5 ms·

Precisely. Except i don't think it's a "mistake".

etjossem 10y ago
I just took that part out, after thinking about it for a little bit. Our default pattern of speech is to choose "he" or "she" if we know one of these pronouns is correct, so the use of singular-they is nearly always deliberate.
- adrienne 10y ago
  Yeah, exactly. In my observation, even when people are trying to use "they" - like if they're telling someone a story where they're deliberately obfuscating someone's gender - folks often slip up midway through.
  - etjossem 10y ago
    The volume of downvotes and hate comments you are getting for standing up on this issue is disturbing. I hope some of those commenters eventually reconsider whether the acceptance of disrespectful pronouns on HN is truly the cause they want to be known for.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I honestly believe the majority of the downvotes are because of tone, not position. As for hate comments in response to any of 'adrienne's in this thread, I see three that are very uncivil and have been flagged dead (and won't appear unless you have showdead on). Another is arguably uncivil and has also received a net negative votes. If you have a separate tally, please point it out. That's not to say all of the downvotes are purely for tone. There are people who will downvote out of spite or disagreement. One issue I do think a majority of HN members agree on is the value of civil, substantive discussion, regardless of topic. As a result, HN members do overwhelmingly downvote incivility, including incivility directed at 'adrienne's comments. Please note that multiple commenters have mentioned exactly this. If you contend that they're being insincere in doing so, you of course are free to do so, but it's unlikely that you're going to be able to constructively engage with them from a position of bad faith. I want people to be able to discuss these types of things. Regardless of what people think should be, it remains a fact that not everyone agrees on a whole host of issues. Changing one's mind is hard; changing someone else's even harder. If I can't approach the discussion with the perspective that there's hope of some sort of understanding (if not yet agreement), I'll refrain from saying anything. It's not useful—and very likely counterproductive—to do otherwise.
      - etjossem 10y ago
        I am not on board with categorically downvoting incivility, even on that last bastion of civil discourse we call HN. While we may feel uncomfortable hearing from someone who is upset, it's hard to deny that we notice them more - and that can be very important for those whose voice isn't very loud in the community otherwise. To the empathetic, an uncivil outcry can serve as a stinging reminder that their behavior has deeply offended someone else. I'm reminded of an MLK Jr. quote about the tendency of moderates to oppose the loudness of minorities whose views aren't yet well-accepted. I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. We should strive to be an orderly community, but we should also strive to be an accepting one.
        grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the MLK quote! I agree with the spirit of it, and personally struggle to understand where the balance is between order and justice. though I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between "set a timetable for another man's freedom" and trying to figure out what ways are effective in making change. I'm not encouraging anyone to wait. I'm encouraging people to do what's effective. MLK was also very good at figuring out effective methods of promoting change, and is well known for non-violent civil disobedience. He's also well known for his eloquence. I'm not a scholar of his speeches and writings, but I'm not aware of cases where he was uncivil in his language. Happy to be educated otherwise. And with respect to uncivil outcry, there may indeed be a place for it. If it's repeated to the point where it ends up being effectively ignored and dismissed, does it still serve the purpose of reminding people that there are those who are offended? I personally don't think so.

I just took that part out, after thinking about it for a little bit. Our default pattern of speech is to choose "he" or "she" if we know one of these pronouns is correct, so the use of singular-they is nearly always deliberate.

adrienne 10y ago
Yeah, exactly. In my observation, even when people are trying to use "they" - like if they're telling someone a story where they're deliberately obfuscating someone's gender - folks often slip up midway through.
- etjossem 10y ago
  The volume of downvotes and hate comments you are getting for standing up on this issue is disturbing. I hope some of those commenters eventually reconsider whether the acceptance of disrespectful pronouns on HN is truly the cause they want to be known for.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I honestly believe the majority of the downvotes are because of tone, not position. As for hate comments in response to any of 'adrienne's in this thread, I see three that are very uncivil and have been flagged dead (and won't appear unless you have showdead on). Another is arguably uncivil and has also received a net negative votes. If you have a separate tally, please point it out. That's not to say all of the downvotes are purely for tone. There are people who will downvote out of spite or disagreement. One issue I do think a majority of HN members agree on is the value of civil, substantive discussion, regardless of topic. As a result, HN members do overwhelmingly downvote incivility, including incivility directed at 'adrienne's comments. Please note that multiple commenters have mentioned exactly this. If you contend that they're being insincere in doing so, you of course are free to do so, but it's unlikely that you're going to be able to constructively engage with them from a position of bad faith. I want people to be able to discuss these types of things. Regardless of what people think should be, it remains a fact that not everyone agrees on a whole host of issues. Changing one's mind is hard; changing someone else's even harder. If I can't approach the discussion with the perspective that there's hope of some sort of understanding (if not yet agreement), I'll refrain from saying anything. It's not useful—and very likely counterproductive—to do otherwise.
    - etjossem 10y ago
      I am not on board with categorically downvoting incivility, even on that last bastion of civil discourse we call HN. While we may feel uncomfortable hearing from someone who is upset, it's hard to deny that we notice them more - and that can be very important for those whose voice isn't very loud in the community otherwise. To the empathetic, an uncivil outcry can serve as a stinging reminder that their behavior has deeply offended someone else. I'm reminded of an MLK Jr. quote about the tendency of moderates to oppose the loudness of minorities whose views aren't yet well-accepted. I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. We should strive to be an orderly community, but we should also strive to be an accepting one.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the MLK quote! I agree with the spirit of it, and personally struggle to understand where the balance is between order and justice. though I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between "set a timetable for another man's freedom" and trying to figure out what ways are effective in making change. I'm not encouraging anyone to wait. I'm encouraging people to do what's effective. MLK was also very good at figuring out effective methods of promoting change, and is well known for non-violent civil disobedience. He's also well known for his eloquence. I'm not a scholar of his speeches and writings, but I'm not aware of cases where he was uncivil in his language. Happy to be educated otherwise. And with respect to uncivil outcry, there may indeed be a place for it. If it's repeated to the point where it ends up being effectively ignored and dismissed, does it still serve the purpose of reminding people that there are those who are offended? I personally don't think so.