7 ms·

It's delusional thinking where people believe themselves to be something they clearly aren't. It's not even the first example of this to reach mainstream discou

It's delusional thinking where people believe themselves to be something they clearly aren't. It's not even the first example of this to reach mainstream discourse, but I'll be zapped for wrongthink if I mention the other. That's why this sort of thing is really scary.

jordigh 8y ago
Is this like Capgras delusion or something? I have met people with Capgras delusion, and it's a very strange experience to interact with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion But please, don't call mental illness scary, if that's what this is. There's already enough stigma around mental illness to feel like you have to be scared about discussing it.
- tree_of_item 8y ago
  What's scary is the fact that you can be prevented from recognizing this as delusional because people have decided the delusion needs to be protected from "hate speech". Look at the people in that issues thread saying that the the "bot" wording is not "inclusive" enough.
  - s_kilk 8y ago
    I feel like you're fishing for attention by pussyfooting around some assertion about gender. If that's the case then just come out with it, and bring along some evidence to back yourself up, and remember that belligerence is not an argument.
  - jordigh 8y ago
    You are not a victim, you will not be made a victim, you should not consider yourself a potential victim, and if the other thing that you are afraid to say is that being transgender is by itself a mental illness, the current medical consensus disagrees with you.
    - tree_of_item 8y ago
      I never claimed to be a victim, and there is no such medical consensus. Not when people lose their jobs for speaking out.
      - lomnakkus 8y ago
        > [...] and there is no such medical consensus. Not when people lose their jobs for speaking out. At best this is an extremely tenuous inference. If you can find researchers who are actually working in the area who've lost their jobs because of the outcomes of that research, then please do provide references.
      - joyeusenoelle 8y ago
        Medical consensus has nothing to do with whether you lose your job for being a bigot.
        tree_of_item 8y ago
        Understanding that male and female humans exist independently of anyone's "identity" doesn't make you a bigot.
        sincerely 8y ago
        Disagreeing with scientific consensus for ideological reasons, however, might make you a bigot
      - danbolt 8y ago
        I've read and been exposed to a lot of other research with regards to consensus [1], but I'd love to see another point of view. Maybe you could post a few other sources that disagree? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No, it's because it's not a delusion, and furthermore it's none of your damn business. There is precisely zero reason you need to concern yourself with how someone wishes to identify, other than to be able to address them appropriately to be polite.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  I think what the poster is getting at is it's indistinguishable from discussion around gender. It's uncharitable to call that delusion or mental illness, but they're not really that different. That's what the "you are what you say you are" movement in society is building towards. (Though it's interesting how quickly Dolezal got shut down for saying they were a race they weren't). Who is to say they aren't a robot?
  - jordigh 8y ago
    It's very distinguishable. We have a long history of transgender people, their medical support, and their role in society. We do not have a long history of artificial life claiming sentience. The two things are not the same, there is no slippery slope here, nobody is going to take us to prison or publicly shame us if we vehemently question that any person currently living is in a purely inorganic body.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      I had a more drawn out response but I realized that I was discussing things that I may not understand. Honest question: if this person was claiming they were of the robot gender and that they wanted inclusion, would you deny that they were of that gender? How do you define it? To those with less exposure, much of it seems subjective, the same way saying you're a "robot" (what does that mean to that person?) or you're a kin might. Replace "robot" with "gender*" and it's indistinguishable in that sense. People will just as vehemently argue with you about people's assertions of gender, but that doesn't seem useful anymore.
      - bobwaycott 8y ago
        How exactly is robot a gender? What exactly comprises the robot gender? What social and/or cultural differences distinguish the robot gender from other socially constructed and performative genders? Are we just making stuff up here now?
kbenson 8y ago
I see it less as a case of people believing themselves something (although that must happen some percentage of the time), and more as a subgroup deciding they want to claim a pronoun for themselves, for any number of reasons. Unfortunately, in their fight to claim that designation, there is often conflation of all objections to denying personal rights. I'm not entirely sure where I come down on this issue, as most my exposure to it seems to come from representations by extremists on both sides. For my own part, the reasons I feel objection would be warranted are because of loss of accuracy in language. This is a good example of that, where one actor is specifically lobbying (whether genuinely or not) for the expansion of the term bot to mean (for all I can tell) to mean it's opposite. The current definition of the word (whether as 'bot' or 'robot') means that someone's ability to present a coherent argument that they are one in itself rules them out as one.
dang 8y ago
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by taking the thread on a flamey ideological tangent. Those invariably suck, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jordigh 8y ago

Is this like Capgras delusion or something? I have met people with Capgras delusion, and it's a very strange experience to interact with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion But please, don't call mental illness scary, if that's what this is. There's already enough stigma around mental illness to feel like you have to be scared about discussing it.

tree_of_item 8y ago
What's scary is the fact that you can be prevented from recognizing this as delusional because people have decided the delusion needs to be protected from "hate speech". Look at the people in that issues thread saying that the the "bot" wording is not "inclusive" enough.
- s_kilk 8y ago
  I feel like you're fishing for attention by pussyfooting around some assertion about gender. If that's the case then just come out with it, and bring along some evidence to back yourself up, and remember that belligerence is not an argument.
- jordigh 8y ago
  You are not a victim, you will not be made a victim, you should not consider yourself a potential victim, and if the other thing that you are afraid to say is that being transgender is by itself a mental illness, the current medical consensus disagrees with you.
  - tree_of_item 8y ago
    I never claimed to be a victim, and there is no such medical consensus. Not when people lose their jobs for speaking out.
    - lomnakkus 8y ago
      > [...] and there is no such medical consensus. Not when people lose their jobs for speaking out. At best this is an extremely tenuous inference. If you can find researchers who are actually working in the area who've lost their jobs because of the outcomes of that research, then please do provide references.
    - joyeusenoelle 8y ago
      Medical consensus has nothing to do with whether you lose your job for being a bigot.
      - tree_of_item 8y ago
        Understanding that male and female humans exist independently of anyone's "identity" doesn't make you a bigot.
        sincerely 8y ago
        Disagreeing with scientific consensus for ideological reasons, however, might make you a bigot
    - danbolt 8y ago
      I've read and been exposed to a lot of other research with regards to consensus [1], but I'd love to see another point of view. Maybe you could post a few other sources that disagree? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, it's because it's not a delusion, and furthermore it's none of your damn business. There is precisely zero reason you need to concern yourself with how someone wishes to identify, other than to be able to address them appropriately to be polite.
aaron-lebo 8y ago
I think what the poster is getting at is it's indistinguishable from discussion around gender. It's uncharitable to call that delusion or mental illness, but they're not really that different. That's what the "you are what you say you are" movement in society is building towards. (Though it's interesting how quickly Dolezal got shut down for saying they were a race they weren't). Who is to say they aren't a robot?
- jordigh 8y ago
  It's very distinguishable. We have a long history of transgender people, their medical support, and their role in society. We do not have a long history of artificial life claiming sentience. The two things are not the same, there is no slippery slope here, nobody is going to take us to prison or publicly shame us if we vehemently question that any person currently living is in a purely inorganic body.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    I had a more drawn out response but I realized that I was discussing things that I may not understand. Honest question: if this person was claiming they were of the robot gender and that they wanted inclusion, would you deny that they were of that gender? How do you define it? To those with less exposure, much of it seems subjective, the same way saying you're a "robot" (what does that mean to that person?) or you're a kin might. Replace "robot" with "gender*" and it's indistinguishable in that sense. People will just as vehemently argue with you about people's assertions of gender, but that doesn't seem useful anymore.
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      How exactly is robot a gender? What exactly comprises the robot gender? What social and/or cultural differences distinguish the robot gender from other socially constructed and performative genders? Are we just making stuff up here now?

kbenson 8y ago

I see it less as a case of people believing themselves something (although that must happen some percentage of the time), and more as a subgroup deciding they want to claim a pronoun for themselves, for any number of reasons. Unfortunately, in their fight to claim that designation, there is often conflation of all objections to denying personal rights. I'm not entirely sure where I come down on this issue, as most my exposure to it seems to come from representations by extremists on both sides. For my own part, the reasons I feel objection would be warranted are because of loss of accuracy in language. This is a good example of that, where one actor is specifically lobbying (whether genuinely or not) for the expansion of the term bot to mean (for all I can tell) to mean it's opposite. The current definition of the word (whether as 'bot' or 'robot') means that someone's ability to present a coherent argument that they are one in itself rules them out as one.

dang 8y ago

This comment breaks the HN guidelines by taking the thread on a flamey ideological tangent. Those invariably suck, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html