Keep Your Identity Small (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#241

Post by michaelt » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

teachingassist wrote: post #217

PeterisP wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably for most propositions it should be absolutely irrelevant to a gay person what the local LGBTQI support organizations think about it, since most propositions are about other, unrelated issues. If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations and gun right fans would be voting on housing law propositions based on what the NRA recomm…

> If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations. However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that? It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is st…

I can certainly understand making political decisions based on the recommendation of political organisation you trust.

But often an organisation will have multiple goals, some of which you find more important than others; and they'll evolve their stances over time, to stay relevant in a shifting political climate.

So giving your unwavering, uncritical support to a single organisation is only a little less naive than giving the same support to a single political party.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#242

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

Geezus_42 wrote: post #220

IncRnd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose it's too soon to tell if they take off, but they seem to fit the bill to me: Priests, holy writings, dogmatic beliefs, original sin, etc. Your list left out one thing that is in the definition of the word, religion.

And that is?

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#243

Post by mkr-hn » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #173

totetsu wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Serious]I feel I've wasted so much time weighing pros and cons when someone asks me something like what my favorite animal is, because I never really made these things part of my identity.

Somewhere I’ve read something in the lines of “I’m not five, I don’t have a favourite color”. I’d go on a limb and say that if this kind of questions is asked you can either take it as an ice breaker and discuss the pros and cons (it makes for better small talk than weather) or answer at random if you don’t actually want to engage with the person.

>> "Somewhere I’ve read something in the lines of “I’m not five, I don’t have a favourite color”."

That comes off as combative and doesn't make any sense. There's no connection between getting older and losing the ability to have preferences. I answer hot pink because it's true, and because it surprises people who think they know everything about me based on outward appearance.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#244

Post by confidantlake » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

mellavora wrote: post #170

confidantlake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.

To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.

You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#245

Post by IncRnd » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #202

IncRnd wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.

Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.

I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#246

Post by confidantlake » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #119

confidantlake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.

Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.

Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#247

Post by greenie_beans » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

I love the double standard hacker news has set here. No politics unless our father god paul g wrote the essay...

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#248

Post by IncRnd » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

teachingassist wrote: post #224

IncRnd wrote: post #77

Politics are _meant_ to be understood by the common person, especially in the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. Too bad we have that political class, anyway, along with regular people who believe politics should be inaccessible to regular people…

> regular people You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote. That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience. Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.

People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves.

You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. In some ways, this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#249

Post by yesenadam » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:38 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #245

yesenadam wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.

I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!

Thank you. Dang said something similar to me once, I got it from him. :-) and that being on HN is a continual lesson in not replying when feeling triggered. Anyway, some comments don't merit a reply, and are best left hanging there, wheels spinning.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#250

Post by mkr-hn » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #172

slim wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity is the fast mecanism for trust. Where one declares being part of a group by segregating himself from other groups. Thus you can apply to him the aggregated history of his group and decide if you can trust him.

But.. you apply to them the history as you think this history is, and this might be very different to what they think it is. This is IMO a great source of conflict. This is why I hate "-ism"/"-ists"-labels, because everyone seems to have a different opinion of what particular "-ism" words means. To use an example, Bernie Sanders' "socialism" is about sharing the wealth, meanwhile a lot of his opponents would argue be…

I stopped identifying as atheist when I realized most religious people I encountered thought that meant I wanted to outlaw their religion. I inadvertently put myself in a box with people who were the main association folks had with that word.

Sometimes I want this effect so I can help change impressions. Like: furry and nonbinary. The goal then is to help bridge the gap between stereotype and the real human variety contained by those words.