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

Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#181

Post by fleddr »

dang wrote: post #144
fleddr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No harm was inflicted in the comedy. It was a joke. Jokes can offend. Some people are extremely easily offended, some laugh at the harshest joke at their expense. Get over yourself.

Personal attacks like that will get you banned on HN. Cliché flamewar comments, which this also is, aren't much better. Worse yet, you've repeatedly been posting flamewar comments to HN ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28868269 ). Would you please review the site guidelines and stop posting like that? We're trying for a (very) different kind of discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don't consider any of these examples personal attacks, so I hereby agree: please do ban my account.

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#182

Post by micromacrofoot »

kcplate wrote: post #177
micromacrofoot wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really grasping at straws, there was a massive movement that essentially lasted all last summer to protest against police violence against black people. There have been multiple large demonstrations this year. I've seen nothing even approaching that scale for trans people. Maybe Dave is spending too much time online. If his stance is "sometimes this (about me) gets more attention than that (about them)" then…

> I've seen nothing even approaching that scale for trans people. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that there were 44 reported cases of fatal violence against trans people and 9900 against black people in 2020. Edit: fixed my stat

not sure why you think it’s a pissing match and you’re moving the goalposts

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#183

Post by pseudalopex »

0xy wrote: post #168
pseudalopex wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, he warned against the use of the surgeries at all because of the questionable results. No. She said blocking puberty at the 1st visible signs had drawbacks for vaginoplasty later.[1] This isn't news to people in the field. Not blocking puberty has drawbacks too. Doctors, patients, and parents have to weigh the pros and cons. [1] https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-...

The ethics of using risky dangerous drugs on children (who grow out of GD over 50% of the time) is pretty clear cut to me. You risk permanent bone damage for the minority of cases where it has some advantages? The "advantages" are apparently easier transgender surgery, which in its current form is essentially a disaster. The operation is brutal and the results are rarely good. The majority of the time there are serio…

Almost certainly your desistance statistic comes from studies including children who didn't meet the criteria for gender dysphoria.[1]

Puberty blockers have been prescribed for early onset puberty for over 30 years. Their primary effects reverse naturally after treatment stops. Studies found they affect bone density temporarily when used for early onset puberty. And not dangerously. Trans patients tend to take them longer though. At least 1 study found their bones don't recover as quickly. It wasn't set up to prove or disprove a permanent residual effect.[2] But even during treatment the effect doesn't reach dangerous levels for most patients. And the risk is easy to mitigate with monitoring, supplements, and exercise.

The advantages of puberty blockers are avoiding various surgeries and their risks, better results in some ways, and avoiding a distressing transformation the patient isn't allowed to do anything else about. That distress breaks some people.

"After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and exposure to other types of gender-affirming care, undergoing 1 or more types of gender-affirming surgery was associated with lower past-month psychological distress (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67; P Trans people would like better surgical options of course. You don't speak for them in calling present surgeries a disaster.

What does any of this have to do with Dave Chappelle making jokes at trans people's expense?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27757484

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290172/

[3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstrac...

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#184

Post by fallingknife »

mkr-hn wrote: post #179
fallingknife wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but there is a line between good faith differences in opinion and a lie. And accusing Netflix of spreading violence is way over that line.

Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of vi…

Yes I am aware of this tactic. Take a word that is a very severe accusation like "violence" and redefine it to mean something that is so much less severe that 99.9% of people would not consider it remotely the same thing. Then accuse someone using the word, knowing very well that 99.9% of people will take it to mean a very severe accusation, and when called out on it, hide behind the alternate definition that you made up so it's "true." That is not a good faith argument, and I should not be expected to treat it as such.

> Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal.

And this is an opinion that I disagree with, but it least is stated in a way that isn't deceptive.

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#185

Post by da39a3ee »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #66
da39a3ee wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does "being a TERF" mean that you side with women like J.K. Rowling defending traditional positions on gender debates rather than siding with a minority of vocal pro-trans activists who are deliberately causing trouble and don't represent all trans people? If so then I'm a TERF, my mom's a TERF, in fact all mom's I know over the age of 50 are TERFs. Furthermore pretty much everybody in every non-western country is a…

this is the same exact reasoning people use to justify being homophobic

No, you must surely can see that these are not symmetric: no-one questions whether gayness exists, and no-one questions whether people exist who identify with a gender that's not their birth sex. But there's HUGE disagreement across the world about whether to use the word "woman" for a person born male who identifies as female. Even if you are very clear where you personally stand on that question, you surely see that vast numbers of people across the world believe the answer is "no"?

There's no analogous question regarding homosexuality.

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#186

Post by da39a3ee »

mkr-hn wrote: post #72
Joeboy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going with that comparison, it's like having an especially vicious rage towards feminist women who are homophobic, despite almost everybody else also being homophobic.

Transphobia is contradictory to any definition of feminism rooted in the actual history of feminism. TERF ideology depends on the belief that trans women are confused men, trans men are confused lesbians, and nonbinary people are just confused.

I wouldn't use the word "confused" because it sounds derogatory. But substitute that with "trans women are men who feel that they are female", and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view isn't it? You may not like it very much, but you surely agree that it's understandable and not malicious or cruel? It is after all the position of the vast majority of people on the planet, and that of most people in the usa and western europe, except for a left-leaning contingent under the age of 40. (That statement is approximate of course)

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#187

Post by micromacrofoot »

fleddr wrote: post #180
micromacrofoot wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

none of which are at risk here… the comedian said whatever he wanted, was paid millions for his art which was viewed by millions… this is like the apex of success

You seem really obsessed with money. This minor insult has led to a disproportionate amount of outrage. Which is a very strong signal to other comedians to only engage in jokes deemed "safe". That's a regression.

but that’s inconsequential, nothing comes from it other than more exposure - that’s the point i’m making, if anything this continues to show that there’s no such thing as bad press

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#188

Post by kcplate »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #182
kcplate wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen nothing even approaching that scale for trans people. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that there were 44 reported cases of fatal violence against trans people and 9900 against black people in 2020. Edit: fixed my stat

not sure why you think it’s a pissing match and you’re moving the goalposts

You got all that from a single statistic? Interesting.

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#189

Post by da39a3ee »

dang wrote: post #170
fallingknife wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The debate is that I would like to live, and they do not want me to live This is a lie. Nothing of the sort was said in Chapelle's comedy. > Netflix platformed violence And you are lying again

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review the site guidelines and stick to them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I disagree with your moderation here dang. The poster simply made the claim that two statements made were deliberately factually untrue (aka a "lie"). The poster did not say "You are a lier"; the attack was on the untrue statements not on a generalization about the person behind the statements. Is it simply that you would prefer the phrase "untrue statement" instead of "lie", and "you are making untrue statements" instead of "you are lying"?

Re: Netflix fires organizer of trans employee walkout

#190

Post by da39a3ee »

mkr-hn wrote: post #179
fallingknife wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but there is a line between good faith differences in opinion and a lie. And accusing Netflix of spreading violence is way over that line.

Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of vi…

Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar.

In any case "they do not want me to live" is clearly a lie -- or are you going to introduce me to some new bending of language under which "they do not want me to live" does not mean "they want me to die"? Perhaps it means "they do not want me to live in the way that I want to live"? If so, as I said above, a risk of using language in such an extremely non-standard fashion is clearly that people will entirely reasonably mistake your statements for lying. Any attempt you make to tell me to do more research into what people mean by their words is just devaluing language and damaging communication: there has to be some rough consensus on semantics! That's what a language is!

Post reply on HN