More death threats -- Woman take video of her walk through New York

[One Brow]

Did you miss the part in bold or just conveniently ignore it.

When I wrote it, it was connected in my mind with the previous material concerning your workplace. My apologies for that confusion.

However, let me add this: even when they are uncomfortable, a lot of people will say "Hi" back to you, in the hopes that you will then not say anything more. So, the mere fact that you have gotten "Hi" back does not mean that your utterance was welcome.

Or perhaps just answer this straight up:

Is it wrong for an individual to approach another individual and attempt to engage them in conversation, or simply greet them potentially habitually, by saying "hi"?

Sorry, but I don't have a simple "yes" or "no". In fact, in your text below, you make it clear that you do not, either, or you would not bother to list some exceptions.

Actions have consequences, sometimes unintended consequences. Ethical people consider the consequences of their actions, and accept them even when things go wrong. I'm not your teacher, your prophet, your holy book, or Miss Manners. Every interaction is different, and there are at best general guidelines and considerations, but no hard-and-fast rule.

And it cannot be a "yes....if it makes their day worse" or "yes as long as you understand it is your fault for interrupting their day" or any esoteric crap like that. We are talking basic human interaction here. We can infer lots from what you say and you always have another reason to shift what you are implying. It's like trying to stab a marble. Lay your opinion on the line. Here I can start.

My opinion is that it is absolutely socially acceptable to approach another individual absent of all signals or cues and say "hi" to attempt to initiate a social interaction regardless of their ultimate response.

I will give one caveat that it would not be acceptable in the face of crazy obvious cues (people running, someone hysterical, maybe she lost her baby or something, people already engaged in conversation, person actual says out loud "no one talk to me", person is huddled up in a corner and staring at the wall, people on the phone, people with their headset on and jammin to their fav tunes, people reading, etc.). But I still hold that the act itself is perfectly acceptable in all but the most extreme cases.

My personal standard is that I don't talk to people (on the bus/train, walking in the street, etc.) unless I am fairly sure my conversation will be welcome, and I don't just assume my conversation is welcome.

 

[One Brow]

Stop harrasing me. I in no way intiated discussion with you or gave you any clues I wanted your attention.

 

[One Brow]

Actually what you have been saying for pages and pages is that the response justifies the stimulus. Everytime a scenario is presented all you say is "yes but what if they cry then, was it justified that you ruined their day with your intrusive 'hi'?" which we cannot know until after the fact, in other words post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have also used very vague and unclear signals as your example, like eye contact or a nod of the head. You are aware that in some cultures these signals can have very different meanings right? And in America it is awful tough to guess what culture someone grew up in, hence the difficult time we have reading signals accurately.

Technically (and this is completely tangential to your post and your point), post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy that, when B happens after A happens, that means A is the cause of B. It has nothing to do with behavior, morality, nor ethics.

As for the main point, what I am saying and have been saying is that the person who creates the stimulus needs to accept responsibility for their part in the response, and should not undertake that stimulus if they are not accepting of that responsibility.

 

[LogGrad98]

When I wrote it, it was connected in my mind with the previous material concerning your workplace. My apologies for that confusion.

However, let me add this: even when they are uncomfortable, a lot of people will say "Hi" back to you, in the hopes that you will then not say anything more. So, the mere fact that you have gotten "Hi" back does not mean that your utterance was welcome.



Sorry, but I don't have a simple "yes" or "no". In fact, in your text below, you make it clear that you do not, either, or you would not bother to list some exceptions.

Actions have consequences, sometimes unintended consequences. Ethical people consider the consequences of their actions, and accept them even when things go wrong. I'm not your teacher, your prophet, your holy book, or Miss Manners. Every interaction is different, and there are at best general guidelines and considerations, but no hard-and-fast rule.



My personal standard is that I don't talk to people (on the bus/train, walking in the street, etc.) unless I am fairly sure my conversation will be welcome, and I don't just assume my conversation is welcome.

Fair enough. You go on continuing to psycho-analyze every interaction or possible interaction you may have, which apparently brings you joy in your daily life, and I will continue being friendly which absolutely brings joy in my daily life. Since we really can never tell about others through simple observation I will take the risk that I will make one person pissed off for the others whose days I may brighten with a friendly greeting.

FWIW I agree that we all do act on non-verbal cues, but mostly it happens without thinking about it. It happens all the time. I just don't think that the decision of whether or not to say "good morning" to the person approaching me on the street requires much more in-depth analysis than what my subconscious is telling me about the non-verbal cues that are evident in the moment, and I would rather err on the side of occasionally bugging someone for saying hi than to feel out of sorts myself by burying my friendliness in fear of offending everyone or anyone.

You know there will be some people who you will offend by not saying "hi", so it kind of goes both ways.

 

[One Brow]

Yes. That said, treating those who say "hi" with hostility OR labeling their behavior "harassment" is effectively blaming them for the poor behavior of others. Wouldn't it be easier/more positive to take friendly greetings as proof that not all people are terrible harassers, and that there's still hope for mankind? Maybe I'm just naive.

Within reason, yes. Those who react negatively to someone saying "have a nice evening" are responsible for their reaction as well.

We're talking about frequent complete indifference to a friendly, non-intrusive greeting from a neighbor. In a small, rural town, people have to look out for each other because "the law" is simply too far away. Someone who fails to recognize their neighbors who feel a responsibility to do just that is incredibly ungrateful, impolite, anti-social. So yes, my neighbor owed me to stick two fingers up above her steering wheel, and perhaps crack a small smile.

I don't think either of us are wise enough to say how other people should take behaviors, even those as innocuous as saying "hello". People's reactions come from long personal histories. I don't see how you can take responsibility for a reaction, that's like saying you can taking responsibility for liking/not liking the taste of butterscotch. If you want to persuade some individuals that certain behaviors should not be seen as harassing, you can certainly try, but reactions can take a long time to unlearn, and in this particular case (men saying "hi" to women), there will be many others who reinforce their reaction.

I don't feel nearly as entitled as you do to my neighbor's considerations, and receiving them or not doesn't change any desire I have to help them.

Yes, acceptable. In this case, I do think it's worth fighting against people who label friendly greetings "harassment".

OK. If you feel that this cause is worth causing discomfort in other people, there's not much else for me to say.

 

[One Brow]

If you want to get into the definition of harassment first you need to provide context. Do you mean legally, or socially, or a book definition? Legally anything you listed above could be construed to be harassment, and the examples of repeated actions even if not from the same individual are technically viewed as "hostile environment" harassment.

I am referring to social harassment. I agree with everything you said about legal harassment in the workplace.

 

[Stoked]

I am referring to social harassment. I agree with everything you said about legal harassment in the workplace.

There is nothing wrong with going up and politely intitiating a convo with someone. If they show that they do not want a convo leave them alone. Harrasment, for me, comes in when you continue to push it after being rebuffed.

Be polite, respectful and let them decide if they want your attention.

 

[One Brow]

I'm trying to think of when I have gotten a negative reaction for a simple hello. The only ones I can think of are from young men and homeless people.

To directly answer your question No I do not accept blame for someone being in a bad mood. When I pass someone on the sidewalk I say "good mornin" "afternoon" or 'good evenin". When I need to get by someone I say "excuse me". When I am unsure of where a line begins I say "Is this the line?" or "Are you in line?" I say these things to both women and men.

To think that anyone has burdened you in any way for saying these things to you is anti-social behavior. Granted I am not trying to pick up women. If I was though I see no reason why politely trying to initiate a conversation would be unacceptable.

That's an interesting point. Are women less likely to be in a good mood and open to conversation, or perhaps are they less willing to express this openly? If the latter, why do you think that would be true, and does it alter in any way the context of your greetings?

Your sentence was a little imprecise, but I don't recall anyone asking you to accept blame for a preexisting bad mood. I do recall asking if you accept that your very minor imposition on a person's time could, in fact, be making their day less pleasant, and they may respond to that. Even something like "Good evening" can make an evening worse. Does that matter to you?

Trying to get by someone in a narrow passage, or standing in a line, are very specific contexts. Why do you think they are appropriate to this discussion?

Again, the best word I can think of for describing the attitude that, when you decide to talk to someone, there is no way it could possibly be a burden to them of any degree, is "entitled".

 

[One Brow]

On the contrary, I feel I owe it to others to be pleasant. I was raised to be polite to people and a friendly greeting I view as polite social interaction. They can do what they want, and it won't change the fact that I feel I am being polite.

It is interesting to me you would make this assumption.

It was an interpretation to you referring to the person involved as a jerk.

I have another question for you. Have you ever had someone say "hi" to you that you felt owed you an apology after the fact, or had someone say something like "good morning" who then apologized for doing do?

No.

Or have you ever made a similar comment then apologized after the fact since you interrupted their day?

Yes, if they seemed annoyed or upset by it.

 

[One Brow]

Fair enough. You go on continuing to psycho-analyze every interaction or possible interaction you may have, which apparently brings you joy in your daily life, and I will continue being friendly which absolutely brings joy in my daily life. Since we really can never tell about others through simple observation I will take the risk that I will make one person pissed off for the others whose days I may brighten with a friendly greeting.

FWIW I agree that we all do act on non-verbal cues, but mostly it happens without thinking about it. It happens all the time. I just don't think that the decision of whether or not to say "good morning" to the person approaching me on the street requires much more in-depth analysis than what my subconscious is telling me about the non-verbal cues that are evident in the moment, and I would rather err on the side of occasionally bugging someone for saying hi than to feel out of sorts myself by burying my friendliness in fear of offending everyone or anyone.

You know there will be some people who you will offend by not saying "hi", so it kind of goes both ways.

I think that I benefit from analyzing my choices, and my anecdotal experience is that I make better choices when I analyze. I find what I read as your derision to be misplaced. It's like calling scientists foolish for trying to understand how lightning works, because you think it's pretty to look at.

Outside of that, getting you to acknowledge and accept responsibility for that risk was all I was aiming for.

 

[One Brow]

There is nothing wrong with going up and politely intitiating a convo with someone. If they show that they do not want a convo leave them alone. Harrasment, for me, comes in when you continue to push it after being rebuffed.

Be polite, respectful and let them decide if they want your attention.

You are think of harassment an an attribute of an individual, but it can also be an attribute of an environment, not specific to nor intended by any individual within that environment.

 

[Stoked]

You are think of harassment an an attribute of an individual, but it can also be an attribute of an environment, not specific to nor intended by any individual within that environment.

Aproaching someone in a polite and respectful way is not harrasment at either the individual or societal level.

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[One Brow]

Aproaching someone in a polite and respectful way is not harrasment at either the individual or societal level.

Never, under any circumstance?

 

[Stoked]

Never, under any circumstance?

Oh so you admit that it isn't except as an exception. Good to know.

I am sure we can all come up with scenarios where it might be rude, ill timed and what not but I'd shy away from calling it harrasment.

 

[GVC]

OK. If you feel that this cause is worth causing discomfort in other people, there's not much else for me to say.

What about when friendly verbal communication is positive rather than negative? You seem to be arguing that the only relevant consideration in our choice of behavior is the harm it might cause, no matter how much good it could do. That is, even if we can be fairly certain that for the vast majority of people a behavior would be beneficial, we shouldn't engage in it if there's any chance it could do any harm, no matter how small or unlikely. I'm about as risk averse as they come, but I simply can't agree with that.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

 

[LogGrad98]

Outside of that, getting you to acknowledge and accept responsibility for that risk was all I was aiming for.

I find it laughable that this was your goal as there is risk in everything, that goes without saying. You take a risk by not talking as well. You take a risk just getting on that bus or taking that walk. There is some level of risk in literally every single activity we engage in. The real discussion becomes whether anyone is any good at risk assessment and how they make decisions based on that assessment.

The real admission is that there are varying degrees of risk, and whether that can be acknowledged. Not every risk requires the same level of analysis nor action taken. Seems like you are stuck in one gear on this. I would guess you are extremely risk-averse.

FWIW I believe the risk of talking to someone on the street or on a bus is just barely above absolute 0, and so insignificant as to not be worth my time to over-analyze the ramifications of saying "hi" beyond what my subconscious picks up on cursory examination.

To each his own I guess.

 

[One Brow]

Oh so you admit that it isn't except as an exception. Good to know.

I am sure we can all come up with scenarios where it might be rude, ill timed and what not but I'd shy away from calling it harrasment.

I was asking you if there could be an exception to your position; I'm not sure why you took it as a comment on mine.

 

[One Brow]

You seem to be arguing that the only relevant consideration in our choice of behavior is the harm it might cause, no matter how much good it could do.

Actually, I just said that as a person who has considered the ethics, you made a choice weighing the good vs. the harm. We come to different decisions on this, but I'm not pretending that you did not consider it.