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

On Geeks and Gays

newstilt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#81

Post by bootload »

elblanco wrote: post #55
bootload wrote: post #2

"... When I was a teenager at school I definitely did not fit in. I had glasses, was awkward, brainy, wore the school uniform because I had no idea what else to wear, and suffered insults from my classmates. One of these was the frequent and common slander “poof” (which is probably the closest thing to the American term “fag”). I was either ignored, or verbally abused, or physically assaulted. In one attack two boys…

Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.

"... I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..."

Excellent stuff, go boxing. There's a lot to say for standing up for yourself.

"... But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times. ..."

Observing body language should probably be a taught subject in school ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201004/what-e...

An understanding of body language might allow you to see peoples intentions before they give off overt intent. If you want to understand more about decoding & understanding behaviour, talk to http://twitter.com/navarrotells or get a copy "Louder than words" or "What Every Body is Saying" ~ http://jnforensics.com/Books_%26_Videos.html

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#82

Post by [deleted] »

tman wrote: post #62
petercooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on. Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire de…

I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical. I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

[deleted]

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#83

Post by puredemo »

tman wrote: post #62
petercooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on. Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire de…

I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical. I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

It's not politeness. It's an unwillingness to make sweeping generalizations about a group, especially when the generalizations are being used to legislate and codify discrimination.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#84

Post by devinj »

joubert wrote: post #78
natrius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#85

Post by bdr »

tsally wrote: post #54

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

What if he'd just been an ordinary guy? I think the damage to his life and the lives of those who knew him is more important than what he would have invented.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#86

Post by jseifer »

drivebyacct wrote: post #5

Well I read two lines and stopped: "I’m not, so what was it that drove me to stand up for a gay man?" Is that a serious question? Who the hell wouldn't stand up for a man who was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. I mean, what reasonable non-crazy-fundie person would support that? Wow, I kept reading: "Many of those people who wrongly assumed I was gay would probably be surprised to learn that I campaigned…

I got the impression he was writing it from the perspective of someone who would be asking those questions.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#87

Post by Locke1689 »

astine wrote: post #60
petercooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on. Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire de…

Disallowing anyone an adoption for any reason is discrimination, if you understand the term literally.

But we don't. It's shorthand for "discrimination based on Constitutionally protected status."

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#88

Post by lincolnq »

bdr wrote: post #85
tsally wrote: post #54

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

What if he'd just been an ordinary guy? I think the damage to his life and the lives of those who knew him is more important than what he would have invented.

That doesn't seem obvious to me. Inventions can change many lives, but the scope of a person's social life is necessarily limited. Why do you say that?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#89

Post by hoprocker »

natrius wrote: post #16
caryme wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual peo…

I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.

I know you said it "could make sense to prefer straight couples", but beware of implicit associations when thinking that something like this makes sense. We're much more exposed to examples of heterosexual couples raising children than homosexual couples, and, as Harvard's Implicit Association Test demonstrates, this could easily lead us to thing that one "makes more sense" than the other. Increasing positive exposure to the opposite end of things can change our opinion. Harvard's IAT site has more information (check out esp. the Q's about the Black-White test): https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.h...

Malcolm Gladwell also examines the phenomenon of implicit social adjustment in his book _Blink_ (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/031601...).

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#90

Post by ezy »

tman wrote: post #62
petercooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on. Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire de…

I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical. I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

Posting basically unsubstantiated contrary shit like this and ambiguous snarky replies is typically not a hallmark of someone trying to discover the truth; it's just an excuse be an asshole without real repercussions.

But just to make it crystal clear: you're not being down voted just because people are too polite to confront the truth. You're being down voted because you're not very smart.

Dude, you essentially made up or misinterpreted the numbers you're using[1], then you make what amounts to completely irrational sweeping generalizations based on nothing but two numbers and/or your (limited) social experience.. And, admit it, you know these conclusions are offensive. Not only that, but you can't even stand by your intentionally ambiguous statements about homosexual behavior after you post them -- you're not only an asshole, but completely gutless.

i.e. Shut the fuck up, kid. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Post reply on HN