The Hatpin Peril (2014)(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
The Hatpin Peril (2014)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hatpin-peril-terrorized-men-who-couldnt-handle-20th-century-woman-180951219/
80 comments
Dave Chapelle - Bird Revelation.
I used to do shows for drug dealers that wanted to clean their money up. One time I did a real good set, and these motherf--kers called me into the back room. They gave me $25,000 in cash […] I jumped on the subway and started heading towards Brooklyn at one o’clock in the morning. Never been that terrified in my life. I’d never in my life had something that somebody else would want. I thought to myself, “Jesus Christ, if motherf--kers knew much money I had in this backpack, they’d kill me for it.” Then I thought: “Holy s00t, what if I had a pu--y on me all the time? That’s what women are dealing with.” […] If those same drug dealers gave me a pu--y and said, “Put it in your backpack and take it to Brooklyn,” I’d be like, “Ni--a, I can’t accept this.”
I used to do shows for drug dealers that wanted to clean their money up. One time I did a real good set, and these motherf--kers called me into the back room. They gave me $25,000 in cash […] I jumped on the subway and started heading towards Brooklyn at one o’clock in the morning. Never been that terrified in my life. I’d never in my life had something that somebody else would want. I thought to myself, “Jesus Christ, if motherf--kers knew much money I had in this backpack, they’d kill me for it.” Then I thought: “Holy s00t, what if I had a pu--y on me all the time? That’s what women are dealing with.” […] If those same drug dealers gave me a pu--y and said, “Put it in your backpack and take it to Brooklyn,” I’d be like, “Ni--a, I can’t accept this.”
While a good metaphor it still misses out easy identification. Women are often easily identifiable as such.
Take that $25000 and strap it to the front of your chest...
then you're in conversation with someone and have to continually remind them "hey buddy, my eyes are up here"
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hat pins have some advantages, decent stats, light weight (don't need a special scabbard and you'll have one on you anyway to keep your hat on when flying) but they are of misc class, and your far better spending you EXP on another combat branch. https://dwwiki.mooo.com/wiki/Hatpin
I'm sure than in almost all of these cases, the woman had already led the man know that she objected to his attacks (and groping a woman without permission is an attack), either verbally, nonverbally, or both, and the idiot persisted. I'm all for the "hatpin girls".
Are you all for this?
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
You’re sure?
No you’re not. You couldn’t possibly be sure.
Try again.
In response to some comments:
If someone breaks down your door and enters your house, I (and I think most others) see nothing wrong with you defending yourself.
Why is it different here? It doesn't matter if their intention is to rob you or not.
If someone breaks down your door and enters your house, I (and I think most others) see nothing wrong with you defending yourself.
Why is it different here? It doesn't matter if their intention is to rob you or not.
If an aggressive homeless person approaches me on the street and I'm not sure of his state of mind and intentions, should I be allowed to stab him?
If you had a serious reason to see his actions as an attack that puts your life or health at risk, serious enough for the jury to believe you — well, yes. It's self-defense, and it does not matter whether the attacker is homeless.
Nah. Relying on the stabber's self attestation "oh I felt really threatened" is always stupid. That's how you get situations like Trayvon Martin.
You never know whether someone will attack you. Giving people the right to stab any person who makes them feel threatened is de facto giving people the right to stab people at will.
You never know whether someone will attack you. Giving people the right to stab any person who makes them feel threatened is de facto giving people the right to stab people at will.
Indeed. But if somebody were actively attacking you, having not yet inflicted any harm, I suppose any jury would see your self-defense as self-defense. You don't need to wait to be stabbed to fight back.
OTOH if you were to say "he just looked at me just so, and I felt really threatened, so I fought back", it's likely not going to fly.
OTOH if you were to say "he just looked at me just so, and I felt really threatened, so I fought back", it's likely not going to fly.
Obviously that was a sign of the times, so people found a way (people moving amongst semi anonymous crowds and policing not having caught up).
I think we are missing something in that today this kind of action would lead to a case in favor of the "people" (ie the complainant). But there are so many things that can be better handled by people defending themselves without having to fear a case against them. Like a home invader suing homeowners for something)
Obviously in a civilized society we expect people to behave so we have these tools of justice available to us, but in some cases, like these, I think this kind of action would serve to better deter uncivil behavior.
I think we are missing something in that today this kind of action would lead to a case in favor of the "people" (ie the complainant). But there are so many things that can be better handled by people defending themselves without having to fear a case against them. Like a home invader suing homeowners for something)
Obviously in a civilized society we expect people to behave so we have these tools of justice available to us, but in some cases, like these, I think this kind of action would serve to better deter uncivil behavior.
> "When he lifted his arm and draped it low across her back, Leoti had enough. In a move that would thrill victim of modern-day subway harassment, she reached for her hatpin—nearly a foot long—and plunged it into the meat of the man’s arm. He let out a terrible scream and left the coach at the next stop."
Although what the man did is inappropriate, stabbing him seems excessive. She could've first asked him to stop.
> "A Chicago showgirl, bothered by a masher’s “insulting questions,” beat him in the face with her umbrella until he staggered away."
Again, seems excessive. Why not just tell him off and walk away?
> "Such stories were notable not only for their frequency but also for their laudatory tone; for the first time, women who fought back against harassers were regarded as heroes rather than comic characters, as subjects rather than objects. Society was transitioning, slowly but surely, from expecting and advocating female dependence on men to recognizing their desire and ability to defend themselves."
I would say this is more than self defense. The examples given are overreactions that would be prosecuted as crimes under most circumstances.
Although what the man did is inappropriate, stabbing him seems excessive. She could've first asked him to stop.
> "A Chicago showgirl, bothered by a masher’s “insulting questions,” beat him in the face with her umbrella until he staggered away."
Again, seems excessive. Why not just tell him off and walk away?
> "Such stories were notable not only for their frequency but also for their laudatory tone; for the first time, women who fought back against harassers were regarded as heroes rather than comic characters, as subjects rather than objects. Society was transitioning, slowly but surely, from expecting and advocating female dependence on men to recognizing their desire and ability to defend themselves."
I would say this is more than self defense. The examples given are overreactions that would be prosecuted as crimes under most circumstances.
You're assuming that women and men are on equal footing, physically. When you politely ask someone to stop invading your space, it's backed by your ability to push them out of it.
If you're 6'2" and the other guy is 6'2" you're on pretty even footing. But if you're 5'1" and the guy is 6'2" you're not on even footing and shouldn't be expected to act like you are.
This is to say nothing of how physically intimidating it is for someone to just enter your personal space like that. And when you're in an enclosed space like a carriage, you have no escape route. So in my mind stabbing the guy in the arm was pretty mellow. There's no telling where things would have gone from there.
If you're at all concerned about getting stabbed in the arm, maybe get to know the other person before you invade their space.
If you're 6'2" and the other guy is 6'2" you're on pretty even footing. But if you're 5'1" and the guy is 6'2" you're not on even footing and shouldn't be expected to act like you are.
This is to say nothing of how physically intimidating it is for someone to just enter your personal space like that. And when you're in an enclosed space like a carriage, you have no escape route. So in my mind stabbing the guy in the arm was pretty mellow. There's no telling where things would have gone from there.
If you're at all concerned about getting stabbed in the arm, maybe get to know the other person before you invade their space.
I think stabbing someone has a very high chance of making the situation far more dangerous than just asking the person to stop.
Also, it has been true for centuries that a woman screaming "help!" would draw the attention of all the men in the area (for example the carriage driver in this case) who would be eager to beat the other man to a pulp if he didn't stop harassing her.
Women and children first into the lifeboats, remember? Most men do care about women as a class and even elevate their care for them above their concern for themselves.
Also, although people might give a 5'1" man some leeway regarding using a stick against a 6'2" man if the 6'2" man attacked him first, I don't think anyone would find it acceptable for the 5'1" man to INITIATE the violence using a weapon merely because of the POSSIBILITY that the larger man might attack him.
If you're in a bar and a large man says something insulting to you, do you just skip to attacking him because, if you say something insulting back he might attack you? If you do, I'm pretty sure you're the one who will be charged with a crime.
You know, sometimes people who ask for directions then demand your wallet. Should I just attack everyone who approaches me for directions, because they might be a thief?
Also, it has been true for centuries that a woman screaming "help!" would draw the attention of all the men in the area (for example the carriage driver in this case) who would be eager to beat the other man to a pulp if he didn't stop harassing her.
Women and children first into the lifeboats, remember? Most men do care about women as a class and even elevate their care for them above their concern for themselves.
Also, although people might give a 5'1" man some leeway regarding using a stick against a 6'2" man if the 6'2" man attacked him first, I don't think anyone would find it acceptable for the 5'1" man to INITIATE the violence using a weapon merely because of the POSSIBILITY that the larger man might attack him.
If you're in a bar and a large man says something insulting to you, do you just skip to attacking him because, if you say something insulting back he might attack you? If you do, I'm pretty sure you're the one who will be charged with a crime.
You know, sometimes people who ask for directions then demand your wallet. Should I just attack everyone who approaches me for directions, because they might be a thief?
I think you're taking this pretty far down the slippery slope. Someone who "mashes" up to you by taking advantage of the carriage bouncing and then slips his arm around you without saying anything is very different from someone asking you for directions. I could see the former being a prelude to assault, while the latter wouldn't be.
"Got a light?" is a classic prelude to a mugging.
The former is not a "prelude" to assault, it is assault.
For the uninformed, assault is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."[0]
[0] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
[0] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
> Women and children first into the lifeboats, remember?
More than just an empty phrase: of the passengers on the Titanic, 72% of adult women survived, 50% of children, and 16% of adult men: http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html
More than just an empty phrase: of the passengers on the Titanic, 72% of adult women survived, 50% of children, and 16% of adult men: http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html
The Titanic is actually notable for being an exception to the rule of every man for himself, largely attributed to the action's of the Titanic's captain:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/women...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/women...
Huh, you're right. And https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf shows rate of serious violent crime victimization in 2012 was 9.4 men vs 6.6 women per 1000 persons (with the rates even closer in previous years).
I guess society is more egalitarian than I thought.
I guess society is more egalitarian than I thought.
>Also, it has been true for centuries that a woman screaming "help!" would draw the attention of all the men in the area (for example the carriage driver in this case) who would be eager to beat the other man to a pulp if he didn't stop harassing her.
Is that really true?
Is that really true?
Heavily testified as a norm in early 20th century film, though of course that doesn't mean it was in reality.
No, it's not. I just finished reading a book where the author talks about growing up in the late 70s, early 80s, and one night his father started beating his mom with the buckle end of his belt. She managed to hit the panic alarm at their house, and when the police showed up, they police didn't even talk to her, even though she was standing there with blood running down her face. The father just told them that she got out of line, and he had to teach her who's in charge, and the police nodded and chuckled, then left.
What book?
Also, while it is probably true that there were sometimes inappropriate police responses to domestic violence in the past, that is not the general case of a woman screaming for help in a public place from a strange man.
Even so, the story you're talking about sounds very unusual.
Also note that the honest research since the 1970s shows that domestic violence is two-way, and that women initiate the majority of violence.
Reference: Thirty Years Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, Murray Strauss, University of New Hampshire. Summarizes results from 200 studies.
Around the same time, 1970s, Erin Pizzey, creator of the first womens' shelters in the UK, observed (as she wrote in her book) that many of the women that came to her for shelter were as violent or more violent than the men they were escaping from.
Also, while it is probably true that there were sometimes inappropriate police responses to domestic violence in the past, that is not the general case of a woman screaming for help in a public place from a strange man.
Even so, the story you're talking about sounds very unusual.
Also note that the honest research since the 1970s shows that domestic violence is two-way, and that women initiate the majority of violence.
Reference: Thirty Years Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, Murray Strauss, University of New Hampshire. Summarizes results from 200 studies.
Around the same time, 1970s, Erin Pizzey, creator of the first womens' shelters in the UK, observed (as she wrote in her book) that many of the women that came to her for shelter were as violent or more violent than the men they were escaping from.
[deleted]
> You're assuming that women and men are on equal footing, physically. When you politely ask someone to stop invading your space, it's backed by your ability to push them out of it.
Disagre; it's generally backed by one's ability to raise a stink and possibly even call the police. That is to say, it relies on the force you can summon from having people (whether bystanders or professionals) recognize that you're in the right and rally to join you, not your own personal capacity for force.
Disagre; it's generally backed by one's ability to raise a stink and possibly even call the police. That is to say, it relies on the force you can summon from having people (whether bystanders or professionals) recognize that you're in the right and rally to join you, not your own personal capacity for force.
[deleted]
> an enclosed space like a carriage, you have no escape route
You make it sound like she was cornered and in mortal danger. The carriage was crowded with people. Yes, he was (likely) a creepy dirtbag who deserved to be punished. STABBING SOMEONE WITH A FOOT OF SHARP STEEL IS NOT "MELLOW"! It's nuclear. You either have a frightfully diminished understanding of the potential lethality of stabbing someone, or you have a psychotically draconian image of justice.
You make it sound like she was cornered and in mortal danger. The carriage was crowded with people. Yes, he was (likely) a creepy dirtbag who deserved to be punished. STABBING SOMEONE WITH A FOOT OF SHARP STEEL IS NOT "MELLOW"! It's nuclear. You either have a frightfully diminished understanding of the potential lethality of stabbing someone, or you have a psychotically draconian image of justice.
> Why not just tell him off and walk away?
It's very simple to find many, many anecdotal cases where doing this does exactly zilch to actual stop harassment, and sometimes instead results in a man aggressively insulting and harassing the woman for daring to refuse his attention.
It's very simple to find many, many anecdotal cases where doing this does exactly zilch to actual stop harassment, and sometimes instead results in a man aggressively insulting and harassing the woman for daring to refuse his attention.
Okay, but it's reasonable to at least attempt it before bashing or stabbing someone, right?
The same thing could be said about many circumstances.
Just because a non-violent attempt to defuse the situation doesn't work in 100% of cases doesn't mean it is okay to skip attempting it, and jump straight to stabbing or bashing someone.
The same thing could be said about many circumstances.
Just because a non-violent attempt to defuse the situation doesn't work in 100% of cases doesn't mean it is okay to skip attempting it, and jump straight to stabbing or bashing someone.
> it's reasonable to at least attempt it
Now consider having to do that twice a day, every day or every other day, where in some X% of the cases the man involved may themselves turn violent immediately after being rejected.
Now consider having to do that twice a day, every day or every other day, where in some X% of the cases the man involved may themselves turn violent immediately after being rejected.
I guess since it would be so inconvenient, just stabbing someone right away is ok... ?
Why not the masher NOT be a dick in the first place?
If this was an isolated incident, then what you say is reasonable. When it happens often, the deterrent clearly needs to be greater.
And when you factor in average strength, generally restrictive clothing of the day, social norms, lack of rights.
Bugger it, you may as well take a mile as an inch, you'll be prosecuted the same either way.
If this was an isolated incident, then what you say is reasonable. When it happens often, the deterrent clearly needs to be greater.
And when you factor in average strength, generally restrictive clothing of the day, social norms, lack of rights.
Bugger it, you may as well take a mile as an inch, you'll be prosecuted the same either way.
An armed society is a polite society...
But only to their faces, and where the odds are not overwhelmingly in one party's favour. When this is not true, then they turn violent, petty and tribal out of fear that the other armed person might do to them first what they fantasize doing to that other person.
If some guy sitting next to you on the train reached over and grabbed onto your junk, and then just stared at you with a smile...do you think you would be in the wrong to punch them instead of asking them to let go?
Once you move to physical assault, you lose the defense of "you should have just asked me not to do that!"
Once you move to physical assault, you lose the defense of "you should have just asked me not to do that!"
[deleted]
You do understand that women were not allowed to vote during the hatpin panic, right?
Perhaps that fact will provide some context as to why women were stabbing men with hatpins for sexually assaulting them. They didn’t have the same rights that men did!
Perhaps that fact will provide some context as to why women were stabbing men with hatpins for sexually assaulting them. They didn’t have the same rights that men did!
Yes, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable to beat someone in the face with an umbrella for saying something you don't like...
Also, as a separate point, it was only in 1868 that all men were able to vote in the United States, although it seems most men could vote by the 1820s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t...
Would it have been acceptable for a non-property-holding white male in 1820 to beat another man with a stick if the other man offended him, on the basis of the first man lacking voting rights?
Also, as a separate point, it was only in 1868 that all men were able to vote in the United States, although it seems most men could vote by the 1820s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t...
Would it have been acceptable for a non-property-holding white male in 1820 to beat another man with a stick if the other man offended him, on the basis of the first man lacking voting rights?
>Would it have been acceptable for a non-property-holding white male in 1820 to beat another man with a stick
Definitely if they were congressmen.
https://newrepublic.com/article/151817/violence-broke-congre...
Definitely if they were congressmen.
https://newrepublic.com/article/151817/violence-broke-congre...
> Would it have been acceptable for a non-property-holding white male in 1820 to beat another man with a stick if the other man offended him, on the basis of the first man lacking voting rights?
If we're going to go for "all men", how about a felon or an immigrant attacking a proper citizen in 2020 on the same basis?
If we're going to go for "all men", how about a felon or an immigrant attacking a proper citizen in 2020 on the same basis?
Hell I've seen women this century hit guys pretty hard just to say "hello" or because they disagree about where the guy wants to go eat or something else entirely trivial. Similar is all over TV, so common it passes below the level of notice most of the time. At least this wasn't just socially-acceptable casually-abusive battery and had a purpose. Go hatpin ladies.
The problem at the time was that those behaviours were acknowledged to be inappropriate but addressing them verbally did not stop the perpetrators from repeating. The threat of unmediated violence changed the risk profile of the action.
Also, you may not have this expectation yourself, but society at the time would not be surprised to see a male in a similar situation react with at least the threat of violence. In this view females just normalized their behaviour in public.
Also, you may not have this expectation yourself, but society at the time would not be surprised to see a male in a similar situation react with at least the threat of violence. In this view females just normalized their behaviour in public.
I don't read the article as necessarily defending the practice -- it talks about the mores of the time and why this might have been happening with more frequency for a spell. The article also notes that the practice dissipated as daily fashion trends shifted.
> She could've first asked him to stop.
Sure, she could've. But how many times do you think she'd tried that in other circumstances with success?
If you intentionally violate someone else's personal space, particularly with sexual intentions directed at a member of the opposite sex, you really have no right to assume an equally measured response, especially if you're the physically dominant one.
The moment you decide that it's OK to touch someone inappropriately, you really have no standing to argue over the severity of the response. Let the court decide that one.
Sure, she could've. But how many times do you think she'd tried that in other circumstances with success?
If you intentionally violate someone else's personal space, particularly with sexual intentions directed at a member of the opposite sex, you really have no right to assume an equally measured response, especially if you're the physically dominant one.
The moment you decide that it's OK to touch someone inappropriately, you really have no standing to argue over the severity of the response. Let the court decide that one.
> She could've first asked him to stop.
Maybe the masher could have just asked her to stop stabbing him instead?
Maybe the masher could have just asked her to stop stabbing him instead?
Wow, this comment got downvoted into oblivion really quick. It doesn't read as insensitive or provocative to me. I was hoping that people on HN would have the mental ability to tolerate an opinion that they disagree with and engage it with counter-arguments. But apparently, we're canceling unwanted ideas instead.
If I remember correctly, a downvote is for spam, attacks, or other things unrelated to the discussion, not for disagreeing with someone.
If I remember correctly, a downvote is for spam, attacks, or other things unrelated to the discussion, not for disagreeing with someone.
There are other communities with very similar content that have fixed this problem.
See: https://lobste.rs/ and https://tildes.net/
See: https://lobste.rs/ and https://tildes.net/
You're applying the standards of today to the past i.e. 100+ years ago. That never works. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." The only standard you can use is how behaviour was judged contemporaneously.
Responding by STABBING someone, as a measure of first defense, is ludicrous, disproportionate, and far more immoral than the harassment leading to it.
The harassment is ALSO TERRIBLE. Just not STABBINGLY so.
The harassment is ALSO TERRIBLE. Just not STABBINGLY so.
You should consider it from the point of view of someone who is very vulnerable to assault, who is not at all on an even footing with her potential assailant, and who is in a confined and semi-private space with her assailant. Stabbing someone who invades your personal space slowly over the course of the trip, culminating in putting their arm around your shoulders. As a man I would start throwing elbows, but stabbing the guy with a hat pin seems pretty understandable in those circumstances too.
I can certainly understand the impulse to react with overwhelming force. Even as a man, many potential assailants are larger and stronger than me.
But I'd surely go to prison if I followed through and stabbed some stranger for putting their arm on my shoulders. One of the first things you learn in any kind of self-defense training is that you should not - and legally must not - wield a weapon except to protect yourself from an immediate risk of serious injury.
But I'd surely go to prison if I followed through and stabbed some stranger for putting their arm on my shoulders. One of the first things you learn in any kind of self-defense training is that you should not - and legally must not - wield a weapon except to protect yourself from an immediate risk of serious injury.
The mental gymnastics you are doing are extreme. STABBING someone in response to this is absolutely not ok. There is no consistent social norm reasoning that could make it so.
What if I have a blood clotting disorder? You stab me in my arm and I die. This is ok as an immediate reaction? What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
It’s just crazy.
I agree if you really are in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included.
That’s not what this is describing, not remotely.
What if I have a blood clotting disorder? You stab me in my arm and I die. This is ok as an immediate reaction? What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
It’s just crazy.
I agree if you really are in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included.
That’s not what this is describing, not remotely.
[deleted]
Some attacks are most effectively prevented by the threat of immediate, excessive violence. It was just a novelty that females would operate without a male intermediate. Which is why it made news.
The mental gymnastics you are doing are extreme. STABBING someone in response to this is absolutely not ok. There is no consistent social norm reasoning that could make it so.
What you describe as mental gymnastics seems straightforward to me. As for what you perceive as escalation. The situation has already escalated:
Confined space, obvious aggressor doing OBVIOUSLY wrong thing to a vulnerable, complete stranger. There is no way to read their intent as friendly at that point. This is self defence.
Hence your other later reasonable sentence DOES apply.
in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included
About the only thing you said that was reasonable.
As for your lame "blood clotting" mental gymnastics, this is extra information not available at the time. You can't make decisions on information you don't have or can't reasonably assume. If you assume your blood clotting disorder argument to be valid then in a split second of self-defence:
- I need to canvass the knowledge of the medical establishment to know every possible medical condition a person could have and...
- avoid triggering every such possibility.
Tell me again that your "blood clotting" argument makes sense.
And even assuming it played out this way, I would be unhappy a person died, but given the information at the time I wouldn't regret the decision/action one iota. Morally clean and happy to sleep like a baby.
Accidental bump? Not what this was. Another mental gymnastic flip on your part.
This was a simple moment of self defence with a measured (She didn't stab him in the face) - but not unwarranted - action.
Edit:text flow, no words deleted.
What you describe as mental gymnastics seems straightforward to me. As for what you perceive as escalation. The situation has already escalated:
Confined space, obvious aggressor doing OBVIOUSLY wrong thing to a vulnerable, complete stranger. There is no way to read their intent as friendly at that point. This is self defence.
Hence your other later reasonable sentence DOES apply.
in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included
About the only thing you said that was reasonable.
As for your lame "blood clotting" mental gymnastics, this is extra information not available at the time. You can't make decisions on information you don't have or can't reasonably assume. If you assume your blood clotting disorder argument to be valid then in a split second of self-defence:
- I need to canvass the knowledge of the medical establishment to know every possible medical condition a person could have and...
- avoid triggering every such possibility.
Tell me again that your "blood clotting" argument makes sense.
And even assuming it played out this way, I would be unhappy a person died, but given the information at the time I wouldn't regret the decision/action one iota. Morally clean and happy to sleep like a baby.
Accidental bump? Not what this was. Another mental gymnastic flip on your part.
This was a simple moment of self defence with a measured (She didn't stab him in the face) - but not unwarranted - action.
Edit:text flow, no words deleted.
> What if I have a blood clotting disorder?
I guess the safest answer is don't go around groping strangers.
> What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
I'm a male who has ridden NYC subways for 15+ years, and have been groped probably a half dozen times. It is clear when it happens versus when a bump happens.
I guess the safest answer is don't go around groping strangers.
> What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
I'm a male who has ridden NYC subways for 15+ years, and have been groped probably a half dozen times. It is clear when it happens versus when a bump happens.
Considering the state of medicine in 1903, there's a good chance he lost the arm or died.
We have no concrete knowledge so we're both guessing.
But have a look at history and you'll see that not every kid who skinned a knee got some horrendous complication. Chances are he didn't either.
Also, he didn't get stabbed with a broadsword, it was a hatpin. While we don't know, chances are he was fine.
But have a look at history and you'll see that not every kid who skinned a knee got some horrendous complication. Chances are he didn't either.
Also, he didn't get stabbed with a broadsword, it was a hatpin. While we don't know, chances are he was fine.
> But have a look at history and you'll see
"Blood poisoning" i.e. infection:
https://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS1...
Another "jostled on public transportation" incident:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19060711.2.68&e=-...
Here she mistook a prank by a kid as an unwelcome advance from an innocent man:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
That's not to say that everyone who took a puncture wound from a hatpin was grievously injured, but you shouldn't be so casually dismissive of the fact that they could do very real harm. Regardless of its intended utility, a foot of sharp metal is still a foot of sharp metal when it bites into flesh.
"Blood poisoning" i.e. infection:
https://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS1...
Another "jostled on public transportation" incident:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19060711.2.68&e=-...
Here she mistook a prank by a kid as an unwelcome advance from an innocent man:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
That's not to say that everyone who took a puncture wound from a hatpin was grievously injured, but you shouldn't be so casually dismissive of the fact that they could do very real harm. Regardless of its intended utility, a foot of sharp metal is still a foot of sharp metal when it bites into flesh.
Possibilities /= probabilities.
Maybe she stabbed him right through the arm with blood gushing anime style! Maybe she barely broke the skin.
Maybe he was fine. Maybe he died from tetanus. Maybe he got run over shortly after stepping out of the carriage. Maybe he gave up his life of mashing, donated everything to charity and became a monk.
We don't know. But I know which way I'd bet.
As for other incidents, not every incident is the same, not all results are the same, accidents happen and some are likely outright hostile too!
To compare them and say an outcome in one should be applicable to another is not practicable.
For the original case I would happily maintain, to defend herself as she did, with the information she had at hand, was entirely reasonable.
Maybe she stabbed him right through the arm with blood gushing anime style! Maybe she barely broke the skin.
Maybe he was fine. Maybe he died from tetanus. Maybe he got run over shortly after stepping out of the carriage. Maybe he gave up his life of mashing, donated everything to charity and became a monk.
We don't know. But I know which way I'd bet.
As for other incidents, not every incident is the same, not all results are the same, accidents happen and some are likely outright hostile too!
To compare them and say an outcome in one should be applicable to another is not practicable.
For the original case I would happily maintain, to defend herself as she did, with the information she had at hand, was entirely reasonable.
Igelau(1)
This appears to be a topic that the HN community is unwilling to discuss neutrally.
What do you feel the ideal neutrality for this topic looks like on HN?
For example, engaging epicureanideal's post with arguments showing his opinion to be wrong, instead of just hiding it with hundreds of downvotes. That post and its replies was like 90% of the discussion when I first checked, and now it's one light gray row at the bottom. As is, there isn't much of a discussing left in here.
HN guidelines say:
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.
---
The "hundreds of downvotes" and how the UI reflects the downvotes are two facts of life. Indeed your initiative to change these facts is not interesting to me.
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.
---
The "hundreds of downvotes" and how the UI reflects the downvotes are two facts of life. Indeed your initiative to change these facts is not interesting to me.
I was trying to comment about the lack of different opinions in the discussion. Because it's hardly a discussion if everyone agrees and/or if the people who don't agree are invisible.
Sorry, but "hundreds of downvotes" isn't a thing. The moderation floor is -4.
I’m paraphrasing, but I thought this was an interesting perspective into a kind of vulnerability that a lot of men probably hadn’t thought about.