5 ms·

Thanks for the reply. I agree that identity intersects with beliefs -- and more generally worldview, including epistemology, ontology, etc. And yes, there are

by jdp23 10y ago

Thanks for the reply. I agree that identity intersects with beliefs -- and more generally worldview, including epistemology, ontology, etc. And yes, there are certainly some areas where there are debates about whether particular behavior is or isn't anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans. As you say, these things are tricky. Still, the points I was making ''aren't'' tricky. - For the dimensions that I listed (and implied with the "etc"), in today's environment, HN is kidding themselves by thinking they can welcome "both sides" - the feedback they're getting is from people (including me) who see YC and 'dang personally as aligning themselves with the antis by blocking political discussion > That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". No, I meant very specifically that in today's context HN - and by extension YC - can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies.

Chris2048 10y ago
by 'anti' you mean "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans"? How does the political ban align with this? > can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies. ally is a feminist term, but why can't women be anti-feminist? Are you describing this to be the case, or prescribing it?
- jdp23 10y ago
  I'm describing, not prescribing (and I'm specifically talking about HN and YC, not making general claims). Yes, women can be anti-feminist. As you said, these are tricky issues. If you haven't yet understood why many people see the political ban as aligning with this, then either you haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding. There's plenty of information here and in other discussions, so give it another try.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding why won't you say explicitly? Is there some nuance that cannot be stated?
    - jdp23 10y ago
      It's not nuanced at all, it's quite clear. And I was very explicit about why I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you. If this is something you really want to understand (whether or not you agree), invest the effort (which may also mean finding a way to get beyond any limits your belief system is leading to). If you do that, you don't need any further explanation from me. If you don't do that, nothing I say will help you understand.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        And can you not see that: > I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you Is pretty arrogant, you have such high esteem for your perspective you don't think it could be wrong, in fact I'm biased for not understanding it; You're suggesting, instead, that I must have to go on some mysterious journey-of-self, as if you were a wise zen master furnishing me with enlightenment; rather than supporting your own, somewhat basic, claim that "the ban supports the antis"...
        jdp23 10y ago
        It's interesting to see how you interpret my words. Thanks for the discussion.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > Thanks for the discussion. Maybe it's my biases, but that seems pretty passive-aggressive.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        Earlier: > Thanks for the reply. Also passive-aggressive?
        Chris2048 10y ago

by jdp23 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

by 'anti' you mean "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans"? How does the political ban align with this? > can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies. ally is a feminist term, but why can't women be anti-feminist? Are you describing this to be the case, or prescribing it?

jdp23 10y ago
I'm describing, not prescribing (and I'm specifically talking about HN and YC, not making general claims). Yes, women can be anti-feminist. As you said, these are tricky issues. If you haven't yet understood why many people see the political ban as aligning with this, then either you haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding. There's plenty of information here and in other discussions, so give it another try.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding why won't you say explicitly? Is there some nuance that cannot be stated?
  - jdp23 10y ago
    It's not nuanced at all, it's quite clear. And I was very explicit about why I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you. If this is something you really want to understand (whether or not you agree), invest the effort (which may also mean finding a way to get beyond any limits your belief system is leading to). If you do that, you don't need any further explanation from me. If you don't do that, nothing I say will help you understand.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      And can you not see that: > I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you Is pretty arrogant, you have such high esteem for your perspective you don't think it could be wrong, in fact I'm biased for not understanding it; You're suggesting, instead, that I must have to go on some mysterious journey-of-self, as if you were a wise zen master furnishing me with enlightenment; rather than supporting your own, somewhat basic, claim that "the ban supports the antis"...
      - jdp23 10y ago
        It's interesting to see how you interpret my words. Thanks for the discussion.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > Thanks for the discussion. Maybe it's my biases, but that seems pretty passive-aggressive.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        Earlier: > Thanks for the reply. Also passive-aggressive?
        Chris2048 10y ago