> Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"
Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way.
Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships, about how all of our families and parents met and fell in love, and I'm honestly a little offended by your suggestion.
> It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted."
The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower your scope of acceptable behavior is.
If Dave McClure was someone more Sarah Kunst's type, we might be reading an article about their pending nuptials. Instead, we're reading ones about how Dave McClure is a creep who should be added to the sex offender registry.
That's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for the same behavior.
I wasn't asked a question and didn't provide an answer (or even a proposal), but I understand that having a rational discussion on this topic is difficult or impossible for most people, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
The word "unwanted" is troubling, because it means the alleged victim gets to personally decide whether the act was illegal/punishable or not, based entirely on their own subjective feelings.
So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.
This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").
I've heard Palantir is maybe the most credentials-/prestige-focused tech company in Silicon Valley.
I remember thinking that sounds like a good way to build a below-average team that seems very impressive from the outside. When you look at what they're doing, this strategy actually starts to make a lot of sense.
They're selling a product that's somewhat incomprehensible. The value of that product is very difficult to measure, due to both its complexity and the "how do you put a dollar figure on social impact"-factor.
They're selling that product to government agencies, which probably can't properly evaluate that kind of purchase and don't care much about cost or ROI (due to government's inherently inefficient incentive structures). Credentials matter for winning contracts, because if you're the person who makes that decision, credentials and prestige are something tangible you can point to and prove you did your job.
This doesn't sound like the makings of a great respectable tech giant, though. This sounds more like one of those companies built specifically to exploit inefficiencies in government spending.
> The blog isn't about tearing down wealthy people, it's about tearing down shitty architecture. She showcases really great architecture as well that obviously isn't affordable.
It's about tearing down shitty architecture, in a way that directly criticizes the owner's purchase and taste while making endless derogatory assumptions and claims about them, and that's only ok because that owner has money.
She, for example, thinks it's sexist for a bathroom to have two sinks, and a bathroom having two sinks is an appeal to the owner's sexism. You can take this person seriously if you want to, but to act like there's no malice here is a little absurd, and it's clear (at least to me) that that malice is only accepted because it's directed at the wealthy.
And it's totally unwarranted, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't know their political affiliations or their positions on social issues. They're just people who like a house you don't like. I don't see how that's a justification to draw insults on pictures of their house and post it on the internet.
There's definitely rampant classism going on here, but not in the direction you seem to think.
Her blog has an extremely mean-spirited tone, she's downright attacking people.
Her audience is accepting of that because it's directed at people who own large houses, and people who own large houses have money and are successful. In her world, it's acceptable to treat people poorly, as long as they're successful and have money.
If she were applying the same architectural critique to poorly-designed small crappy houses (which exist by the millions), she'd be getting a very, very different reaction.
Her Patreon might not be as successful, let's just put it that way.
I actually think that's a big part of the appeal of the content. Large houses are typically a source of envy, but if you can turn that large house into something to be embarrassed about, the envy dissipates and the viewership gets to feel built-up by the tearing down of the wealthy person.
My standard for how people should be treated doesn't change based on their income level, so to me this just seems mean, I think much less of her, and I don't want to read more of it.
The biggest disappointment about this change to me is that I won't be having conversations with Uber drivers anymore.
Uber drivers will now be obligated to make pleasant conversation with me. I have no interest in speaking to somebody who's obligated to make pleasant conversation with me.
When you add tipping, you're essentially attaching a financial penalty to sincerity.
All economic arguments aside, it's just not right to penalize someone for being in a bad mood that day or not wanting to talk to you. We force these workers to maintain these totally fabricated upbeat emotional states and we act like it's normal. It's not normal anywhere else in the world, and I can't stand it.
Every time I see someone making conversation with a waiter or waitress, it honestly seems rude to me. They have to talk to you, they have to agree with you, they have to smile and laugh at your joke. By having a conversation with them you're forcing them to do all of these things, and if they don't, you're going to take money off their tab. That is just rude.
Uber will have access to all the data related to tipping, the fare splits will be adjusted accordingly, and Uber drivers' pay will normalize to exactly what it already would have been without tipping.
Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way.
Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships, about how all of our families and parents met and fell in love, and I'm honestly a little offended by your suggestion.