7 ms·

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 u

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 for Alan Turing despite having my own discomfort with homosexuality. I don’t have clear thoughts about whether gay marriage or civil partnerships are better; I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt." Seriously? This is worthy of being the top article on HN. Shudder. Not rhetoric I'm proud of in the least.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sophacles 16y ago
Honestly, I'm more impressed with someone campaigning for what is logically right (even tho they have emotional hangups) than I am with someone who follows their emotions for the "right thing" but can't explain why it is right. The latter is just a result of luck. I have had my own stupid emotional discomforts. None of them were logical, but all of them were easier to deal with when I was open about it. Get off your high horse. Edit: strike that "get off your high horse" bit, its too reactionary of me -- sorry about that.
- drivebyacct 16y ago
  I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual. It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.
  - caryme 16y ago
    I mean, I don't like it either, but it's not at all uncommon for straight men to avoid standing up for gay men for fear of being perceived as gay. I don't see the article as a defense of JGC's sexuality in any way, but as a challenge to stand up for justice even of those who are different from us.
- elblanco 16y ago
  It's amazing what people can overcome by simply being truthful and logical.
puredemo 16y ago
I felt exactly the same way. It seems as if this author had been living in Turing's time period his post would have read: "I don't have clear thoughts about whether chemical castration or forced celibacy is better; I'm conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to be free."
benatkin 16y ago
To me, it boils down to my belief that many people wouldn't accept this statement by P. C. Hodgell†: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." Some people seem to be afraid of truth. I've noticed this when I've turned down cheese, and upon being asked why, saying I think it's unhealthy for me. Often they start saying why they can't live without cheese, or why eating cheese regularly doesn't increase the risk of disease unless you have a certain risk factor (like high blood pressure or a sedentary lifestyle). This happens without me doing anything except turn it down. I find people have an easier time accepting it if I act like I'm turning it down for moral reasons rather than nutritional reasons. As for how truth-avoidance leads to this: I think that people don't want to accept a certain truth often don't want to accept justice that's based on that truth. In this case, the truth is that, even though he's gay, Turing deserves fairness just like everyone else. † I got the quote from http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues and am surprised not to be able to find it on one of the major quote sites.
jseifer 16y ago
I got the impression he was writing it from the perspective of someone who would be asking those questions.
SapphireSun 16y ago
I don't think that the idea was "Why would you stand up for a gay man if you're not gay?". It was more along the lines of "Since you are not a representative of this group, what would give you the motivation to pick up THIS particular cup and follow it through to completion?" There are lots of other injustices that he might be a representative member of and could have campaigned against. I'm really happy that he picked it up on principle. In a way, it's a lot more pure that someone _not_ gay spearheaded the effort so there is no appearance of a conflict of interest (rational or irrational). Turing was the man, and I'm glad Britain recognizes that now.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sophacles 16y ago

Honestly, I'm more impressed with someone campaigning for what is logically right (even tho they have emotional hangups) than I am with someone who follows their emotions for the "right thing" but can't explain why it is right. The latter is just a result of luck. I have had my own stupid emotional discomforts. None of them were logical, but all of them were easier to deal with when I was open about it. Get off your high horse. Edit: strike that "get off your high horse" bit, its too reactionary of me -- sorry about that.

drivebyacct 16y ago
I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual. It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.
- sophacles 16y ago
  Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.
- caryme 16y ago
  I mean, I don't like it either, but it's not at all uncommon for straight men to avoid standing up for gay men for fear of being perceived as gay. I don't see the article as a defense of JGC's sexuality in any way, but as a challenge to stand up for justice even of those who are different from us.
elblanco 16y ago
It's amazing what people can overcome by simply being truthful and logical.

puredemo 16y ago

I felt exactly the same way. It seems as if this author had been living in Turing's time period his post would have read: "I don't have clear thoughts about whether chemical castration or forced celibacy is better; I'm conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to be free."

benatkin 16y ago

To me, it boils down to my belief that many people wouldn't accept this statement by P. C. Hodgell†: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." Some people seem to be afraid of truth. I've noticed this when I've turned down cheese, and upon being asked why, saying I think it's unhealthy for me. Often they start saying why they can't live without cheese, or why eating cheese regularly doesn't increase the risk of disease unless you have a certain risk factor (like high blood pressure or a sedentary lifestyle). This happens without me doing anything except turn it down. I find people have an easier time accepting it if I act like I'm turning it down for moral reasons rather than nutritional reasons. As for how truth-avoidance leads to this: I think that people don't want to accept a certain truth often don't want to accept justice that's based on that truth. In this case, the truth is that, even though he's gay, Turing deserves fairness just like everyone else. † I got the quote from http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues and am surprised not to be able to find it on one of the major quote sites.

jseifer 16y ago

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

SapphireSun 16y ago

I don't think that the idea was "Why would you stand up for a gay man if you're not gay?". It was more along the lines of "Since you are not a representative of this group, what would give you the motivation to pick up THIS particular cup and follow it through to completion?" There are lots of other injustices that he might be a representative member of and could have campaigned against. I'm really happy that he picked it up on principle. In a way, it's a lot more pure that someone _not_ gay spearheaded the effort so there is no appearance of a conflict of interest (rational or irrational). Turing was the man, and I'm glad Britain recognizes that now.