Comments on: More Links For October 2014

By: Joe from London

Joe from London — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:04:14 +0000

Kinda agree, but I tend to use the term ‘phyg’ when I am criticising LW, because it’s a way to get people to think of me as part of their in-group.

Report comment

By: CAE_Jones

CAE_Jones — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:12:38 +0000

The LessWrong bragging threads might be a place to look, for not-organization-level things. I was directed there the last time I asked.

Report comment

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:30:09 +0000

Looking at this, LW scores very low on all of these measures of cultishness except perhaps wisdom/knowledge claimed and wisdom/knowledge credited which are medium at highest. Plausibly a couple of points for dogma as well since they don’t like relativism, but I think that is it.

Report comment

By: ADifferentAnonymous

ADifferentAnonymous — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:46:48 +0000

I’d like to express that I got the rhetorical point of this proposal and didn’t get hung up on its extremism. Frequently, extreme policies that would be terrible ideas to enact can clarify a certain effect that might be achieved through more moderate means, and it kind of annoys me when they mindkill people.
(Though on communication consequentialist grounds you probably should try to avoid them)

Report comment

By: AlphaCeph

AlphaCeph — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:23:22 +0000

exactly

Report comment

By: AlphaCeph

AlphaCeph — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:22:44 +0000

If there’s a risk that your question will be perceived as weird or awkward, then it’s still hurting you to ask.

And “a person” didn’t get *continued* affirmative consent..

Report comment

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 16:14:12 +0000

ADifferentAnonymous- It’s not hard to come up with a similar scenario involving penetration. Just use a rape case where the alleged victim consented to getting into bed naked with the alleged perpetrator and engaging in oral sex and manual genital stimulation. The alleged perpetrator believes he is engaging in foreplay, so he moves naturally from foreplay to penetration when the moment seems right. She reacts negatively.

Unless her negative reaction is clear enough, there’s a good chance penetration will have occurred before her reaction can be noticed, interpreted, and her partner can respond. If her reaction is “silence” or “lack of resistance,” both of which affirmative consent rules focus on, they will be particularly hard to notice and we should expect lag time. Under an affirmative consent rubric, we might say that the guy reasonably believed that he had affirmative consent from her positive response to his foreplay. But his belief was incorrect. So he failed his duty to ensure he actually had ongoing affirmative consent, and engaged in at least a few moments of penetration before noticing his partner’s silent “lack of yes” and stopped.

Or just imagine a scenario where a woman consents to sexual penetration, then changes her mind while penetration is ongoing. Per affirmative consent rules her partner has an ongoing affirmative duty to have affirmative consent at all times, and “silence” and “lack of resistance” are not consent. Lets assume that she does not verbally communicate (that is, is silent), and does not clearly non verbally communicate (resist). At best, she has a negative expression on her face (though the scenario doesn’t even require that). There will presumably be lag time between the changing of her mind and the point where her partner figures it out.

Veronica d will no doubt continue to spin scenarios of two people reaching tremulously, haltingly towards each other, maintaining eye contact, and sharing an unspoken bond that makes each completely and reliably aware of exactly what the other welcomes. But some of us have sex without vulcan mind melds- awkwardly, clumsily, doing our best, communicating, MIS-communicating, and apologizing when we get it wrong.

You’d think that someone in the kink community would be more concerned about a rule that effectively prohibits reliance on safeword systems, but whatevs.

Report comment

By: no one special

no one special — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:23:27 +0000

It’s not enthusiastic, but it is affirmative.

Report comment

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:10:27 +0000

You can do 🍪 🍪

or &127850; 🍪

Usually it accepts unicode, but apparently not the cookie.

Report comment

By: Vegemeister

Vegemeister — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:54:49 +0000

I couldn’t figure out how to edit that last post, but there was supposed to be a U+1F36A after that colon. Apparently this comment system eats unicode.

Report comment