Do you think taking up-skirt shots of peoples characters is creepy?

[Gaethan_Tessula]

Would be nice if people werent trained into thinking that somebody looking at another person is this bad "unwanted attention" taboo. But challenging it requires the 1st step, which is the 1st hurdle. (Using the quoted logic)

This statement was meant to apply to things someone thinks ought to change, not a universal appellation. In your example "training to think being looked at is unwanted attention" is the thing to be changed, is something that exists, and therefore a person wanting to change it needs realize it shouldn't be accepted just because it is the status quo. There's no conflict in logic. Even if unwanted attention is ALSO something this hypothetical person wants to change/prevent, all that is required to avoid paradox is to successfully define what actually constitutes "unwanted attention."

Second, "looking at people" is blatantly reductive and obscuring of the actual sort of behavior I'm trying to refer to. Perhaps I needed to clarify, but I suspect if a need for clarification were your actual point you'd have said so. So, to be clear, I'm referring to behaviors that express a clear intent instead of anything overly broad like "being looked at." Catcalling, sexual harassment, lewd body language, taking upskirt/downpants photos, and being disapprovingly judgmental of how someone else is dressed within the context of blaming that person for ills inflicted upon them.

Moral right/wrong are based on emotions. Certain people/groups get priority over whos emotions matter more. You cant fight "notions that are socially accepted" because they are always a part of this. And in turn, if you try to stop accepting these notions, the very logic you're using will also apply to you now. (Based on the requirement/merit of "notions just accepted because/emotion")
In the end, its a popularity contest based on popular emotions, and who's in the bigger group.

You're going to have to explain how this violates the logic I use more clearly. People can, and do, challenge social norms. They do, in turn, create their own social norms in a subgroup. Somewhere along the line, that involved rejecting rationales for the original societal norm, that it is the norm among them. Doing so is not illogical. If morality truly is a subject construct, a viewpoint you seem to be arguing from, then it is even more important that people realize the status quo is not proper just because it has been accepted as normal. To do otherwise would be to advocate for chaining down people's ability to try and influence the collective sense of right and wrong.

Sometimes a group is bigger because more people naturally feel "This is good/bad."
Sometimes a group was smaller, but convinced a larger number of people because "This might be just an emotion, but it leads to this tangible good/bad thing, such as "not starving". And we all agreed prior, we all liked not starving*." (*insert random good thing, that others naturally agree with unquestionably)

When people are split on a subject, both sides try to argue the tangible benefits/negatives.
In this case, this is something with no real tangible elements. Just emotions, which fluctuate based on perspective.

Emotional harm is a tangible enough thing that it can impact how someone functions. Enough to factor in civil suits and tangible enough that Square Enix bans harassment. I think the behavior in question within this thread should fall under harassment if it currently doesn't, especially if someone asks the actor to stop and they refuse (as someone in this thread attested happened to them).

Yes, this is my perspective, but I think I have good reasons for it that would provide tangible benefit to society by reducing potential mental and emotional damage to vulnerable groups/individuals.

By contrast, I don't think much is lost by stopping people from taking invasive and lewd photographs of another player's character. They could, after all, always just make their own.

Its an emotional popularity contest of who agrees, and who disagrees based on emotions.

Again, reductive. You're discarding the impact rational and philosophical arguments can have, AND downplaying the validity of the 'irrational' emotional response to feeling helpless or hurt. A stranger taking invasive photos without one's consent and (perhaps more importantly here) refusing to stop when asked to can provoke those feelings, especially when put into the broader context of real life where some players may experience similar acts of unwanted sexual attention or harassment.

Basically, I don't think that postmodernist or even nihilistic viewpoints of society and its constant clash of worldviews lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't care about changing things because it's a "popularity contest" as you put it.

As to the later posts about "percieved intent," any good policy prohibiting an action will not be overly broad. Furthermore, an actual policy enforced by an authority isn't necessarily needed. Social pressure to discourage behavior can work just fine, if acutely targeted at those confirmed to engage in the undesirable behavior (which would exert pressure on those not confirmed to cease, such that they aren't exposed and then subject to said criticism).

Also anyone find it weird that most of the people having this insane complaint have a join date of 2018 or sooner? lmao

Forum join date is irrelevant to when someone actually began playing; if you check lodestone, Gaethan here was "born" in 2015. For that matter, when someone joined the forums OR began playing the game is irrelevant to whether unsolicited upskirt photographs are creepy and if something should be done about it.

As I've been debating, something having previously been acceptable is not an unassailable argument in favor of maintaining its acceptability.

[MaraD_]

EDIT: Just noticed the bolded was your reply, and not you just highlighting what I said.
So Ignore the following until I read it, sorry lol. edited post will be in dark blue at the bottom.

Basically, I don't think that postmodernist or even nihilistic viewpoints of society and its constant clash of worldviews lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't care about changing things because it's a "popularity contest" as you put it.

The way you mentioned "nihilistic" was a bit vague. So if i mistook how you intended to use that word, sorry in advance. (It sounds like you had a certain intention for the use of that word, which doesnt seem to fit this scenario)
Nihilism should never mean something SHOULD or SHOULDNT be anything. Nihilism should be purely neutral, never taking sides. In this case, you said a Nihilistic view = "shouldn't care about changing things because of reason".
Nihilism should be neither caring, nor uncaring. Nihilism is best used as a tool for observations, not to come to conclusions from observations.
So technically you're correct, and technically sort of not. (Its just too vague and broad a statement)
As for my own view point, I observed with a neutral stance. (as much as im humanly capable of, as we just arent naturally nihilistic beings) If I were to remain completely neutral, then every action is equally good and bad, and nothing gets accomplished. I could set goals, and pre-requisites, so i dont cross any boundaries to reach said goals. But I also need to accept I have emotional biases in which to reach said goals. So the only way to question my own goals/bias, is to use as much of a neutral perspective as I can.
In which case, as I mentioned before, it all boils down to emotions, and the winning emotion(s) in the popularity contest of society.
So Im suggesting quite the opposite of what you're saying here about "shouldnt change". If anything, Im asking for change, but just the opposite change from what some people are fighting for.

As to the later posts about "perceived intent," any good policy prohibiting an action will not be overly broad. Furthermore, an actual policy on SE's part isn't necessarily needed. Social pressure to discourage this behavior could work just fine, and could be acutely targeted at players confirmed to engage in the undesirable behavior (which would exert pressure on those not confirmed to cease, such that they aren't exposed and then subject to said criticism).

I'm not disagreeing with this part, but, isnt that what we're doing right now? Isn't that what we already have? (Or did I misunderstand, and this is just defending what we have, and not asking for it? If so, nvm, carry on.)

EDIT: I forgot to touch on the "postmodernist" part. This I also dont feel is relevant to what I said. (But can still be relevant to what point you're trying to make.) As I share some common ground, in that some argued "truths" were flawed/incorrect, but sometimes I argue the opposite, and that some truths have lost the details in history as to why they were true.
I also think we can reach absolute thruths/learn, at least in part.
Your last bit is an example of this:

As I've been debating, something having previously been acceptable is not an unassailable argument in favor of maintaining its acceptability.

Its not quite postmodernist thinking to say this, though it may sound like it.

EDIT#2:

This statement was meant to apply to things someone thinks ought to change, not a universal appellation

Then I was mistaken by the intent of the post, and you can ignore what I said. (The details you replied with more or less match where I was going, though I probably didnt express it in the best way. Mostly just thought you werent following your own advice. But I feel I was mistaken after reading what you said.)

Second, "looking at people" is blatantly reductive and obscuring of the actual sort of behavior I'm trying to refer to.

Blatant gives off the wrong impression of my intent, but none the less, this was brought up by another poster defending you, to which I explained in length as to why I went that route (but in short, because of the "This statement was not a universal appellation" being misunderstood on my part. If you want more details on this, follow the train of text between that person and myself.)

You're going to have to explain how this violates the logic I use more clearly.

This part was more so an "alternative approach", not so much me explaining a flaw in your prior logic.

If morality truly is a subject construct, a viewpoint you seem to be arguing from, then it is even more important that people realize the status quo is not proper just because it has been accepted as normal. To do otherwise would be to advocate for chaining down people's ability to try and influence the collective sense of right and wrong.

Mostly agree, but want to mention, the observation is that its "subjective", but subjective stuff follows rules, and within another set of rules, becomes "tangible" in a different way. (for lack of better words) I was trying to say how the rules flow normally for these subjective issues, and from that observation, using it to judge the merits of other subjective perspectives. (sorry if im not explaining too well, most people dont get this far with me in discussing this, as they usually outright reject the notion of a "neutral" outside. (also lack a term for that, w/o suggesting the wrong thing))

Emotional harm is a tangible enough

While I dont disagree, there's a lot more complexity to that than what was over simplified there. Some people are equally effected by non threatening/harmful intentful interactions (or lack of interactions too) which you COULD have separate ways to deal with separate issues. (such as a unique way to deal with this issue, vs and other similar issues)
But for those with more extreme emotional issues, they need therepy, which requires them to confront and deal with the issues. Avoidance doesnt fit it for them. (And from a Nihilistic view, nor do they need to fix it.)
Due to the vagueness of "Dont do X, it bothers me emotionally" it can harm those who arent actually doing "wrong". (here's where it gets hard to say basic words, im putting wrong in quotes) The law starts to have a hard time distinguishing very specific contexts, and is left to bias interpretation. Someone can quite literally be emotionally damaged because someone wore the color orange. (Yes i know its a ridiculous example, but for the sake of not arguing what things are right or wrong, this extreme example helps speed up the conversation) Should the person wearing orange be warned, and then if they wear it again, be considered the "wrong doer"?
If it really does bother someone, i would probably not wear it around them. But sometimes its equally just as offensive to be told not to do X. And sometimes the law sides with the opposite person. Its a game of bias. There is a lack of consistency. This can still work, but when it doesn't, the current system being "normal" doesnt help, and giving direct counter examples needs to be done, just to explain why it doesnt work. (and its a very lengthy process to get to this point)

This isnt to say you're wrong. Just that its not overly simplistic. I dont have a concrete answer, but I do have some subjective opinions on the matter.

Again, reductive. You're discarding the impact rational and philosophical arguments can have, AND downplaying the validity of the 'irrational' emotional response to feeling helpless or hurt.

I dont disagree, but I see nothing wrong with that, within this wording. I tried to simplify it, so it can be understood. But its also broad enough, to be all the tings you say I left out. I only left them out, so its easier to get on the most fundamental level. From there, you can extrapolate into what you said.
So I guess we both agree, but it doesnt appear like it?
Though I think you may be saying I need to not focus on explaining the fundamentals, but focus more on someone being hurt in the moment, which then I'd say that depends on what our goals are in the moment.
I started off thinking you had a hypocritical statement, to which I both wanted to show, along with correct. It would be a bit off topic to go on about "rules" in how people come to decisions of right and wrong, but feel its necessary to bring up, so people dont accidentally mix up logistics. (For the sake of the original topic)