3 ms·

My point was that the ambiguous term "man" was immediately interpreted as a sign of discrimination. If HN can have "Assume good faith" in the guidelines then so

My point was that the ambiguous term "man" was immediately interpreted as a sign of discrimination. If HN can have "Assume good faith" in the guidelines then society should also have it. So hearing such a reaction to a term where the most plausible interpretation is "human" can only be bad faith. Looking for reasons to squabble. If enough people use such bad faith arguments to make a point how long until it will be easy to overlook a good, valid argument and assume the same kind of bad faith from the start?

jessaustin 8y ago
This conversation does not occur in a vacuum. For most of the history of writing in English, a casual everyday sexism has been baked in. The presence of that sexism has done harm even if few authors have really cared about it. We're lucky, that now we can't really pretend this isn't a thing. So the reasonable assumption to make is not that a text was unintentionally sexist, but rather that the author didn't care enough not to be sexist. It's really easy to write "humanity" rather than "man".
- close04 8y ago
  Yes... just like mother nature, motherland, mother tongue, motherboard, etc. Not hypocritical at all. No normal person would feel insulted and discriminated by any of these words. Looking for an offense in everything is just making it easier for everybody to overlook actual offenses. Feel free to create imaginary enemies if it makes you feel like you're fighting the good fight [0]. Tell me, how do you feel about the oppression of noun genders in every language? [0] https://pics.me.me/1-year-of-not-shaving-her-legs-to-fight-against-33027205.png https://pics.me.me/1-year-of-not-shaving-her-legs-to-fight-a...
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Wow that's a lot of projection.
    - close04 8y ago
      > Wow that's a lot of projection. You mean like when you, without knowing anything about the situation or the person, claimed that: > the author didn't care enough not to be sexist Am I allowed to point out the hypocrisy now? I stand by my words. Some people are inventing issues or at least blowing them out of proportion so they can feel like they're fighting for something. In this case calling someone sexist (and "fighting" that sexism) for using an extremely common English term with one of its correct and commonly accepted meanings. And considering the historic roots of the word man also meant "human being, person" even that's not an argument. Some languages decided to take the generic term for population and also use it for males, not the other way around. And you didn't care enough to respect at least the guidelines of HN if not of civilized society, by making a comment that added nothing to the discussion except gratuitously insult the other guy when your "arguments" ran out.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        It would take an impressive lack of charity and comprehension to actually interpret anything in my posts above as an "insult" to you. If I insult you, you won't have to read between the lines. HN norms apply to posts and posters on HN. They do not apply to TFA, and certainly not to uncertain references in TFA. Even so, I started this thread by scrupulously allowing that the original allegation about the calendar bone might have been phrased in terms of "humanity" rather than "man", since after all TFA had no link to that allegation. In subsequent replies in this thread, I have only commented on the inherent sexism of a general theme of writing in English, and have at no point addressed that to anyone writing here. I have not in this thread "looked for offense", "created imaginary enemies", "argued in bad faith", "felt insulted and discriminated", "invented issues", or done any of the other silly things you've accused. ISTM it is at least possible that existing idiom might have harmful effects on portions of the population. If those who suffer those harms aren't allowed to complain for reasons of decorum, how are their lives ever to improve? More importantly, how are we to know that we're harming them? Wouldn't we want to know that, so we could stop? And isn't it wonderful that all my posts in a 20-hour-old thread on a 2-day-old flagged article have just been downvoted. Sockpuppet accounts for downvoting are discouraged on HN as well. [EDIT: removed opinion]

jessaustin 8y ago

This conversation does not occur in a vacuum. For most of the history of writing in English, a casual everyday sexism has been baked in. The presence of that sexism has done harm even if few authors have really cared about it. We're lucky, that now we can't really pretend this isn't a thing. So the reasonable assumption to make is not that a text was unintentionally sexist, but rather that the author didn't care enough not to be sexist. It's really easy to write "humanity" rather than "man".

close04 8y ago
Yes... just like mother nature, motherland, mother tongue, motherboard, etc. Not hypocritical at all. No normal person would feel insulted and discriminated by any of these words. Looking for an offense in everything is just making it easier for everybody to overlook actual offenses. Feel free to create imaginary enemies if it makes you feel like you're fighting the good fight [0]. Tell me, how do you feel about the oppression of noun genders in every language? [0] https://pics.me.me/1-year-of-not-shaving-her-legs-to-fight-against-33027205.png https://pics.me.me/1-year-of-not-shaving-her-legs-to-fight-a...
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Wow that's a lot of projection.
  - close04 8y ago
    > Wow that's a lot of projection. You mean like when you, without knowing anything about the situation or the person, claimed that: > the author didn't care enough not to be sexist Am I allowed to point out the hypocrisy now? I stand by my words. Some people are inventing issues or at least blowing them out of proportion so they can feel like they're fighting for something. In this case calling someone sexist (and "fighting" that sexism) for using an extremely common English term with one of its correct and commonly accepted meanings. And considering the historic roots of the word man also meant "human being, person" even that's not an argument. Some languages decided to take the generic term for population and also use it for males, not the other way around. And you didn't care enough to respect at least the guidelines of HN if not of civilized society, by making a comment that added nothing to the discussion except gratuitously insult the other guy when your "arguments" ran out.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      It would take an impressive lack of charity and comprehension to actually interpret anything in my posts above as an "insult" to you. If I insult you, you won't have to read between the lines. HN norms apply to posts and posters on HN. They do not apply to TFA, and certainly not to uncertain references in TFA. Even so, I started this thread by scrupulously allowing that the original allegation about the calendar bone might have been phrased in terms of "humanity" rather than "man", since after all TFA had no link to that allegation. In subsequent replies in this thread, I have only commented on the inherent sexism of a general theme of writing in English, and have at no point addressed that to anyone writing here. I have not in this thread "looked for offense", "created imaginary enemies", "argued in bad faith", "felt insulted and discriminated", "invented issues", or done any of the other silly things you've accused. ISTM it is at least possible that existing idiom might have harmful effects on portions of the population. If those who suffer those harms aren't allowed to complain for reasons of decorum, how are their lives ever to improve? More importantly, how are we to know that we're harming them? Wouldn't we want to know that, so we could stop? And isn't it wonderful that all my posts in a 20-hour-old thread on a 2-day-old flagged article have just been downvoted. Sockpuppet accounts for downvoting are discouraged on HN as well. [EDIT: removed opinion]