never did give me feedback on my stories.

But, as I said, nothing inherently wrong in testing the waters. And often the appropriate response is to dismiss him as a jerk. Not for testing, but for being without a clue. But the appropriate response is definitely not to claim harassment or whine about an uncomfortable work environment. (Note: Unsolicited advances are never OK when the solicitor has control over someone's work status or salary.)

 

[nice90sguy]

Note: Unsolicited advances are never OK when the solicitor has control over someone's work status or salary.

Yes, when there's a possibility of abuse of power it's definitely a very big NO-NO.

 

[AchtungNight]

I’m open to such advances. I just want to politely inform people they better be sincere and realistic. And no, I don’t need any more online only hookups. I have an imagination and a search engine that enables me to find plenty of them for free.

And I’ve had gay guys hit on me too. I politely inform them I’m not homosexual. Experimented in college, didn’t like it, prefer ladies, thanks. It’s always worked so far. Glad I’m not in prison with idiots.

 

[fma20fma]

any sexual advance is ok if mutually attracted. someone has to bell the cat.