ArisKatsaris comments on Changing Systems is Different than Running Controlled Experiments - Don’t Choose How to Run Your Country That Way! - Less Wrong

3 Post author: ShannonFriedman 11 June 2013 05:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (260)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 June 2013 08:57:18AM 7 points [-]

My favorite framing of the desired behavior is "Enthusiastic consent".

What about those of us who aren't interested in doing "enthusiasm". Are we perpetually banned from the ability to consent to sex?

The concept of "enthusiastic consent" seems to me to devalue the importance of consent by itself. I want my "yes" to mean "yes", I don't want to have to shout "Yes, oh god yippee yes!". Why can't the former be respected and accepted by itself, without the need for "enthusiasm"?

Comment author: ialdabaoth comment score below threshold [+] (13 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 June 2013 09:26:00AM * 2 points [-]

"Enthusiasm" doesn't mean exuberance.

Yes, yes it does.

It means unequivocal agreement

Where did you get that definition from? No, "enthusiasm" doesn't mean "unequivocal" in English, it means excitement and exuberance.

You don't need to jump up and down, but you at least need to give unambiguous signals. Does that make sense?

Then "clear consent" or "unambiguous consent" or "loud consent" would have been the term used. "Enthusiastic consent" clearly means that unless you are excited over something, you can't consent. That if you are hesitant or bored or "whatever" but agreeable you can't consent

Comment author: fubarobfusco 12 June 2013 10:50:14AM 1 point [-]

Please don't dispute definitions. Your interlocutor has clarified what they meant by the term.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 June 2013 01:04:09PM * 8 points [-]

Yes, ialdabaoth has clarified what ialdabaoth means, that doesn't necessitate that it's the same thing the words are intended to mean when communicated by the majority of people using them, nor does it necessitate that it's the same thing that is understood by the majority of people hearing it.

I believe that ialdabaoth has misunderstood the concept in its intended meaning by the people who invented the concept, and I believe ialdabaoth is wrong about what the word "enthusiastic" communicates to pretty much everyone.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 13 June 2013 09:18:00PM -1 points [-]

FWIW, prior to reading this thread my understanding of what advocates of "enthusiastic consent" are talking about was much closer to ialdabaoth's meaning than to yours.

To be more specific, I have always understood it as attempting to contrast with grudging consent, and as having nothing at all to do with exuberance or excitement.

That being said, I agree that understanding how an audience will interpret my phrasing is critically important if I want to communicate to that audience. If you understand "enthusiastic consent" to mean that excitement and exuberance must be expressed, then it's a really bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with you and those like you.

And if you're correct that pretty much everyone shares your linguistic intuitions here (and ialdabaoth and I are aberrant outliers), then it's a bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with pretty much everyone.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 June 2013 03:02:00AM 2 points [-]

To be more specific, I have always understood it as attempting to contrast with grudging consent, and as having nothing at all to do with exuberance or excitement.

Ok. The thing is that grudging consent is still consent. If you grudgingly buy something you can't sue to get your money back.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 June 2013 09:27:36PM -1 points [-]

Yes, but I still think it's a bad thing when people are talked into begrudgingly buy stuff they don't actually want, and I would be in favour of changing social norms so that that happens less often... if only I had any idea how to do that without also disapproving of bargaining.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 June 2013 03:39:20AM 2 points [-]

if only I had any idea how to do that without also disapproving of bargaining.

This was going to be my reply to you comment. Basically, this is why people doing things "begrudgingly" is not necessarily a bad thing.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 June 2013 03:07:52AM * -1 points [-]

I agree that grudging consent is still consent. My understanding of what advocates of "enthusiastic consent" are talking about includes the idea that mere consent is insufficient for sex... e.g that sex is held to a different standard than marketplace purchases. (Lemon laws similarly establish an alternate threshold for car purchases.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 June 2013 04:04:40AM 2 points [-]

My understanding of what advocates of "enthusiastic consent" are talking about includes the idea that mere consent is insufficient for sex... e.g that sex is held to a different standard than marketplace purchases.

I don't think most feminists would say that explicitly, because that immediately raises the question of why should the standards be different and why that particular standard. Incidentally, I've been involved in at least one argument with a feminist where "my side's" goal was for or less to get him to admit that the above was a consequence of his position.

(Lemon laws similarly establish an alternate threshold for car purchases.)

Lemon laws are different, they're about the buyer being misinformed.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 15 June 2013 04:41:04AM -1 points [-]

I expect that most of the feminists I know would agree with my statement.

In general, my country's laws don't treat sex as equivalent to marketplace purchases, so the question of why the standard should be different for the two doesn't seem terribly important to avoid... we run into analogous questions all the time without fleeing from them.

The question of why that particular standard might be worth avoiding; I'm unsure.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 15 June 2013 09:18:42PM * -1 points [-]

FWIW, I also interpreted it as you and ialdabaoth.

Comment author: khafra 12 June 2013 01:02:43PM 5 points [-]

ArisKatsaris is not arguing that ialdabaoth is wrong, based on the definition of a word. He's arguing that evangelizing people using a particular word is going to have a different effect than the evangelist has predicted; which seems completely reasonable. Whatever ialdabaoth means by "enthusiastic," if he's telling other people to look for enthusiasm, those other people are going to use their own definition.

ArisKatsaris comments on Changing Systems is Different than Running Controlled Experiments - Don’t Choose How to Run Your Country That Way! - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (260)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (260)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login