We must define acceptable and nonacceptable touching

[Igel]

100. Does that mean the victim of non-touching does, too?

It's a simple question. There's a difference of culture.

One person says, "I don't care about intent. All that matters is what I feel."

Screw empathy.

To hell with cultural differences.

I don't give a rat's ass as to what somebody else thinks.

I'm for diversity. Now get in line, stay in your lane, and while I'm not going to give you a hint as to what I think you're stuck in the 7th circle of hell if you don't what I disapprove of. There's no squish, no give, no forgiveness, just obedience. Gosh whiz, I'm glad we're into tolerance and hate the idea of authoritarianism.

And what you get is the most restrictive person must always win. Provided that that particular person has the power and privilege, which is what, if you listen, a lot of it is about. A recent interview with the Biden accuser couldn't help but say that there was a power difference between her and Biden and this was his way, basically, of oppressing her. It didn't matter if that was his intent, she felt oppression, so he was objectively her oppressor and should be found guilty of that.

I think there's also more to it than that, because equality can be achieved even with a diverse and sometimes mutually offensive set of customs. There's also, I think, suspicion and alienation. A person does something that's ambiguous, and there's pre-emptive judgment, smack the person down before s/he can be oppressive because, well, in the past there was wronging. It's sort of like the Soviet view from the 1920s that the children of the former oppressors, even if they were young and their parents are dead, must be kept down lest they rise up and produce a new generation of oppressors. Punishing sinners to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation. With lives ruined because in 1955 your career could be destroyed by the finding that your birth great-grandmother was aristocracy in 1915, that your mother was orphaned and adopted by somebody in 1919, and while that was a secret, nonetheless as the child of privilege 3 generations removed you must be punished. At the same time, if in 1955 you could show that your great-grandparents were wronged, somehow that grievance, that wrongdoing, was still a feather in your cap and somehow made you virtuous.

It all strikes me as strange.