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

An Update to Our Community and an Apology

meta.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 424 posts

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#371

Post by chipotle_coyote »

michannne wrote: post #304
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me get this straight: - You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi. - She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?" - You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI." Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die…

> Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me , and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever

It won't progress this discussion because you avoided engaging with the question at the end. If I ask you to use a pronoun for me that in your judgement is "incorrect," why is your judgement more important than my request? If you say, "You asked for 'he,' but you look like a 'she' to me, so I'm going to use 'she,'" then why aren't you the one being the jerk just as much as the person who insists on calling someone the wrong name?

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#372

Post by chipotle_coyote »

goatinaboat wrote: post #324
tenpies wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd like to think the majority of people just want to live and be kind to each other What you're getting to is the Golden rule in almost all human civilizations: treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is when this rule broke down because the majority's "would like to be treated" became a hate crime to a small, but vociferous, radical contingent of the population.

You could surely express the golden rule as “A won’t tell B what to identify as and B won’t tell A what words they can and can’t use”. But this requires both A and B to participate. There is another group C, overlapping with B, people scrutinising your every word waiting for something, anything they can use, out of context, to get you fired. That’s problematic.

"A won't tell B what to identify as and B won't tell A what words they can and can't use".

So:

- Joe won't tell Dani that she can't identify as a she

- Dani won't tell Joe that he should call her "he", not "she"

Do you think these two are really fundamentally equivalent?

If Dani starts calling Joe "she" over Joe's objections, that's totally okay in this schema, right? Deliberately misgendering someone is never harassment?

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#373

Post by asdjlkadsjklads »

henrikschroder wrote: post #249
asdjlkadsjklads wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes i consider myself lucky that i don't know anyone seeking special pronouns - because i imagine i would repeatedly use what i visually see, not what they request. These days i seek to find a gender neutral word i can get into the habit of using (it, or they, or something similar) , for fear of mis-nouning someone. Though, i also have the fear that if i use something neutral, when someone requested a specific…

Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns. It's not expected to remember someone's name if you've only met them briefly, but the more you've interacted with the person, the more embarrassing not remembering their name becomes. Mis-naming someone intentionally, repeatedly, is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory. But the flipside is also true,…

> Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns.

I'm bad with names, too.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#374

Post by henrikschroder »

switch007 wrote: post #333
henrikschroder wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns. It's not expected to remember someone's name if you've only met them briefly, but the more you've interacted with the person, the more embarrassing not remembering their name becomes. Mis-naming someone intentionally, repeatedly, is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory. But the flipside is also true,…

> And, finally the flipside, if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember. But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right? However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated. Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.

> But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right?

What, no? Every person who interacts with the person with the wonky pronouns gets to decide how onerous they think it is. If you insist on using 'xim' or 'phe', be prepared for a lot of confused looks and people dismissing you as unreasonable.

> However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated.

Of course not, people love their insulated little bubbles where everyone agrees, but if you want to be a part of society, you have to learn to accept that most people don't give a shit about you and your wants. You might not think that 'xer' and 'phim' are unreasonable, but if the majority of the people that interact with you think they are, then they are, and you will have to adjust your expectations.

> Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.

We prefer strawperson in this forum. Hay rights are human rights!

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#375

Post by mattmaroon »

lesstenseflow wrote: post #255

Reading some of Monica’s commentary on this, it pains me to conclude that she doesn’t know just how bad the situation is. She appears to have approached the issue in question respectfully and highlighted her concerns diplomatically, and she believes there must be a “big misunderstanding” because of the extreme response with which she was met. Surely all parties are interested in reaching an outcome everyone can live…

Yeah I made the mistake of reading about this. This stuff is why Republicans win elections.

If the tech world doesn't realize that having only people on the left and people on the far left is not cultural diversity it will be plagued with this stuff forever.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#376

Post by thephyber »

lesstenseflow wrote: post #255

Reading some of Monica’s commentary on this, it pains me to conclude that she doesn’t know just how bad the situation is. She appears to have approached the issue in question respectfully and highlighted her concerns diplomatically, and she believes there must be a “big misunderstanding” because of the extreme response with which she was met. Surely all parties are interested in reaching an outcome everyone can live…

> Well, off to delete my Stack Overflow account

Don't delete your account -- that's a half-measure.

Never use the sites again. Not even the Google / DuckDuckGo SERP clips or some CopyLeft derivative.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#377

Post by mhuffman »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #202
djsumdog wrote: post #16

-542 before it was locked. That's incredible. People are really really afraid to talk about this particular topic (which they don't mention in the statement), because this type of call-out to be banned happens a lot. The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" is an amazing book that documents how this is happening in academia, and it's happening on the software world too. Most people in our industry, in the US, EU…

Three other takeaways from Coddling: 1) Context and intent matter 2) It's better not to assume the worst (of the other person's intent) 3) Just because something is uncomfortable or offensive does not categorically make it painful. -- For those who can't be bothered with the whole book the authors did an article for The Atlantic that was so well received they did the book.

This all sounds perfectly reasonable. I am guessing that people lost their shit at these "bigots".

Did that happen, or was this accepted as reasonable debate points?

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#378

Post by atq2119 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #370
atq2119 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pronouns are different from names because there is a very strong correlation between pronouns and certain physical aspects of people.[0] What is being asked of people in the gendering debate is to go against this correlation sometimes. Our minds are built on pattern matching and working with such correlations, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that asking people to go against it is going to tick some of them off:…

"What is being asked of people in the gendering debate is to go against this correlation sometimes." Yes. Exactly. That's what's being asked of them. To follow someone's request out of courtesy. Again: why is this difficult?

In your quote, you conveniently left out the part about cognitive dissonance. That's what answers your question. It's possible that you personally don't feel this cognitive dissonance, or that you feel it but it simply doesn't bother you. People's subjective experiences can be quite diverse, though, and you need to accept that.

Let me put it another way. Person X asks person Y to take person Z's feelings into account. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if, in doing so, person X doesn't take person Y's feelings into account?

I'd say that'd make person X a hypocrite. There are different goods that need to be weighed against each other here, and person X pretends that this isn't the case.

This is what's happening here. Z = (some) transgender people, Y = (some of) the people expressing concern about pronoun enforcement, X = people taking your current position in this discussion.

In the weighing of different goods against each other, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that person Y should just suck it up because person Z's feelings are simply more important in this case. That's fine, stuff like that happens all the time in society, though you'd be wise to use more reconciliatory language when talking to an actual person Y.

You need to be honest about what you're doing. What isn't fine is to essentially "erase" Y's feelings by pretending that you aren't overriding them for Z's benefit. Because that is what you're doing. (Or maybe you aren't even aware of person Y's feelings. I'm not sure what to consider worse...)

(And yes, the hypocrisy is genuinely what I find most grating about the position you're taking here: the position is often taken by people who claim to champion diversity, inclusiveness, and the equal validity of people's subjective experiences -- but then turn around and selectively decide to not take into account others' subjective experiences when they happen to be inconvenient, and in doing so essentially exclude those others.)

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#379

Post by humanrebar »

damnyou wrote: post #356
humanrebar wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why are half the rations gone!?" - Inigo "They said they were hungry." - Vezzini Ambiguity: Is one person eating too much or did many people get impatient (maybe fine depending)? It's not just a matter of becoming accustomed. It's definitely more ambiguous. The only way to clear that pickle up is to get used to clarifying questions as appropriate. Or maybe a "they all" will emerge parallel to "you all", but that sor…

I understand what you're saying but it's seriously not a huge problem — usually there's context to figure out what a sentence means.

What if an author or speaker feels that context is lacking and is not comfortable with the ambiguity? The answers to that question do not sound all that understanding or conciliatory in my experience, especially not as phrased in a code of conduct.

It sounds pedantic, but SE sites are especially attractive to folks who close helpful questions for pedantic reasons.

I just want people to chill out and exhibit a bit of grace instead of bringing up codes of conduct and unhelpful lectures about manners.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#380

Post by anon12345690 »

damnyou wrote: post #232
Invictus0 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth and falsehood and opinion are all points on the same spectrum. Typically, facts and falsehoods are mutually agreed upon by both sides, and opinion is what falls in between as cannot-yet-be-determined stuff. But we live in a world where opinion has exceeded its bounds and encompassed fact. Evolution and climate change are still hotly contested. And it is the same with transgenderism: both sides hold different "f…

This is not a both sides issue. The medical fields moved to complete affirmation of trans identities a while ago because the scientific evidence for trans affirmation is overwhelming -- literally everything from mental health outcomes to surgery regret rates indicates that. The other side is both bigoted and factually wrong .

literally none of it does. what you just said is factually wrong.

trans is a mental disorder and never stopped being that. some far-left activists are trying to say its not but that doesnt change the science. calling everyone a "bigot" doesnt change anything either other than show people that you arent reasonable and put feelings over facts

Post reply on HN