Any time you see something wrong and intervene, you are escalating.
This seems false. Especially when you continue to escalate the issue after intervening when there are less aggressive options available. Regardless of whether you approve of her actions they are not tautologically implied by intervention.
That line of intervention holds for correcting a general social offence, however in this instance the competing goal of welcoming the first time attendee must be considered.
On the grand scale of things, perhaps Submitter C values correcting potential gender bias in favour of gender neutrality/awareness more than promoting welcoming behaviour; this interpretation conflicts with Submitter C’s explicitly stated intent for intervening and is not a charitable reading. I will only address Submitter C’s explicit objection of the implications, meant or not, of Guy’s inquiry of the first time attendee.
According to their submission, Submitter C wished to prioritise welcoming the first time attendee over chastising Guy; I will assume chastising Guy was a sub-goal considering the content of the exchange.
Wedrifid points out that having a public outburst introduces negativity and political signalling to the situation’s social dynamic; without firm knowledge of the first time attendee’s thoughts or emotions regarding Guy’s inquiry (an affect does not a credible signal make), a positive intervention would have the greater probability of welcoming the attendee.
GUY: “So, do you actually read Less Wrong, or did someone drag you here?”
SUBMITTER C (grinning/smiling): “That’s not a very welcoming phrasing, now is it?”
Guy’s social ineptitude, but innocent intent (actual intent becomes irrelevant) are signalled to the first time attendee; Guy is mildly nudged to think on their phrasing without feeling (too) victimised, and most importantly the first time attendee is welcomed with a signal of group care for kindness. More chastising can be given to Guy by Submitter C later and in privacy, where Guy will not have frets about status fettering an update.
This seems false. Especially when you continue to escalate the issue after intervening when there are less aggressive options available. Regardless of whether you approve of her actions they are not tautologically implied by intervention.
I don’t find that an accurate description of the conversation in the OP. This is what it looks like to me:
Man: asinine comment
Submitter C: WTF?
Man: confusion
Submitter C: explanation
That line of intervention holds for correcting a general social offence, however in this instance the competing goal of welcoming the first time attendee must be considered.
On the grand scale of things, perhaps Submitter C values correcting potential gender bias in favour of gender neutrality/awareness more than promoting welcoming behaviour; this interpretation conflicts with Submitter C’s explicitly stated intent for intervening and is not a charitable reading. I will only address Submitter C’s explicit objection of the implications, meant or not, of Guy’s inquiry of the first time attendee.
According to their submission, Submitter C wished to prioritise welcoming the first time attendee over chastising Guy; I will assume chastising Guy was a sub-goal considering the content of the exchange.
Wedrifid points out that having a public outburst introduces negativity and political signalling to the situation’s social dynamic; without firm knowledge of the first time attendee’s thoughts or emotions regarding Guy’s inquiry (an affect does not a credible signal make), a positive intervention would have the greater probability of welcoming the attendee.
GUY: “So, do you actually read Less Wrong, or did someone drag you here?”
SUBMITTER C (grinning/smiling): “That’s not a very welcoming phrasing, now is it?”
Guy’s social ineptitude, but innocent intent (actual intent becomes irrelevant) are signalled to the first time attendee; Guy is mildly nudged to think on their phrasing without feeling (too) victimised, and most importantly the first time attendee is welcomed with a signal of group care for kindness. More chastising can be given to Guy by Submitter C later and in privacy, where Guy will not have frets about status fettering an update.