101–110 of 1001 posts
What I find most interesting are those arguing against "cancel culture" and the revival of heretics don't find issue with things like the "critical race theory" boogeyman and the "don't say gay"-style bills preventing teaching of sexuality topics. It's interesting how consistency of free thought isn't really the important thing here.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Calling it anti-grooming only is ignoring its ability to chill free speech (people will avoid talking about things that might get them sued, even if they're permitted) and be weaponized to suppress speech ("It would be a shame if someone took that thing that you said wrong..." even if it's permitted). Same with CRT banning. The existence of a law, even an ineffective one, on the books provides opportunity for abuse.…
Quoted post unavailable.
You should probably go look at the current state of diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria before giving your hot take. If caught and treated early, gender reassignment surgery can work miracles on a child's quality of life. It really shouldn't be seen any differently than other treatable birth defects.
flagged.... lmao
Quoted post unavailable.
You should probably go look at the current state of diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria before giving your hot take. If caught and treated early, gender reassignment surgery can work miracles on a child's quality of life. It really shouldn't be seen any differently than other treatable birth defects.
> Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth I disagree. The statement “very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively” is factually true, but implicitly sexist (very few men are capable either). By banning those sorts of statements you’re not banning the truth, you’re just quieting assholes.
"13/52" is, I think, one of the most outstanding examples of this fallacy ("13% of American are black but they commit 52% of murders [or violent crime? I forget]"). Assuming the numbers are true, it can be stated primarily for the purpose of information, as in an unbiased demographic analysis of crime; or it can be stated primarily for the purpose of expressing racial hatred, as in 99% (99.9%? 99.999%?) of cases on social media. The belief that something being true means it can not be used for evil (or even just in an unnecessarily provocative context) is categorically not rational.
Even propaganda, which many people correlate with "lies", is actually often factually true, or at least subjectively true by argument. Cherry-picked truth is perhaps the most effective propaganda, because it invites people to feel justified in ignoring the big picture and embracing their negative emotions that are tangential to that "truth".
Quoted post unavailable.
Yes, calling out a group of people an "insane concept" is a form of hostility. The existence of trans people (and children) both at the social and biological (even genetic) level is quite beyond doubt. One might disagree and discuss how to help and live alongside those people, but labeling them an "insane concept" is not a worthy contribution tho this discourse.
This thing where people want to say horrible things without consequence is just so weird. I have the right to judge your statements just as much as you have a right to say them. I have the right to leave jobs when it turns out the people working there hate people like me, and companies have the right to hire people who aren't going to alienate future potential employees. When people bring up posts like this they neve…
Can you explain what it means to "deny the existence" of someone? I see this expression often, but I'm genuinely puzzled by what it means in practice. I agree with you that "purposely misgendering one's colleagues" should lead to firing, but I think this article isn't about that. It's about people who are tolerant of others and in general try to be nice people, but just disagree about certain things - for example, ho…
I do think the article is about that. I think it was purposefully left vague so he could take advantage of people giving the benefit of the doubt. I don't think people's pronouns should be up for debate, and I believe PG does.
Quoted post unavailable.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977299 and marked it off topic.
p.s. since this kind of mod comment tends to elicit responses, I should probably add that I'm in a workshop today and unable to do as much as I normally would on HN. So if anyone notices something not being taken care of or not getting a reply, please don't be quick to draw large conclusions from that—it's more likely that I'm not as free.