Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#61

Post by goldbrick »

DanBC wrote: post #52
goldbrick wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to exactly what makes you think that's a particular sticking point?

First example: > the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move. Second example: > She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms.…

Well, you appear to have a point. I was thinking that since, you know, planes tend not to have a bunch of unused seats lying around, the situation may just have not reached that point, but that's definitely not true.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#62

Post by windwake12 »

frandroid wrote: post #4
mintplant wrote: post #3

Some of the screenshots include the sources' email addresses in the DMs. The author really should have taken a moment to blur them out.

They're not DMs, they're public responses. They should still have removed them though, out of courtesy.

It would have taken 10 seconds to add a box over the username while he was adding those arrows, given the context of the article, it seems outright irresponsible.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#63

Post by chc »

kazinator wrote: post #50
chc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not really asking you to adhere to his faith. He's personally trying to adhere to his faith and he's asking you for a favor that will help him. Similarly, when somebody asks you the time, they are not attempting to turn you into a watch, they're just looking for some help from a fellow human being. I'm not saying someone is necessarily wrong to consider the request unreasonable, but I think it's unfair to accuse…

A fellow human being is someone who doesn't hate/fear women. "Low effort" is the wrong way of looking at this; the moral compromise in caving in to this request is immeasurable . Having sex with someone is also "low effort". That doesn't mean you are obliged to have sex with whoever asks.

> A fellow human being is someone who doesn't hate/fear women.

Listen to yourself. You are literally dehumanizing Hasidic Jews here. I don't agree with this guy's religion, but responding to insensitivity with outright bigotry is not making things better.

I never said anyone is obligated to comply — I might not either in these people's shoes. But accusing him of forcing his religion on others or being subhuman or hating women or what-have-you is toxic to conversation and not helpful.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#64

Post by gue5t »

krazydad wrote: post #48

> "Imagine what your perfect source would tweet, or what you yourself would tweet in that situation, and search for the words that would probably be in it." This is a technique I used to use a lot more in the days before Google became the dominant search engine, when I was using Lycos, Alta Vista and Yahoo. In those more primitive search engines that were doing something closer to a full-text search, it was important…

This is still how web searching works. I have no idea why you would think otherwise--at its core Google is still fundamentally an indexing service, and you use indices by figuring out which words may be in the documents you want to read and then finding the documents containing those. Without doing this, it becomes impossible to distinguish documents which are what you want from documents which describe what you want (and which often refer to something behind a paywall or in a private or non-digitized collection).

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#65

Post by hluska »

maemilius wrote: post #43
hluska wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, almost this exact issue was a major issue in the recent Canadian federal election. The Conservative government attempted to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. They went so far as to appeal lower court rulings that doing so was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They lost the election and the new Liberal government ended the attempt to ban the Niqab. Interestingly, as the Conservative government…

Checked Wikipedia, doesn't look like it's usually capitalized mid-sentence in English. Users on the talk page appear inconsistent, but I don't think it would be grammatically correct to capitalize it mid-sentence as it's not a proper noun.

Thanks for taking the time to look into that!! I appreciate both the time you took and the quality of the research you did. Thanks!! :)

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#66

Post by [deleted] »

chc wrote: post #63
kazinator wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fellow human being is someone who doesn't hate/fear women. "Low effort" is the wrong way of looking at this; the moral compromise in caving in to this request is immeasurable . Having sex with someone is also "low effort". That doesn't mean you are obliged to have sex with whoever asks.

> A fellow human being is someone who doesn't hate/fear women. Listen to yourself. You are literally dehumanizing Hasidic Jews here. I don't agree with this guy's religion, but responding to insensitivity with outright bigotry is not making things better. I never said anyone is obligated to comply — I might not either in these people's shoes. But accusing him of forcing his religion on others or being subhuman or hat…

[deleted]

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#67

Post by judah »

wlievens wrote: post #35
judah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women. In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.

> In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife. I don't get how that works. Just because you sit next to someone doesn't mean tou have to fondle them, right?

Have you sat in an airplane recently? They're practically cattle cars. You will be coming into contact with the person next to you.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#68

Post by judah »

vessenes wrote: post #34
judah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women. In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.

No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife. Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beli…

The man should be the one to move, that's true.

But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith.

I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#69

Post by judah »

sib wrote: post #30
judah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women. In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.

In that case, then he should follow his convictions and move, not request that the woman be moved, which is what has happened in many of these situations.

Agreed. He should be the one to move in order to follow his conviction.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#70

Post by omginternets »

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

>Why would that aggravate you?

Because it's representative of how the hasidic sect generally regards women: second-class citizens.

Post reply on HN