6 ms·

She legally changed her last name to Turing, claimed she was his daughter despite being of no relation, and stole Turing's possessions thereby endangering his l

She legally changed her last name to Turing, claimed she was his daughter despite being of no relation, and stole Turing's possessions thereby endangering his legacy. What sort of kindness and respect does this warrant? I don't think the comment violates HN standards, is civil enough and more importantly quite appropriate considering the crime.

slg 7y ago
People have a right to be called what they want. You even admit she legally changed her name so why not use it? The motivations around her desired name are of no concern to any of us. Intentionally refusing to refer to someone by their chosen name is wrong whether that name is Muhammad Ali, Chelsea Manning, or Julia Turing. I have certainly seen comments flagged on HN for inappropriateness when they refuse to refer to Manning by her chosen name.
- chance_state 7y ago
  How is it a right to be called what one chooses? I don't think I should have to participate in someone else's reality if I don't want to, just like they're not obliged to interact with me in the way I demand. It's always nice when they do, but I don't think people have a special right to dictate these kinds of terms to other people. I think this is especially true when the person being discussed will never see this conversation.
  - slg 7y ago
    Name changes are governed by the states so laws vary. However speaking generally, people in the US have the right to change their name for whatever reason they see fit. You have freedom of speech and don't have to abide by their request. This leads back to my original comment. It is a act of kindness to abide by people's wishes when it requires no extra effort on your part and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending.
    - OJFord 7y ago
      Hi gls, I agree with you that people can change their name in a way recognised in most countries. I'm not sure that their government-registered name (changed since birth or not) has any bearing on what people 'have to' or do call them though? What do you think, gls?
    - creato 7y ago
      > and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending. In this case, it adds confusion to the circumstances of a crime.
    - fastball 7y ago
      Not participating in someone's alternate universe where she is the daughter of Alan Turing is not "condescending" - it's healthy.
- Rexxar 7y ago
  People have a right to be called what they want No. We can chose to make them happy when what they want is reasonable, but they have no right to force other people to use the name they want, specially when they abuse the legal system to create confusion and make a crime.
- p1necone 7y ago
  Julia Turing changed her name in order to commit fraud. Chelsea Manning changed her name because she was transgender. You seem to be ignoring context in order to make some kind of misguided point. Are you trying to "gotcha" people who argue for trans rights?
  - slg 7y ago
    The items were stolen in 1984 and she changed her name in 1988. It also sounds like the stolen items were accessible to the public and the claim of being Alan's daughter was not done for any financial benefit. It doesn't appear that any fraud was even attempted. I am arguing for people to be in control of their own identity. It doesn't matter whether the reason for the change is due to gender like Manning, religion like Ali, or for someone unknown reason like Turing.
    - p1necone 7y ago
      Sorry, I suspected you were being disingenuous but it seems you were not.
      - slg 7y ago
        Thanks, I am being completely genuine. Complying with people's wishes in this regard takes no more effort than ignoring their requests, so it just gets on my nerves when people refuse to do it.
        DoctorOetker 7y ago
        I don't mind people legally changing their names, but I don't believe it induces an obligation on other citizens. Just as the author of "Animal Farm" is not obliged to state clearly and exactly the legal names of the people his characters represent, and we all know who they represent. Would you have a similar objection if the root comment factually referred to "The woman previously called Miss Schwinghamer"? or would that factual reference still not be good enough for you?
    - 7y ago
- fastball 7y ago
  You do not have a right to be called what you want. Being called what you want is a privilege and a courtesy. If you abuse that privilege to, I dunno, commit fraud - you might just lose it. Please note, if you respond to this comment I would like to be referred to as "King of the Andals and the First Men".

slg 7y ago

People have a right to be called what they want. You even admit she legally changed her name so why not use it? The motivations around her desired name are of no concern to any of us. Intentionally refusing to refer to someone by their chosen name is wrong whether that name is Muhammad Ali, Chelsea Manning, or Julia Turing. I have certainly seen comments flagged on HN for inappropriateness when they refuse to refer to Manning by her chosen name.

chance_state 7y ago
How is it a right to be called what one chooses? I don't think I should have to participate in someone else's reality if I don't want to, just like they're not obliged to interact with me in the way I demand. It's always nice when they do, but I don't think people have a special right to dictate these kinds of terms to other people. I think this is especially true when the person being discussed will never see this conversation.
- slg 7y ago
  Name changes are governed by the states so laws vary. However speaking generally, people in the US have the right to change their name for whatever reason they see fit. You have freedom of speech and don't have to abide by their request. This leads back to my original comment. It is a act of kindness to abide by people's wishes when it requires no extra effort on your part and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    Hi gls, I agree with you that people can change their name in a way recognised in most countries. I'm not sure that their government-registered name (changed since birth or not) has any bearing on what people 'have to' or do call them though? What do you think, gls?
  - creato 7y ago
    > and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending. In this case, it adds confusion to the circumstances of a crime.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Not participating in someone's alternate universe where she is the daughter of Alan Turing is not "condescending" - it's healthy.
Rexxar 7y ago
People have a right to be called what they want No. We can chose to make them happy when what they want is reasonable, but they have no right to force other people to use the name they want, specially when they abuse the legal system to create confusion and make a crime.
p1necone 7y ago
Julia Turing changed her name in order to commit fraud. Chelsea Manning changed her name because she was transgender. You seem to be ignoring context in order to make some kind of misguided point. Are you trying to "gotcha" people who argue for trans rights?
- slg 7y ago
  The items were stolen in 1984 and she changed her name in 1988. It also sounds like the stolen items were accessible to the public and the claim of being Alan's daughter was not done for any financial benefit. It doesn't appear that any fraud was even attempted. I am arguing for people to be in control of their own identity. It doesn't matter whether the reason for the change is due to gender like Manning, religion like Ali, or for someone unknown reason like Turing.
  - p1necone 7y ago
    Sorry, I suspected you were being disingenuous but it seems you were not.
    - slg 7y ago
      Thanks, I am being completely genuine. Complying with people's wishes in this regard takes no more effort than ignoring their requests, so it just gets on my nerves when people refuse to do it.
      - DoctorOetker 7y ago
        I don't mind people legally changing their names, but I don't believe it induces an obligation on other citizens. Just as the author of "Animal Farm" is not obliged to state clearly and exactly the legal names of the people his characters represent, and we all know who they represent. Would you have a similar objection if the root comment factually referred to "The woman previously called Miss Schwinghamer"? or would that factual reference still not be good enough for you?
  - 7y ago
fastball 7y ago
You do not have a right to be called what you want. Being called what you want is a privilege and a courtesy. If you abuse that privilege to, I dunno, commit fraud - you might just lose it. Please note, if you respond to this comment I would like to be referred to as "King of the Andals and the First Men".