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

Brothers, I Must Go

christianity.meta.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#21

Post by XCabbage »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #18
XCabbage wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that…

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

Who?

In the case of Caleb, I assume because he has a religious objection to it - he thinks that a person cannot alter truly the gender given to them by God, and thinks it would be against his faith to use pronouns in a manner that implies otherwise. Though I may be misstating his view, in which case I apologise to him - I have not seen anything he's written where he spells out the basis for his objection, and may be guessing / inferring wrongly.

In the case of Monica, she would in fact do this in all but maybe a situation involving the singular they where she might prefer stylistically to use names (which seems fair enough, since it's clearer).

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#22

Post by horsawlarway »

vnth93 wrote: post #20
jasonvorhe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.

I actually think it's a very strong equivalence.

Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically.

Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty.

I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on gender pronouns, but I think his point stands loud and clear: Respectful disagreement is no longer allowed.

I think that is especially poignant given the community he moderates almost certainly aligns with his views.

I believe many of the communities that press these gender issues are broken. Not because I care about "pronouns" but because when disagreement with the majority opinion is IN ITSELF considered an insult worthy of exclusion or derision, there is no longer any apparatus to allow honest discussion.

I have the same opinion of the most restrictive church communities. The mental process is the same - Disagreement is threatening, remove the threat through ostracism and social pressure instead of honest conversation. Fuck that. Fuck that on both sides.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#25

Post by vnth93 »

horsawlarway wrote: post #22
vnth93 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.

I actually think it's a very strong equivalence. Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically. Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty. I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on…

I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender. And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as "choosing" their religion or not.

As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know what to think.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#26

Post by beerandt »

I've heard hundreds of versions of this metaphor, but none so affectively well phrased and poignant.

>That agency has been stripped away from us. I feel like if I stay hiding behind my diamond moderator I'll be like a captain staying at the tiller of a boat whose rudder has been removed. The wheel I'm holding doesn't do anything any more and I know it. So why pretend this is going to be anything but a shipwreck eventually?

Regardless of one's viewpoint, the whole letter is a great example of persuasive-testimony. Or I thought so, anyway.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#27

Post by beerandt »

ianleeclark wrote: post #13
tsukurimashou wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not restrict it only where it matters?

> Why not restrict it only where it matters? It's likely easier for StackOverflow, the corporate entity itself, to only have a single rule-set, rather than have to manage and ensure moderators are adhering to a bunch of different rule-sets.

I think this points more to the root of the overall problem.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#28

Post by isityouyesitsme »

horsawlarway wrote: post #22
vnth93 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.

I actually think it's a very strong equivalence. Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically. Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty. I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on…

It is actually difficult to claim that this SE aligns with ANY one person's religious views. There is (or at least was) such a mix of denominations, creeds, and belief that it was actually quite a marvel that it lasted more than a couple months.

This mod actually had a post named "brothers we are not Christians" where he explained the plurality of the community. This SE certainly does not have any real unity in belief.

A good comparison would be pointing to Bernie Sanders and to Rand Paul and saying "your views likely align because you're both Americans."

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#29

Post by alerque »

vnth93 wrote: post #25
horsawlarway wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think it's a very strong equivalence. Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically. Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty. I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on…

I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender. And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as "choosing" their religion or not. As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if pe…

> we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood

In saying this, you are doing exactly the thing that I've been called a bigot for. You've excluded me from "we" because I do see religion as fundamental to my identity. In fact my identify is first and foremost defined by the my maker and redeemer. If the God who made the very material from which I am made and breathed breath into my body isn't allowed to be a core part of my identity, then what is? Just because you believe I'm wrong about those facts doesn't give you the right to force me to affirm your view of them.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#30

Post by alerque »

ianleeclark wrote: post #11
alerque wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salty eh? Okay. I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed, but thanks for thinking about me. The way volunteers have been treated is not good, and the rules the company is making are going alienate lots of people. Not the ones they care about apparently, but lots of people none the less. There is a difference been limited speech (which SE has always been a limited zone, not a free zone) and forced speech. You might…

> I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed Dude you quoted Niemöller. The first line of the poem immediately brings to mind political prisoners being thrown into Dachau.

I have made a substantial rewrite to my post, including adding some context to explain why I used that poem.
Post reply on HN