10 ms·

I wrote a long argument but deleted it all in favor of this. Everyone needs to toughen the fuck up and stop being offended so easily. Someone insults you for be

by seibelj 11y ago

I wrote a long argument but deleted it all in favor of this. Everyone needs to toughen the fuck up and stop being offended so easily. Someone insults you for being different? Welcome to real life, get some thicker skin.

mingus68040 11y ago
Right. In that case I'm sure you'll understand if I tell you to fuck right off.
- 001sky 11y ago
  You're not even clever enough to insult
  - mingus68040 11y ago
    What's wrong? Skin too thin? Maybe you should toughen up.
    - 001sky 11y ago
      --Says puppet account, with lifetime negative karma
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
__derek__ 11y ago
That's a very easy thing to say from a place of privilege, with current and historical institutions set up to protect and enforce your (and my) interests. Edit: Here, I'll put it better: by telling people from historically disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet, you're effectively saying, "I reject your understanding of your experiences, so your perspective is invalid."
- jnbiche 11y ago
  Do you know seibelj? Just curious how you knew s/he was in a place of privilege.
  - __derek__ 11y ago
    I don't know that person, but consistency in usernames makes it easy to check before posting a comment with that assumption.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  That's an unfalsifiable accusation of original sin.
- lpsz 11y ago
  I can't tell if you're trolling, but "check your privilege" is one heck of a way to derail any argument. There is no virtue in being less privileged, and more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt Not at all. Humans naturally assume their experiences and perspectives are generally shared; it's just the way we function. In this case, it makes dealing with the problems of society difficult because if you don't have those problems, you generally are unware of them and their true impact. "Let them eat cake", said one privileged person. Generally, it results in people thinking an issue isn't a big priority or can be put off. It isn't keeping them up at night, after all. See MLK's writing on it, which I posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341
  - danharaj 11y ago
    That's not the point of the phrase, and even I think it's a bit tired by now. The phrase asks the speaker to reevaluate their unspoken assumptions. I think 'lighten up and accept that the world is shitty' is a reactionary mode of thought, as if the 'real world' is a vast, static, unassailable entity and not an ever-changing tapestry of human activity. It is not a reasoned argument, it is not a response in a conversation, it is a demand that people shut the fuck up because the things they care about aren't worth caring about. "check your privilege" is a diplomatic and concise way of saying 'you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and yet you feel entitled to control the conversation; maybe stop doing that?'.
lliamander 11y ago
Agreed. Heck, I need to work on not being offended so easily. As someone once said (paraphrased): "We all have existential fears; that if you do or permit certain things, bad stuff will happen. If the center doesn't hold, we'll have chaos. If you don't have fears like that, then you don't have a conscience, and nothing personal but I'll lock my doors when you're around.When we don't recognize our own existential fears, then we assume that our viewpoint is identical to objective fact. This is not to say that morality is relative, but simply that the map isn't the territory." A lot of political tribalism is triggering, or playing off of, existential fear responses. The more sophisticated and malevolent actors in this seek to trigger the existential fear response in their opponents enough to cause a violent backlash while staying just on this side of the law themselves, so that they point at their opponents and claim "they started it!". Generally this kind of behavior is called bullying, and ought to stop. And while calls for a more civil discourse are certainly warranted, it is not enough. People need to gather their resolve and learn to distinguish between someone who is actually an existential threat and someone who is just trying to trigger you.
geofft 11y ago
What does "welcome to real life" mean? This is real life, where else is it happening? And while we're on the subject, would "People need to stop getting offended so easily. You're told to sit at the back of the bus? Welcome to real life, get some thicker skin" be a valid argument, or would it be fallacious? (It's stronger than the offered argument, because in 1955, in real life, you actually did get arrested if you put up a fight about sitting at the back of the bus.)
- thomyorkie 11y ago
  The difference is institutionalized racism in the 1950's vs a few bad actors on these college campuses. A minority in the 1950's had good reasons to feel unsafe; that should be obvious to everyone. It's less obvious today as the conditions are extremely different. While it may be true that these college kids really feel unsafe, it's not unreasonable to think that they are overreacting. I can see the "toughen up" argument applying to these situations.
  - cup 11y ago
    "While it may be true that these college kids really feel unsafe, it's not unreasonable to think that they are overreacting." Black kids are saying they feel unsafe, and you're suggesting they're overreacting. What gives you the confidence to think you know them and their situations better than they do themselves? Perhaps you need to do some personal interrogation.
calibraxis 11y ago
Do you think Hacker News should be more welcoming of insults, racism, etc? When someone complains of misogyny, Dang could come by and say, "Toughen the fuck up"? Or would that be disastrous to the point of the forum?
- Strang 11y ago
  I for one absolutely believe that Hacker News should be welcoming of viewpoints that _some would perceive as_ racist or misogynist. For example, a perennial topic around here is a lack of diversity in the software industry. My personal opinion is that a) for a variety of reasons, men and women have had different levels of interest in developing software, and b) these differences in of themselves are not a cause for concern. I'm well aware that some consider this view misogynist. But what is the point of discussing a topic such as diversity if only "approved" viewpoints are welcomed? That would turn Hacker News into an echo chamber.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > I'm well aware that some consider this view misogynist. By who? I would be surprised if someone said that. You might be worrying too much, but maybe I don't know. Can you provide a link to someone saying that?
- gluelogic 11y ago
  We have a system for democratically assigning value to comments here. Artificial moderation (moderation that supersedes the voting system) definitely must be a detriment to this website.
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    This has been proven time and time again to be a recipe for disaster. Consider what would happen if HN was “raided” by some group. Say, people who like to discuss mountain biking. If their numbers were such that they could force all the technology posts off the front page and flood the site with mountain biking posts and pictures, should Hacker News morph in MTB News? Most sites suffer from an Eternal September sooner or later. If new people start making very low-quality insult comments, and other new people flood those comments with upvotes, should discussions turn into toxic flame wars, because that’s what garners votes? Should the Hacker News discussion become YouTube comment threads? The idea that votes should triumph over moderation presumes a certain critical mass of people who consistently vote in favour of quality. But given enough time, and enough success, exceptions to this take place. And when they do, if left unchecked, the site can degrade very rapidly, as the original core people get outvoted and give up. Hacker News exists in part because this happened to Reddit. If left to become an absolute, unmoderated “democracy,” it will happen to Hacker News was well. I will close with a reference to the word “democracy.” Countries have a lot of friction associated with citizenship. Most people don’t leave when things stink, they try to make it better for generations before fleeing and becoming refugees somewhere else. Most countries don’t allow absolutely everyone to show up and vote on everything. The lack of friction associated with joining and leaving social media sites makes the business of “democracy” on social media very different than the business of democracy in the US or Canada.
archagon 11y ago
This is a pointless statement. Nobody's going to stop being offended just because you said so. It's as effective as yelling into the wind. Instead, one has to ask: why is this happening? At least from where I'm sitting, it's clear that a lot of these recent flare-ups have been caused by previously disenfranchised groups finally getting their voices heard in the popular media. Sometimes they go too far, but there's a lot of repressed anger in the air from years and decades of mistreatment. If your solution is to yell at them to shut the fuck up, it will backfire. Horribly. Also, not all cases of someone insulting you for being different are equal. Some are in-the-moment, sure. But some carry the weight of decades of hatred behind them. Equating the two invalidates the severity of the latter and keeps marginalized groups marginalized. I think reaching for the "PC culture" argument is the easy way out. It would do us all a lot of good to try to put ourselves in the adverserial party's shoes, even if we might (vehemently) disagree with their actions. The topic has to be approached with extreme sensitivity.

by seibelj 11y ago

mingus68040 11y ago

Right. In that case I'm sure you'll understand if I tell you to fuck right off.

001sky 11y ago
You're not even clever enough to insult
- mingus68040 11y ago
  What's wrong? Skin too thin? Maybe you should toughen up.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    --Says puppet account, with lifetime negative karma
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

__derek__ 11y ago

That's a very easy thing to say from a place of privilege, with current and historical institutions set up to protect and enforce your (and my) interests. Edit: Here, I'll put it better: by telling people from historically disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet, you're effectively saying, "I reject your understanding of your experiences, so your perspective is invalid."

jnbiche 11y ago
Do you know seibelj? Just curious how you knew s/he was in a place of privilege.
- __derek__ 11y ago
  I don't know that person, but consistency in usernames makes it easy to check before posting a comment with that assumption.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
That's an unfalsifiable accusation of original sin.
lpsz 11y ago
I can't tell if you're trolling, but "check your privilege" is one heck of a way to derail any argument. There is no virtue in being less privileged, and more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > more privileged aren't necessarily morally bankrupt Not at all. Humans naturally assume their experiences and perspectives are generally shared; it's just the way we function. In this case, it makes dealing with the problems of society difficult because if you don't have those problems, you generally are unware of them and their true impact. "Let them eat cake", said one privileged person. Generally, it results in people thinking an issue isn't a big priority or can be put off. It isn't keeping them up at night, after all. See MLK's writing on it, which I posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341
- danharaj 11y ago
  That's not the point of the phrase, and even I think it's a bit tired by now. The phrase asks the speaker to reevaluate their unspoken assumptions. I think 'lighten up and accept that the world is shitty' is a reactionary mode of thought, as if the 'real world' is a vast, static, unassailable entity and not an ever-changing tapestry of human activity. It is not a reasoned argument, it is not a response in a conversation, it is a demand that people shut the fuck up because the things they care about aren't worth caring about. "check your privilege" is a diplomatic and concise way of saying 'you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and yet you feel entitled to control the conversation; maybe stop doing that?'.

lliamander 11y ago

Agreed. Heck, I need to work on not being offended so easily. As someone once said (paraphrased): "We all have existential fears; that if you do or permit certain things, bad stuff will happen. If the center doesn't hold, we'll have chaos. If you don't have fears like that, then you don't have a conscience, and nothing personal but I'll lock my doors when you're around.When we don't recognize our own existential fears, then we assume that our viewpoint is identical to objective fact. This is not to say that morality is relative, but simply that the map isn't the territory." A lot of political tribalism is triggering, or playing off of, existential fear responses. The more sophisticated and malevolent actors in this seek to trigger the existential fear response in their opponents enough to cause a violent backlash while staying just on this side of the law themselves, so that they point at their opponents and claim "they started it!". Generally this kind of behavior is called bullying, and ought to stop. And while calls for a more civil discourse are certainly warranted, it is not enough. People need to gather their resolve and learn to distinguish between someone who is actually an existential threat and someone who is just trying to trigger you.

geofft 11y ago

What does "welcome to real life" mean? This is real life, where else is it happening? And while we're on the subject, would "People need to stop getting offended so easily. You're told to sit at the back of the bus? Welcome to real life, get some thicker skin" be a valid argument, or would it be fallacious? (It's stronger than the offered argument, because in 1955, in real life, you actually did get arrested if you put up a fight about sitting at the back of the bus.)

thomyorkie 11y ago
The difference is institutionalized racism in the 1950's vs a few bad actors on these college campuses. A minority in the 1950's had good reasons to feel unsafe; that should be obvious to everyone. It's less obvious today as the conditions are extremely different. While it may be true that these college kids really feel unsafe, it's not unreasonable to think that they are overreacting. I can see the "toughen up" argument applying to these situations.
- cup 11y ago
  "While it may be true that these college kids really feel unsafe, it's not unreasonable to think that they are overreacting." Black kids are saying they feel unsafe, and you're suggesting they're overreacting. What gives you the confidence to think you know them and their situations better than they do themselves? Perhaps you need to do some personal interrogation.

calibraxis 11y ago

Do you think Hacker News should be more welcoming of insults, racism, etc? When someone complains of misogyny, Dang could come by and say, "Toughen the fuck up"? Or would that be disastrous to the point of the forum?

Strang 11y ago
I for one absolutely believe that Hacker News should be welcoming of viewpoints that _some would perceive as_ racist or misogynist. For example, a perennial topic around here is a lack of diversity in the software industry. My personal opinion is that a) for a variety of reasons, men and women have had different levels of interest in developing software, and b) these differences in of themselves are not a cause for concern. I'm well aware that some consider this view misogynist. But what is the point of discussing a topic such as diversity if only "approved" viewpoints are welcomed? That would turn Hacker News into an echo chamber.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I'm well aware that some consider this view misogynist. By who? I would be surprised if someone said that. You might be worrying too much, but maybe I don't know. Can you provide a link to someone saying that?
gluelogic 11y ago
We have a system for democratically assigning value to comments here. Artificial moderation (moderation that supersedes the voting system) definitely must be a detriment to this website.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  This has been proven time and time again to be a recipe for disaster. Consider what would happen if HN was “raided” by some group. Say, people who like to discuss mountain biking. If their numbers were such that they could force all the technology posts off the front page and flood the site with mountain biking posts and pictures, should Hacker News morph in MTB News? Most sites suffer from an Eternal September sooner or later. If new people start making very low-quality insult comments, and other new people flood those comments with upvotes, should discussions turn into toxic flame wars, because that’s what garners votes? Should the Hacker News discussion become YouTube comment threads? The idea that votes should triumph over moderation presumes a certain critical mass of people who consistently vote in favour of quality. But given enough time, and enough success, exceptions to this take place. And when they do, if left unchecked, the site can degrade very rapidly, as the original core people get outvoted and give up. Hacker News exists in part because this happened to Reddit. If left to become an absolute, unmoderated “democracy,” it will happen to Hacker News was well. I will close with a reference to the word “democracy.” Countries have a lot of friction associated with citizenship. Most people don’t leave when things stink, they try to make it better for generations before fleeing and becoming refugees somewhere else. Most countries don’t allow absolutely everyone to show up and vote on everything. The lack of friction associated with joining and leaving social media sites makes the business of “democracy” on social media very different than the business of democracy in the US or Canada.

archagon 11y ago

This is a pointless statement. Nobody's going to stop being offended just because you said so. It's as effective as yelling into the wind. Instead, one has to ask: why is this happening? At least from where I'm sitting, it's clear that a lot of these recent flare-ups have been caused by previously disenfranchised groups finally getting their voices heard in the popular media. Sometimes they go too far, but there's a lot of repressed anger in the air from years and decades of mistreatment. If your solution is to yell at them to shut the fuck up, it will backfire. Horribly. Also, not all cases of someone insulting you for being different are equal. Some are in-the-moment, sure. But some carry the weight of decades of hatred behind them. Equating the two invalidates the severity of the latter and keeps marginalized groups marginalized. I think reaching for the "PC culture" argument is the easy way out. It would do us all a lot of good to try to put ourselves in the adverserial party's shoes, even if we might (vehemently) disagree with their actions. The topic has to be approached with extreme sensitivity.