Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, I understand the feeling, but responding like this is also a move in the online shaming game / callout culture, and that's what we're trying to avoid here ( https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&s... ). The irony is that your and jameshart's motivations are likely similar. You're both reacting to a perceived slight and standing up for someone who you believe deserved to be treated better. Th…
> You're both reacting to a perceived slight Are they? The fundamental premise of jameshart's comment is that group membership is what counts. jamehart assumes graycat is a man, that men talk to women in certain (oppressive) ways, and therefore graycat must show humility--or else. The comment is nonsensical and incoherent interpreted any other way, and it obviously uses shame as a threat. A threat such as this is onl…
Edit: maybe it would be of interest to add that, from the therapeutic work I've been involved in, it is clear that people's motivations in these areas can often be traced to family dynamics—which is to say, to love. Even when it doesn't look or sound like love, love is usually the driving force. I often think of Chesterton's line, "The soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him". You can say the same thing about political and ideological battles, which after all are (quoting a different celebrity) war by other means.
This is an optimistic view, because the more we can see and acknowledge that love in each other, the less we need to be in conflict. The challenge is that such love often goes through complex transformations and distortions which can be hard to disentangle.