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

“Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#101

Post by DanBC »

gohrt wrote: post #88
DanBC wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the freedom to practice your religion. You don't have the freedom to interfere with a planeload of other people. > When passengers started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats. That's wasting 75 hours because he didn't make his needs clear before hand, or didn't take th…

To be fair, it's not really possible for someone to even attempt to arrange gender-separated seating in advance , even if plenty of other passengers are perfectly content to cooperate (perhaps even desirous! there are many cases where even non-religious women are more comfortable not sitting next to a man)

I haven't heard multiple cases of women who don't want to sit next to men so strongly that they're prepared to delay an international flight in order to rearrange the seats.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#102

Post by svachalek »

gohrt wrote: post #88
DanBC wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the freedom to practice your religion. You don't have the freedom to interfere with a planeload of other people. > When passengers started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats. That's wasting 75 hours because he didn't make his needs clear before hand, or didn't take th…

To be fair, it's not really possible for someone to even attempt to arrange gender-separated seating in advance , even if plenty of other passengers are perfectly content to cooperate (perhaps even desirous! there are many cases where even non-religious women are more comfortable not sitting next to a man)

Sure there is, just buy the seat next to you. Or book a private flight. Or drive.

There's all kinds of things I don't like about commodity-priced airline seats either, but that's the choice we all have; either buy what you actually want or take what you paid for.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#103

Post by raldi »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #80
sjbase wrote: post #5

I have an interesting dilemma. On one hand, I want to commend you for not using the author's clickbait title. On the other hand, I don't want to give the author more exposure (because of the clickbait title) by increasing this post's comment score. In the end, the first hand won. Thanks! :)

OP here, Thanks for noticing the linkbait work-around. I thought it was a useful piece, but similarly didn't want to reward the original title.

Well, you get two upvotes from me.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#104

Post by kordless »

philh wrote: post #41
kordless wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it seems to be an external blaming behavior in that at least one of the people involved said he didn't want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. That would imply that, by either touching or being near the woman, that she would become desirable to him by some behavior. It's that behavior that is being judged (and frequently pre-judged) by these people based on their beliefs, which is at the root of the…

Do you mean blaming someone else's behaviour? If so, I disagree. If there was porn on the back of the seat, I think the guy could reasonably say "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be tempted". That's not blaming some behaviour by the porn, he's just saying "in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to". (I don't like the way they're acting, but I don't think "they're blaming other people"…

> in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to

If the "situation" involves another person, then that person has a right to participate (or not) in whatever emotional response that is happening. If I'm attractive to you and you don't mind sitting next to me, I'm not required to show interest in you. If you continue with unwanted advances, you are liable for sexual harassment. Conversely, if I'm attractive to you and you do mind sitting next to me because I am attractive to you, I'm not required to help solve it because you are attracted to me yet are unable to manage your emotional responses. It still involves me, so I get a say in whether you can show that attraction in a specific way, including discriminating on me. So is anyone else, for that matter, given it's cognitive dissonance believing it's someone else's problem to deal with your inability to contain and manage your own "purity", which is really a fear of attraction to someone else.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#105

Post by vessenes »

judah wrote: post #68
vessenes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife. Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beli…

The man should be the one to move, that's true. But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith. I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.

I respect your conviction. I do feel it has elements of sexism in it, but that doesn't mean I think you can't have it, or even that you shouldn't hold on to that conviction.

What I think you're conflating or ignoring is who should be responsible for respecting it. You are responsible for respecting it; businesses like airlines are not, and members of society who conform to our general norms are not.

In a free and open social engagement, like meeting at a party, it would be respectful for you to courteously ask an overly 'touchy' woman to stop, and I don't think very many people would find that sexist. (Although consider if you didn't want to touch black people because of your religion..).

In this case though, a member of society is participating in not only a normalized way (sitting in an assigned seat), but in a restricted way (she is not allowed to move without airline consent, and similarly she is not required to move without an airline directive).

I don't think it should ever cross someone's mind that the onus would be on the woman to 'fix' this situation. It's just not; there is an outside party trying to impose his beliefs on her.

That's why there's such a strong 'liberal' societal response to situations like this -- much of liberalism has been concerned with removing these impositions on members of society with less personal power. It feels like a regression to have educated people argue otherwise.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#107

Post by vacri »

windwake12 wrote: post #62
frandroid wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not DMs, they're public responses. They should still have removed them though, out of courtesy.

It would have taken 10 seconds to add a box over the username while he was adding those arrows, given the context of the article, it seems outright irresponsible.

Hardly. He's asking permission to talk to them in the first place, and presumably asked permission to use their names in the article. And the article body mentions them by name. And the article is about how to find them in the first place.

You're advocating blurring the names out but then telling readers how to find them very easily (it's the point of the article) - this would justifiably open the author to ridicule.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#108

Post by vacri »

judah wrote: post #68
vessenes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife. Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beli…

The man should be the one to move, that's true. But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith. I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.

> I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.

So rubbing elbows with men on a flight is fine, but rubbing elbows with women is some sort of unfaithfulness? Oh, please. I don't wish to touch anyone on a flight, but hey, we're crammed in there like sardines, shit happens. The gender of the sardine next to you has exactly what effect on the elbow-sized contact patch you share with them?

You're also reading this situation as being solely confined to the event of the flight, rather than the overall social movement. Any single action can be stripped of context and sterilised that way. Take a racist who is always rude to blacks and no other: every single incidence of rudeness could be explained away with "oh, maybe that guy deserved it", but when you look at the overall pattern, it's clear what's going on.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#109

Post by vacri »

kordless wrote: post #31
judah wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a case of some being too easily offended. One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women. In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.

Actually, it seems to be an external blaming behavior in that at least one of the people involved said he didn't want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. That would imply that, by either touching or being near the woman, that she would become desirable to him by some behavior. It's that behavior that is being judged (and frequently pre-judged) by these people based on their beliefs, which is at the root of the…

I've always found it amusing that strongly religiose people seem to think temptation is so easy. I think it speaks to the lack of effect of their religion that they have to go to these extreme lengths to "avoid temptation", rather than just being mature and dealing with temptation appropriately like most adults do.

In short, if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths, then the religion isn't really giving you the internal strength to behave maturely. Time to look for a new moral code.

Post reply on HN