I don’t think the example with the beggars in India provided the same insight to me that it did to Yvain. Mainly because tourists—consistently, articulably—don’t want anyone to ask them for money, while women (I think?) do want (some) men to approach them with romantic overtures, and ostensibly filter them by certain characteristics.
Tourist: don’t ever ask me for money. So don’t do things that make it harder for me to turn you down for money and then ask for money.
Women[1]: don’t ask me for romantic interaction unless I like you (or will like you), and if you get a false positive you’re a f\**ing terrorist who did a thousand things wrong that I would have found charming if I liked you*.
In other words, once you accept that some approaches of a certain type are desired, you have to accept that some will make that type of approach without it being desired, and therefore not regard such instances as atrocities.
The tourist doesn’t have this problem: s/he doesn’t want begging at all. If there were a tourist that actually wanted to be panhandled but only from “awesome enough” people, and gave such people money I would expect that they’d have the insight to recognize that, “Well, some people will panhandle me without being awesome enough, and that doesn’t mean they violated any rules. Here’s a clear list of things that I regard as awesome, and here’s what I do to mean that you should really stop revealing awesomeness and go away.”
[1] of the type who are most vocal in the creepiness threads
Edit: I spoke too soon. Yvain addresses the above in the second meditation, but in the (more insightful) comparison to how “some tourists want their fortunes told”. And indeed, some people want to be telemarketed to, and some want to be spammed. So what exactly makes some advances wanted and others not? I tried to address that issue here a while back, but all I got was resentment at the comparison to salesmen and telemarketers (oh, and a “you don’t have the right to respond to my arguments here”). Go fig.
I don’t think the example with the beggars in India provided the same insight to me that it did to Yvain. Mainly because tourists—consistently, articulably—don’t want anyone to ask them for money, while women (I think?) do want (some) men to approach them with romantic overtures, and ostensibly filter them by certain characteristics.
Tourist: don’t ever ask me for money. So don’t do things that make it harder for me to turn you down for money and then ask for money.
Women[1]: don’t ask me for romantic interaction unless I like you (or will like you), and if you get a false positive you’re a f\**ing terrorist who did a thousand things wrong that I would have found charming if I liked you*.
In other words, once you accept that some approaches of a certain type are desired, you have to accept that some will make that type of approach without it being desired, and therefore not regard such instances as atrocities.
The tourist doesn’t have this problem: s/he doesn’t want begging at all. If there were a tourist that actually wanted to be panhandled but only from “awesome enough” people, and gave such people money I would expect that they’d have the insight to recognize that, “Well, some people will panhandle me without being awesome enough, and that doesn’t mean they violated any rules. Here’s a clear list of things that I regard as awesome, and here’s what I do to mean that you should really stop revealing awesomeness and go away.”
[1] of the type who are most vocal in the creepiness threads
Edit: I spoke too soon. Yvain addresses the above in the second meditation, but in the (more insightful) comparison to how “some tourists want their fortunes told”. And indeed, some people want to be telemarketed to, and some want to be spammed. So what exactly makes some advances wanted and others not? I tried to address that issue here a while back, but all I got was resentment at the comparison to salesmen and telemarketers (oh, and a “you don’t have the right to respond to my arguments here”). Go fig.