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

Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

zyan.scripts.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#81

Post by zepto »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #16
thr32989 wrote: post #2

> I will be Chelsea’s first visitor since her sister in November. > I bring up her recent appeal to reduce her sentence from 35 years to 10 years, and she seems worried that it didn’t receive enough coverage in the press. She hopes that the world hasn’t forgotten about her. I am afraid world has already forgotten. Google search for "site:news.ycombinator.com Chelsea Manning" for past month gives three results includi…

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.

Actually - the need for 'clean' stories is just a further reproduction of the oppression, packaged for the consumption of people who think they are mainstream.

What we need is many more messy stories.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#82

Post by cmdrfred »

vertex-four wrote: post #80
cmdrfred wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first study they cite[0] has a sample size of 6, that is not nearly enough to account for the claims they are making. The same with the 2000 study[1]. The 2009 study[2] has 24 subjects so it's slightly more authoritative but points to an entirely different part of the brain as a marker for transgenderism, it's results have yet to be replicated. I'm failing to find 'plenty of evidence' here. What sources made you…

There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines. More research must be done! In any case, it's actually more-or-less irrelevant in arguing whether a trans person is actually the gender they identify as, and is m…

>There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines

Source?

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#83

Post by pdabbadabba »

angelbob wrote: post #67
pdabbadabba wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am afraid world has already forgotten. Forgotten what? I think I'd like Chelsea personally, and I'm sorry for all that she has had to go through. But what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to be remembering and talking about here?

Presumably the highly unfair treatment of a whistleblower. Snowden gets a lot more publicity, but Manning's case wasn't well handled either.

I really wish we could elevate quality of our discourse about government whistle-blowers. It is very far from clear that Manning (or Snowden, for that matter) was treated "highly unfairly." This could make for an interesting conclusion to a well-thought-our argument, but it makes a pretty dubious premise.

Yes, Manning et al. attempted to do a public service and got punished for it. That seems messed up. And it may be that the information they released is important enough that we all have a right to know it. (I think this is more plausible with Snowden than Manning, but both may have a claim here.) But there really are also serious questions about whether it is OK for an individual person to make the decision for all of us about what needs to be released and what does not, even if we like the outcome in a particular case.

What is the answer here? Should we really just decide not to prosecute government and military personnel who reveal sensitive government information (which is indisputably a crime) just because we think the release was valuable? Who makes this decision? What if DOJ or the president like that the leak happened, but the people do not? Are the people well enough informed to make this decision? What about the issue of deterrence? Even if everyone agrees that a leak was worthwhile, is it really a good idea to empower others, whose judgment may not be so good, to do the same thing?

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

cmdrfred wrote: post #82
vertex-four wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines. More research must be done! In any case, it's actually more-or-less irrelevant in arguing whether a trans person is actually the gender they identify as, and is m…

>There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines Source?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something...

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#85

Post by lisper »

threebees wrote: post #71
lisper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm putting this here because wtbob's original comment was flagged to death and can no longer be replied to directly. Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. It was a cogent and even a defensible claim. It was simply wrong, and flagging comments to death simply for being wrong is very, very dangerous. For one thing, it deprives people of the opportunity to explain to…

> Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. For what it's worth: I didn't see the comment in question, but based on context, I assume that reading it would have made me want to cry. Maybe that's an unpopular emotion to express on HN, but that's what happens when a place you think of as a home suddenly makes you feel unwelcome and conditionally accepted. So thank you, co…

You can see the original comment by going to your settings page (click on your user name in the upper right hand corner of the screen) and set "Showdead" to "Yes". You really ought to read it. If you're going to support the suppression of a point of view you really should know what it is you are trying to suppress. Supporting censorship of things you haven't read based on "context" generally does not lead to good outcomes in the long run. Widespread frustration with that sort of attitude is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is getting so much mileage out of criticizing rampant political correctness.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#86

Post by mgbmtl »

themartorana wrote: post #49
davidcollantes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?

To play Devil's advocate, how about because "humoring" is usually a way to hold off extreme self-righteousness, shaming, and so on from the humor'd party. Moral discussions like these are not like most discussions on HN. People's opinions and comments come loaded with assertions of moral absolutism, and as above, are usually an attempt to shame the parent commenter. If Chelsea Manning prefers to be called "her," that…

There's always a balance to strive for, but we live in such an imbalanced culture (homogeneous, unrepresentative).. sometimes we don't realize some issues until we have kids and see what they go through [1]. It's easy to dismiss people as cry-babies, and there are always crazy exceptions, but if people say they are harmed, it doesn't hurt to listen and find out why :)

[1] like those republican politicians who are suddenly OK with homosexuality because they find out that one of their kids is homosexual, or many friends who are suddenly the biggest feminists on the Internet because they have daughters. I don't mind, but I do wish they had not been such dicks before having their epiphany.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#87

Post by lliamander »

davidcollantes wrote: post #42
wtbob wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. Th…

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?

I think asking someone to refrain from speaking (what they believe to be) the truth is one thing, especially if they are doing it simply to cause controversy, draw attention to themselves, or signal some sort of tribal loyalty. If that is what the flagged comment was doing, then perhaps flagging them was the appropriate response.

However, asking someone to actively say something (that they believe to be) false is not within the scope of what I would call "politeness".

For instance, I have friends and acquaintances who have religious beliefs that I do not, and those religious beliefs are essential to their identity. I don't constantly tell them that they are deluded idol worshipers (that's rude). However, I don't participate in their observances and I don't hide my disagreement when the subject comes up.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#88

Post by lisper »

wtbob wrote: post #41
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her', and a lot of trans activists and allies do spend an inordinate amount (which wouldn't be so necessary if people made even a small effort to get them correct) of time correcting people on pronouns, but there is a lot of work that transgender rights activists are doing for people in prison in general, and I do know that they've been involved with some of the work to help ens…

> The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. Th…

wtbob: I vouched for your comment to un-kill it so I can post this response here where it should be rather than in a descendent comment. First and foremost, I vehemently disagree with you. But I think you made your point in a civil manner and supported it with an argument, and for that reason alone you deserve to be heard and responded to with civil arguments rather than by censorship. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the end of my karma your right to say it, even here, as long as you're civil and advance an actual argument.

So:

> Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience.

You are wrong about this. It is both a biological circumstance (though not nearly as crisp a dichotomy as most people think) and a subjective experience, and some people have a mismatch between their biology and their subjective experience. It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify even if it does not conform to your prejudices about how the world ought to be.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#89

Post by Idontagree »

vertex-four wrote: post #80
cmdrfred wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first study they cite[0] has a sample size of 6, that is not nearly enough to account for the claims they are making. The same with the 2000 study[1]. The 2009 study[2] has 24 subjects so it's slightly more authoritative but points to an entirely different part of the brain as a marker for transgenderism, it's results have yet to be replicated. I'm failing to find 'plenty of evidence' here. What sources made you…

There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines. More research must be done! In any case, it's actually more-or-less irrelevant in arguing whether a trans person is actually the gender they identify as, and is m…

I'm sorry, your point is that you think, so therefore reality is so? You can't think yourself into a different sex, I understand that they do see themselves as male or female despite their physical characteristics, but that has no bearing on much whether we like it or not. And to answer your question, you are your configuration of you, whether anyone perceives it or not, including yourself. I guess it's turning a bit philosophical cause I'm sure you're going to come back and say the world is only what is perceived of it, but that's not what I believe.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#90

Post by henrikschroder »

lliamander wrote: post #74
henrikschroder wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Correct" is silly to even discuss relative to this topic. How about "polite"? It's exactly as rude to use the wrong pronoun about a person, as it is to use the wrong name. It's common decency to call people what they want to be called, and it's not exactly hard to do either.

Politeness is culturally contingent. For example, I have lived in places where making a special effort to hold open doors for women is a social obligation, as well as places where it is deeply offensive. Is it appropriate sometimes to violate those norms? Certainly, when those norms involve a violation of higher moral principles. Principles such as not saying things you believe to be false. > How about "polite"? So,…

- Hello, my name is Henrik.

- I disagree, I'm going to call you Steve.

- ???

Post reply on HN