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

After my dad died, we found the love letters

jenn.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 470 posts

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#221

Post by _yb2s »

dartharva wrote: post #51

Interesting anecdote, but for the life of me I can't understand what relevance this blogpost could have here on HackerNews

I see these comments on most HN threads that aren’t about tech stuff, but to me these are the best part of HN. I think it should include things people in tech who are also humans find interesting and want to discuss, like this, not just discussions of the latest cpu architecture or whatever. If you don’t find it interesting ignore it, and the algorithm will make it go away on its own if most people agree!

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#222

Post by ddawson »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #174
jhanschoo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty certain that children are quite perceptive, and will sense an unease that something is not quite right at home. It would be a service to them to put something concrete to that unease.

[flagged]

Wow, I'm reading this very differently. I don't know why there has to be emotional violence erupting. Handling something that's fundamentally changed at the core of a relationship and at the core of one's identity will bring strong emotions but it doesn't have to be violent. It can also be handled with all the best qualities we all have like patience, curiosity, support, trust. Strong relationships can grow stronger after being tested.

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#223

Post by schneems »

101011 wrote: post #205
schneems wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. To me, it's like a blameless retro. You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once. The author seemingly had a lot of judgement and blame for the dad before finding this out. It sounds like they are seeking understanding. I think the last line makes that clear: > the evening we found the love letters. his entire life, and mine as well And it's not to say someone can't attach judgement…

> You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once. This is the first I've heard this statement (not necessarily the idea), but I found it incredibly beautiful in it's simplicity - thanks for sharing! Are there origins to this that you're aware of? With some searching I found some adjacent thread lines to stoicism and Buddhism, but nothing quite the same.

I (think I) got it from ReinH on birdsite (before everyone left and moved to mastodon and Bluesky). He also gave a lot of talks on blameless postmortems and culture and general SRE stuff. This is one talk but not sure if it touches on the origins https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KXrsvLMqF1Q

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#224

Post by vacuity »

schneems wrote: post #180
geoffmanning wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not apologizing for anyone's actions. This is not to say he is a good person. It is to say that there isn't enough evidence to judge one as a bad person. A lot of good people have made bad choices, and these writings reflect a mere sliver of a man's life choices from the very thin perspective of one person's grief laid bare.

I agree. To me, it's like a blameless retro. You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once. The author seemingly had a lot of judgement and blame for the dad before finding this out. It sounds like they are seeking understanding. I think the last line makes that clear: > the evening we found the love letters. his entire life, and mine as well And it's not to say someone can't attach judgement…

The notions of "blame", "excuse", and "forgiveness" are strange to me now. I want to say that understanding is key, and everything else follows from understanding. If I understand a person's action, I should act, according to my values, regarding that person. Consistency to one's values is also key. Any emotions, feelings, etc. should either be recognized in my values or shouldn't interfere. If I am to praise or elevate someone, I should praise or elevate that person, and the same if I should rebuke or punish someone. Any extraneous desires that would prevent me from doing what I should do are to be contained. I must understand my values, by which I will understand the world, and how I should act within that world is then determined.

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#226

Post by nobodyandproud »

pavlov wrote: post #75

Ouch. This hits incredibly hard. I’ve been this dad who sits frozen at the TV every evening. I had the affairs with the emotionally unavailable men, and became one myself. Before you judge the man in this story too harshly — and there’s certainly much to judge, especially given the follow-up post — consider the environment he and I grew up in. Being gay as a young teenager in the early 1990s could feel literally like…

At 57, that means he entered university during the early to mid 1980s.

That was peak AIDS phobia (for good reason), and the anti-gay rhetoric was also at its peak.

There was a lot more to lose coming out during those days, beyond just marriage and family cold-shoulders.

By good reason, I mean people were panicked because people didn’t know which activities could spread the virus. Anyone else remember toilet seat fears?

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#227

Post by schneems »

tome wrote: post #220
101011 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can either seek understanding or seek blame, but not both at once. This is the first I've heard this statement (not necessarily the idea), but I found it incredibly beautiful in it's simplicity - thanks for sharing! Are there origins to this that you're aware of? With some searching I found some adjacent thread lines to stoicism and Buddhism, but nothing quite the same.

Is it even remotely appropriate to blame without first understanding? In which case, doesn't this perspective completely rule out the possibility of any appropriate blame?

> Is it even remotely appropriate to blame without first understanding?

Yet, blame is easy and satisfying and true understanding requires empathy and is hard and often unsatisfying.

The term "understanding" is fractal and infinite. Therefore Its 100% reasonable to find a stopping point and say "I blame you" (or, as you point out, otherwise, no one would ever be allowed to assign blame).

My comment is more about intent. The "seeking" word weights heavy. Many commenters are not seeking understanding, they are seeking satisfaction. Validation. The author of the post could have stopped much sooner if they were seeking blame, they could have chosen to build a caricature to heap more judgement upon. But they chose a more nuanced and exploratory path.

Even if the end result is blame or judgement. It's important that the purpose of the journey is clear. True understanding requires empathy, and it's really hard to empathize with someone you're actively trying to judge or vilify.

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#228

Post by nemomarx »

lordnacho wrote: post #107

So, what should you do if you know someone trapped in this kind of situation? I currently know someone like this. He's not homosexual, so it's not quite the same issue. But he's gotten himself trapped in a relationship, and worst of all, cannot admit it to his friends. The only reason I know is that the one friend he did tell, has told the rest of his friends. We've known each other since childhood, yet he doesn't as…

How is he trapped, and could you expand a little on the situation? I'm not sure I understand the social expectation at play for it.

Does he actually have kids in his relationship that he doesn't want to talk about or admit to in public? Is his partner being neglected, or children?

Re: After my dad died, we found the love letters

#229

Post by vacuity »

darrenf wrote: post #57
dartharva wrote: post #51

Interesting anecdote, but for the life of me I can't understand what relevance this blogpost could have here on HackerNews

Quoting the “what to submit” guidelines: If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

I find it very hard to judge whether I'm fulfilling that part of the guidelines. I only have a few submissions, and I think I'm good there, but I'm more conflicted when it comes to upvoting or engaging in other people's submissions. For example, earlier today I saw a thread on German laws on date rape drugs. I upvoted the thread. Do I think it's important for people to talk about date rape drugs? Certainly. I'm not sure if it falls under satisfying my "intellectual curiosity", though. Is HN "the right place" for this conversation? I'm not sure, though I think the reality on the ground would say "yes". Most likely, all of this is an organic adaptation that HN has experienced.
Post reply on HN