No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

It's what I dislike.
She calls him out publicly, a definite attempt to hurt him professionally, for not picking up on non verbal cues....allegedly given while his date was naked in his bed and engaging in sex in the dark but never verbalized, Sam has zero idea what those nonverbal cues were or if she even sent them.
Her private message to him was somewhat appropriate (but showed her lack of maturity to have gone through the bad date, slept with him, actually gone to sleep in bed with him, and only later decides it was unacceptable). Going public with a bad date and pretending it's a "me too" sex abuse story was outrageous imo, and only (severely) harms the anti sex abuse movement. He may have deserved blue balls, not to be blackballed.

I like Sam, but I think she's on the wrong side of this one. It's 100% up to the woman to communicate her discomfort clearly, not on men to pick up non verbal cues of discomfort given in the dark while they're also giving verbal cues to continue. She never said stop, she said slow down, which means continue, but slower. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues 99.999% of the time.

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

I don't know for certain, but I think this is a result of people replacing 'er' and 'uh' and such with 'like'. It tends to get used in the same places, at natural pauses. It sounds worse perhaps because 'like' is a word, so listeners expect it to mean something when its used, whereas nonverbal pausing just sounds like a pause.

>> ^ulysses1904:

I can't stand the overuse of the word "like" either, it drives me nuts. There was a time when you had to be a serious stoner to speak with such a lack of articulation and confidence. Now I hear many adults using it almost as a punctuation mark in every sentence. Not just to indicate that somebody said something "they were like, okay" but as a preface to any noun or adjective, "we had to wait like, 5 minutes". "I'm going over there like, Thursday". "I think she was like, middle-eastern or something". "I just bought like, a Chevy Cobalt". New hires show up at our company with their 4-year degrees, talking like the teens at the mall.

This film could just as easily be about how much is communicated nonverbally, subtextually, in tone, gesture, and kinesics.

oh...i get ya now Lann-

whiz, my comment sprang forth from an on-going analysis on psychological cues from the written word, and here, since it's the first time I have been able to put a face with the comments. Some assert that between 60 and 70 percent of all meaning is derived from nonverbal behavior.

I observe myself in this manner continuously, correct or adjust according to desire or necessity, oh and by the way....bacon. I simply adore bacon and was shitfaced this morning, after a night of similar observations, at a local meat-market posing as a nightclub.-If what I witnessed last night is an example of those who may shape the course of the planet for future generations, we're all doomed.

Flower does hands signs too. It is not unusual for a dog to actually pick up on nonverbal queues first and then verbal ones.

>> ^mauz15:
>> ^jonny:
I added "social referencing" in the tags because, while it's not directly demonstrated in this video, it has been shown in experiments using the same setup.

By social referencing, you mean what? like the kids relying on nonverbal communication from their parents or....?

Exactly that. In other experiments using the same "visual cliff" setup, the mothers were instructed to show encouraging, fearful, or neutral faces to their infants when on the cliff side. Subjects would often ignore the visual clues of the "cliff" and cross anyway when mothers showed an encouraging face, and were even less likely to cross when mothers showed a fearful face rather than a neutral one.

The point was to demonstrate just how powerful social cues are in development - they can actually override instinctual sensory cues.

>> ^jonny:
Cognitive development is fascinating. Good description, since the video doesn't do much to explain the details, or show the younger infants that will cross. I added "social referencing" in the tags because, while it's not directly demonstrated in this video, it has been shown in experiments using the same setup.


By social referencing, you mean what? like the kids relying on nonverbal communication from their parents or....?