4 ms·

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not j

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?

RankingMember 10y ago
Agreed. The world is not this black and white place we might sometimes try to make it. Rather than writing diatribes about how people are "objectively" wrong about matters of no consequence, why not save the effort and call people what they want to be called?
- throwaway929388 10y ago
  Because it supports the delusion they have put themselves into.
  - RankingMember 10y ago
    What is a delusion in this context? Is being gay a delusion because penises are meant to go in vaginas and people putting them in anuses are delusional and just need to wake up?
- ythl 10y ago
  What's the point of titles, adjectives, pronouns if they can be manipulated by the subject? Statement: "Dr. Smith ran across the street. She was terrified of what would happen next" What actually happened: "A burly transgender man who believes he is a doctor ran across the street."
  - RankingMember 10y ago
    This isn't a police report. In matters of consequence, I'd expect you would call things by whatever is most conducive to the target audience understanding what you're talking about.
themartorana 10y ago
To play Devil's advocate, how about because "humoring" is usually a way to hold off extreme self-righteousness, shaming, and so on from the humor'd party. Moral discussions like these are not like most discussions on HN. People's opinions and comments come loaded with assertions of moral absolutism, and as above, are usually an attempt to shame the parent commenter. If Chelsea Manning prefers to be called "her," that's fine with me. But I appreciate being brow-beaten by people who have placed themselves on a morally superior plane as much as I like being told I'm going to hell by any number of religious leaders who also like to place themselves on high, asserting that their beliefs make them inherently better than others. I'm of the belief that what people do in a consenting, non-harmful fashion with, to, and about themselves and willing participants is not only fine, but none of my business. But the squeaky wheels are always those who believe that they have somehow been harmed by your discord with their moral self-righteousness - no matter which side of a position they find themselves. Devil's advocate, though.
- mgbmtl 10y ago
  There's always a balance to strive for, but we live in such an imbalanced culture (homogeneous, unrepresentative).. sometimes we don't realize some issues until we have kids and see what they go through [1]. It's easy to dismiss people as cry-babies, and there are always crazy exceptions, but if people say they are harmed, it doesn't hurt to listen and find out why :) [1] like those republican politicians who are suddenly OK with homosexuality because they find out that one of their kids is homosexual, or many friends who are suddenly the biggest feminists on the Internet because they have daughters. I don't mind, but I do wish they had not been such dicks before having their epiphany.
  - Vraxx 10y ago
    Specifically about that type of person you mentioned that is against something vehemently until they are personally related to the side of the issue they opposed, I can't help myself but feel more disdain for these individuals than if they had continued holding their prejudiced/bigoted views because their transformation seems incredibly intellectually dishonest. I liken it to the type of person that apologizes profusely after they have been caught red-handed with some wrongdoing, but they never once apologized or confessed during the time they were doing it. In other words, they aren't sorry they did it, they're sorry they got caught doing it. Maybe my views on the issue are too harsh, but those are my own prejudices. I do think that people can have genuine transformations of views, but it doesn't sit well with me when it only came about because they were cornered into it.
lisper 10y ago
I'm putting this here because wtbob's original comment was flagged to death and can no longer be replied to directly. Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. It was a cogent and even a defensible claim. It was simply wrong, and flagging comments to death simply for being wrong is very, very dangerous. For one thing, it deprives people of the opportunity to explain to someone why they are wrong, instead saying, in effect, "You are so wrong that you are not even entitled to an explanation of what you are wrong about." That is not constructive. It instills a sense of martyrdom that causes these wrong views to fester and thrive, the exact opposite of what we should be striving for here. So, for the record, wtbob: > Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. You are wrong about this. It is both a biological circumstance (though not nearly as crisp a dichotomy as most people think) and a subjective experience, and some people have a mismatch between their biology and their subjective experience. It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify even if it does not conform to your prejudices about how the world ought to be.
- threebees 10y ago
  > Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. For what it's worth: I didn't see the comment in question, but based on context, I assume that reading it would have made me want to cry. Maybe that's an unpopular emotion to express on HN, but that's what happens when a place you think of as a home suddenly makes you feel unwelcome and conditionally accepted. So thank you, community, for saying that if someone wants to make any more "cogent claims" about the validity of my existence, they're welcome to do so, elsewhere.
  - lisper 10y ago
    You can see the original comment by going to your settings page (click on your user name in the upper right hand corner of the screen) and set "Showdead" to "Yes". You really ought to read it. If you're going to support the suppression of a point of view you really should know what it is you are trying to suppress. Supporting censorship of things you haven't read based on "context" generally does not lead to good outcomes in the long run. Widespread frustration with that sort of attitude is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is getting so much mileage out of criticizing rampant political correctness.
lliamander 10y ago
I think asking someone to refrain from speaking (what they believe to be) the truth is one thing, especially if they are doing it simply to cause controversy, draw attention to themselves, or signal some sort of tribal loyalty. If that is what the flagged comment was doing, then perhaps flagging them was the appropriate response. However, asking someone to actively say something (that they believe to be) false is not within the scope of what I would call "politeness". For instance, I have friends and acquaintances who have religious beliefs that I do not, and those religious beliefs are essential to their identity. I don't constantly tell them that they are deluded idol worshipers (that's rude). However, I don't participate in their observances and I don't hide my disagreement when the subject comes up.
grkvlt 10y ago
It seems the point they are trying to make is that for (wrong, according to them) reasons, a person's internal gender perception is privileged over other types of internal identity, such as the false belief that one is the messiah or Napoleon, or one has missing limbs. It's an interesting enough point, which deserves careful thought, although perhaps this is not exactly the right forum for it. Also, note that they did say in their comment that the correct pronoun to use when talking to Manning was 'her', which seems like being nice to others, and respecting their choices. I'm guessing it's probably considered unhelpful to reinforce delusions such as believing oneself to be Jesus, but would be interested to know where psychiatrists draw the line in such things.

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?

RankingMember 10y ago

Agreed. The world is not this black and white place we might sometimes try to make it. Rather than writing diatribes about how people are "objectively" wrong about matters of no consequence, why not save the effort and call people what they want to be called?

throwaway929388 10y ago
Because it supports the delusion they have put themselves into.
- RankingMember 10y ago
  What is a delusion in this context? Is being gay a delusion because penises are meant to go in vaginas and people putting them in anuses are delusional and just need to wake up?
ythl 10y ago
What's the point of titles, adjectives, pronouns if they can be manipulated by the subject? Statement: "Dr. Smith ran across the street. She was terrified of what would happen next" What actually happened: "A burly transgender man who believes he is a doctor ran across the street."
- RankingMember 10y ago
  This isn't a police report. In matters of consequence, I'd expect you would call things by whatever is most conducive to the target audience understanding what you're talking about.

themartorana 10y ago

To play Devil's advocate, how about because "humoring" is usually a way to hold off extreme self-righteousness, shaming, and so on from the humor'd party. Moral discussions like these are not like most discussions on HN. People's opinions and comments come loaded with assertions of moral absolutism, and as above, are usually an attempt to shame the parent commenter. If Chelsea Manning prefers to be called "her," that's fine with me. But I appreciate being brow-beaten by people who have placed themselves on a morally superior plane as much as I like being told I'm going to hell by any number of religious leaders who also like to place themselves on high, asserting that their beliefs make them inherently better than others. I'm of the belief that what people do in a consenting, non-harmful fashion with, to, and about themselves and willing participants is not only fine, but none of my business. But the squeaky wheels are always those who believe that they have somehow been harmed by your discord with their moral self-righteousness - no matter which side of a position they find themselves. Devil's advocate, though.

mgbmtl 10y ago
There's always a balance to strive for, but we live in such an imbalanced culture (homogeneous, unrepresentative).. sometimes we don't realize some issues until we have kids and see what they go through [1]. It's easy to dismiss people as cry-babies, and there are always crazy exceptions, but if people say they are harmed, it doesn't hurt to listen and find out why :) [1] like those republican politicians who are suddenly OK with homosexuality because they find out that one of their kids is homosexual, or many friends who are suddenly the biggest feminists on the Internet because they have daughters. I don't mind, but I do wish they had not been such dicks before having their epiphany.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  Specifically about that type of person you mentioned that is against something vehemently until they are personally related to the side of the issue they opposed, I can't help myself but feel more disdain for these individuals than if they had continued holding their prejudiced/bigoted views because their transformation seems incredibly intellectually dishonest. I liken it to the type of person that apologizes profusely after they have been caught red-handed with some wrongdoing, but they never once apologized or confessed during the time they were doing it. In other words, they aren't sorry they did it, they're sorry they got caught doing it. Maybe my views on the issue are too harsh, but those are my own prejudices. I do think that people can have genuine transformations of views, but it doesn't sit well with me when it only came about because they were cornered into it.

lisper 10y ago

I'm putting this here because wtbob's original comment was flagged to death and can no longer be replied to directly. Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. It was a cogent and even a defensible claim. It was simply wrong, and flagging comments to death simply for being wrong is very, very dangerous. For one thing, it deprives people of the opportunity to explain to someone why they are wrong, instead saying, in effect, "You are so wrong that you are not even entitled to an explanation of what you are wrong about." That is not constructive. It instills a sense of martyrdom that causes these wrong views to fester and thrive, the exact opposite of what we should be striving for here. So, for the record, wtbob: > Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. You are wrong about this. It is both a biological circumstance (though not nearly as crisp a dichotomy as most people think) and a subjective experience, and some people have a mismatch between their biology and their subjective experience. It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify even if it does not conform to your prejudices about how the world ought to be.

threebees 10y ago
> Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. For what it's worth: I didn't see the comment in question, but based on context, I assume that reading it would have made me want to cry. Maybe that's an unpopular emotion to express on HN, but that's what happens when a place you think of as a home suddenly makes you feel unwelcome and conditionally accepted. So thank you, community, for saying that if someone wants to make any more "cogent claims" about the validity of my existence, they're welcome to do so, elsewhere.
- lisper 10y ago
  You can see the original comment by going to your settings page (click on your user name in the upper right hand corner of the screen) and set "Showdead" to "Yes". You really ought to read it. If you're going to support the suppression of a point of view you really should know what it is you are trying to suppress. Supporting censorship of things you haven't read based on "context" generally does not lead to good outcomes in the long run. Widespread frustration with that sort of attitude is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is getting so much mileage out of criticizing rampant political correctness.

lliamander 10y ago

I think asking someone to refrain from speaking (what they believe to be) the truth is one thing, especially if they are doing it simply to cause controversy, draw attention to themselves, or signal some sort of tribal loyalty. If that is what the flagged comment was doing, then perhaps flagging them was the appropriate response. However, asking someone to actively say something (that they believe to be) false is not within the scope of what I would call "politeness". For instance, I have friends and acquaintances who have religious beliefs that I do not, and those religious beliefs are essential to their identity. I don't constantly tell them that they are deluded idol worshipers (that's rude). However, I don't participate in their observances and I don't hide my disagreement when the subject comes up.

grkvlt 10y ago

It seems the point they are trying to make is that for (wrong, according to them) reasons, a person's internal gender perception is privileged over other types of internal identity, such as the false belief that one is the messiah or Napoleon, or one has missing limbs. It's an interesting enough point, which deserves careful thought, although perhaps this is not exactly the right forum for it. Also, note that they did say in their comment that the correct pronoun to use when talking to Manning was 'her', which seems like being nice to others, and respecting their choices. I'm guessing it's probably considered unhelpful to reinforce delusions such as believing oneself to be Jesus, but would be interested to know where psychiatrists draw the line in such things.