5 ms·

What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them? One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "rad

What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them? One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "radical free speech" crowd is that your words can hurt people's feeling. And your tone can hurt people's feelings. And there's no good reason to tell someone "fuck off" when you can politely say no other than maybe you have things you're angry about that you haven't dealt with well. And those things you're angry about are lingering around your subsconscious giving you a latent urge to tell someone to "fuck off." But other people shouldn't suffer because you haven't figured out how to deal with your anger issue.

bananaface 6y ago
What makes it difficult is the fact that people respond like this. What did he say that you even disagreed with? He has an "anger issue"? wtf.
- ritchiea 6y ago
  So just to be clear, it makes it hard for him to be polite because if he complains about doing a minimal amount of work to not be rude, I say something?
  - Longhanks 6y ago
    It’s really ironic that the very argument you’re trying to provoke is what makes discussing with people like you hard.
  - bananaface 6y ago
    The point is that he didn't even say anything and you jumped down his throat. Imagine if he had.
    - ritchiea 6y ago
      He did say something, he said that it bothers him to have to shape the way he speaks to other people so that they are not offended. And what exactly is weird about that? Sounds like life to me. And that he misunderstands free speech which is about the government not being able to imprison you or legally punish you for speech.
      - tristor 6y ago
        Free speech is a philosophical concept, it happens to be enshrined in law in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent the government for imprisoning you for your speech, but it is first and foremost the philosophical concept, not the law. That concept used to be part of the social mores of the United States and much of the Western world, it isn't really any longer as your own commentary here demonstrates. The social mores have shifted, and while you may not be imprisoned, real tangible consequences (which are arguably unfair and inappropriate) can occur for trying to have a real meaningful conversation with someone based on your own honest beliefs. You are arguing essentially that those consequences are not only acceptable, but laudable, because you see it as "just desserts". Trying to distract from the serious philosophical issue by hyperfocusing on the legal non-issue is a common tactic of people who endorse bullying and "cancel culture" tactics to suppress other's speech. Your arguments here have been subtly insulting and not in good faith, and I don't think are the way people should behave on HN, but ironically, I'm responding to you in good faith because I fully support (philosophically) your right to say those things and you are acting within the rules.
        ritchiea 6y ago
        You clearly have a narrow view of the history of the United States because before the 1960's a black person could be murdered by a mob for saying the wrong thing to a white person. And those mob murderers would not be prosecuted. You call that a philosophical protection of free speech inshrined within the culture? Also, you ever hear of anyone in America being punished for saying they're a communist or homosexual? Or is that fiction to you as well? To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. And now it is that same group who coincidentally seems to complain the loudest that they no longer can say exactly what they wish without consequences.
        tristor 6y ago
        > To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. This is true, and unsurprising given the historical context. In fact, the Constitution was written as such with the original intention of providing those freedoms primarily to the benefit of not just white men, but land-owning white men. Crofters, smallholders, and other types of land-owners wanted to be put on the same tier of political power as others, when previously they were stifled under the aristocracy. That was the defining feature of the American Revolution and the things which followed. But your reply to me is primarily just a form of whataboutism and fails to refute or respond to my core point. My view of history is neither narrow nor incomplete, insofar as it applies to the racial and gender injustices that existed in the US. This also has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophical basis of free speech.
- unabst 6y ago
  Exactly. The true issue is what's making you think fuck you in the first place! Not how you say it. And that's the real conversation. If fuck you is what you mean, then no amount of dressing will change the fact that you're saying it. And to then act as if you didn't say it just because you didn't use the words fuck you is lying. Being polite is being polite, but that doesn't change the message THAT much unless you actually lie and say something different. And then often the conversation becomes about attitude and respect and language, and not what was actually angering. Ultimately, that's what's stupid and disrespectful. And to then be scanning and policing each other's statements for this? This annoys me to no end on Quora too when people just find novel ways of saying fuck you believing that's what their Be Nice Be Respectful policy means. No, it's not a license to say anything you want so long as you're polite. It's like how a racist thinks to get away with racism. If you're a racist then let's talk about it! Of course, normally they can't, so they've trained themselves to talk different. But it's not a real conversation. It's horseshit. Challenging someone's argument and challenging someone's character are completely different. It doesn't matter how politely you do it if that's what you're doing. And being honest takes courage! It was never truly about other people's feelings. It's "what if I" hurt them. You're about to do that anyway based on the point you're making, if it's a valid point against something they have a stake in. From there, either they're adults who recognize valid points or they're not. That's their court. And if they weren't hurt, then you didn't say it, period. What you meant to say got lost in all the correctness.
- ritchiea 6y ago
  If I said “little childish voice in the back of your head who craves to be rude without cause” instead of “anger issue” would that make you feel better?
partyboat1586 6y ago
The >"radical free speech" crowd understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone else's feelings.
- ritchiea 6y ago
  There have never been laws against hurting people's feelings. And no one is advocating for laws against hurting people's feelings. We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. And that you can get fired for being an asshole. And that the law is merely that the government will not imprison you for being an asshole.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    The obvious example is misgendering and the whole Jordan Peterson debacle comes to mind. >We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. Trust me abrasive people understand this, some of them get off on it. >And that you can get fired for being an asshole. I agree if you're an asshole it is grounds for firing. I've worked with some real abusive dickheads before who should have been fired. The difficulty is in judging what is crossing the line. I've worked at places where people should have been fired (constant abusive sex jokes) and weren't because they held too much power. I've also worked at places where you could get fired for publicly having conservative opinions and where you were constantly walking on eggshells. It's a real tyrany in both cases but I don't see an obvious solution.
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.
      - nicky0 6y ago
        That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)
jimbokun 6y ago
> One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "radical free speech" crowd is that your words can hurt people's feeling. And your tone can hurt people's feelings. Stating objective, empirical observations about the world can also hurt people's feelings.
kace91 6y ago
I think there's a middle point there. For context, I'm from Spain (our society is somewhat confrontational, in the sense that people like to argue about petty things and banter, it's almost a way of making small talk here) and I've got a lot of American friends here, who in contrast tend to take the "politically correct/business nice" approach in their circles, even with friends. There are ups and downs to each approach, and I don't think one is superior to the other, but in my personal experience my american friends tend to be a little insecure about their relationships and not bond as much, because they can never be fully sure of whether they're welcome or just tolerated - if everything's a smile, it's harder to tell a genuine gesture from an act of politeness. I have a pet theory that introverted/asocial people tend to like the blunt approach and the politically incorrect crowd better because it's easier to tell where you stand, which might be great if you're not good at reading people and navigating social customs. Extroverted, more social people have a more developed sense to understand those subtleties and never feel as lost/insecure, so they don't see the upside of bluntness.
seneca 6y ago
> What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them? The problem is that people intentionally manipulate what "being kind" means to try to silence others. The tactic, as far as I understand it, is to present an incredible level of sensitivity about anything that happens to disagree with their worldview such that even voicing a different opinion is treated as "disrespectful" and "unkind". It's an intentionally manipulative play that exploits people's desire to get along, with the outcome of only the most sensitive person's opinions being allowed to be voiced, everything else being characterized as unacceptable, and dissenters being ostracized. It's weaponizing social etiquette as a means to enforce political compliance, all the while crying crocodile tears and claiming that they just want people to be "kind".
dang 6y ago
This comment and your other comments downthread are crossing into personal attack. Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ritchiea 6y ago
  Can you explain to me the personal attack because I’m not seeing it. And I’ve been a commenting member of this community for about a decade so I believe I have something of an understanding of HN.
  - dang 6y ago
    Your comment took the form of making judgments about someone's personal issues ("you haven't figured out how to deal with your anger issue") and psychologically commenting about them. That's much, much too personally provocative. The odds of it landing well with a person you're talking to on the internet round to zero. It's also incongruent with a defense of "being kind and speaking to people with respect". To be fair, it's not clear whether you meant the word "you" to be Natales or anyone-in-general. But that nuance is probably going to get lost on people reading the comment, especially the particular person you're talking to. Also, your other comments downthread made it clearer that you were indeed talking about Natales personally, and also that you were inclined to attack other users (e.g. "would that make you feel better", "You clearly have a narrow view"). I know you've been a member of HN for a long time. You're a great HN user!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - ritchiea 6y ago
      I definitely was speaking about “the group of people who believe free speech is under attack” and “the group of people who feel like they shouldn’t have to be polite to others” but I understand how that can be misinterpreted. And thanks for the compliment :)

bananaface 6y ago

What makes it difficult is the fact that people respond like this. What did he say that you even disagreed with? He has an "anger issue"? wtf.

ritchiea 6y ago
So just to be clear, it makes it hard for him to be polite because if he complains about doing a minimal amount of work to not be rude, I say something?
- Longhanks 6y ago
  It’s really ironic that the very argument you’re trying to provoke is what makes discussing with people like you hard.
- bananaface 6y ago
  The point is that he didn't even say anything and you jumped down his throat. Imagine if he had.
  - ritchiea 6y ago
    He did say something, he said that it bothers him to have to shape the way he speaks to other people so that they are not offended. And what exactly is weird about that? Sounds like life to me. And that he misunderstands free speech which is about the government not being able to imprison you or legally punish you for speech.
    - tristor 6y ago
      Free speech is a philosophical concept, it happens to be enshrined in law in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent the government for imprisoning you for your speech, but it is first and foremost the philosophical concept, not the law. That concept used to be part of the social mores of the United States and much of the Western world, it isn't really any longer as your own commentary here demonstrates. The social mores have shifted, and while you may not be imprisoned, real tangible consequences (which are arguably unfair and inappropriate) can occur for trying to have a real meaningful conversation with someone based on your own honest beliefs. You are arguing essentially that those consequences are not only acceptable, but laudable, because you see it as "just desserts". Trying to distract from the serious philosophical issue by hyperfocusing on the legal non-issue is a common tactic of people who endorse bullying and "cancel culture" tactics to suppress other's speech. Your arguments here have been subtly insulting and not in good faith, and I don't think are the way people should behave on HN, but ironically, I'm responding to you in good faith because I fully support (philosophically) your right to say those things and you are acting within the rules.
      - ritchiea 6y ago
        You clearly have a narrow view of the history of the United States because before the 1960's a black person could be murdered by a mob for saying the wrong thing to a white person. And those mob murderers would not be prosecuted. You call that a philosophical protection of free speech inshrined within the culture? Also, you ever hear of anyone in America being punished for saying they're a communist or homosexual? Or is that fiction to you as well? To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. And now it is that same group who coincidentally seems to complain the loudest that they no longer can say exactly what they wish without consequences.
        tristor 6y ago
        > To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. This is true, and unsurprising given the historical context. In fact, the Constitution was written as such with the original intention of providing those freedoms primarily to the benefit of not just white men, but land-owning white men. Crofters, smallholders, and other types of land-owners wanted to be put on the same tier of political power as others, when previously they were stifled under the aristocracy. That was the defining feature of the American Revolution and the things which followed. But your reply to me is primarily just a form of whataboutism and fails to refute or respond to my core point. My view of history is neither narrow nor incomplete, insofar as it applies to the racial and gender injustices that existed in the US. This also has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophical basis of free speech.
unabst 6y ago
Exactly. The true issue is what's making you think fuck you in the first place! Not how you say it. And that's the real conversation. If fuck you is what you mean, then no amount of dressing will change the fact that you're saying it. And to then act as if you didn't say it just because you didn't use the words fuck you is lying. Being polite is being polite, but that doesn't change the message THAT much unless you actually lie and say something different. And then often the conversation becomes about attitude and respect and language, and not what was actually angering. Ultimately, that's what's stupid and disrespectful. And to then be scanning and policing each other's statements for this? This annoys me to no end on Quora too when people just find novel ways of saying fuck you believing that's what their Be Nice Be Respectful policy means. No, it's not a license to say anything you want so long as you're polite. It's like how a racist thinks to get away with racism. If you're a racist then let's talk about it! Of course, normally they can't, so they've trained themselves to talk different. But it's not a real conversation. It's horseshit. Challenging someone's argument and challenging someone's character are completely different. It doesn't matter how politely you do it if that's what you're doing. And being honest takes courage! It was never truly about other people's feelings. It's "what if I" hurt them. You're about to do that anyway based on the point you're making, if it's a valid point against something they have a stake in. From there, either they're adults who recognize valid points or they're not. That's their court. And if they weren't hurt, then you didn't say it, period. What you meant to say got lost in all the correctness.
ritchiea 6y ago
If I said “little childish voice in the back of your head who craves to be rude without cause” instead of “anger issue” would that make you feel better?

partyboat1586 6y ago

The >"radical free speech" crowd understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone else's feelings.

ritchiea 6y ago
There have never been laws against hurting people's feelings. And no one is advocating for laws against hurting people's feelings. We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. And that you can get fired for being an asshole. And that the law is merely that the government will not imprison you for being an asshole.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  The obvious example is misgendering and the whole Jordan Peterson debacle comes to mind. >We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. Trust me abrasive people understand this, some of them get off on it. >And that you can get fired for being an asshole. I agree if you're an asshole it is grounds for firing. I've worked with some real abusive dickheads before who should have been fired. The difficulty is in judging what is crossing the line. I've worked at places where people should have been fired (constant abusive sex jokes) and weren't because they held too much power. I've also worked at places where you could get fired for publicly having conservative opinions and where you were constantly walking on eggshells. It's a real tyrany in both cases but I don't see an obvious solution.
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.
    - nicky0 6y ago
      That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)

jimbokun 6y ago

> One of the big problems with the "politically incorrect" or "radical free speech" crowd is that your words can hurt people's feeling. And your tone can hurt people's feelings. Stating objective, empirical observations about the world can also hurt people's feelings.

kace91 6y ago

I think there's a middle point there. For context, I'm from Spain (our society is somewhat confrontational, in the sense that people like to argue about petty things and banter, it's almost a way of making small talk here) and I've got a lot of American friends here, who in contrast tend to take the "politically correct/business nice" approach in their circles, even with friends. There are ups and downs to each approach, and I don't think one is superior to the other, but in my personal experience my american friends tend to be a little insecure about their relationships and not bond as much, because they can never be fully sure of whether they're welcome or just tolerated - if everything's a smile, it's harder to tell a genuine gesture from an act of politeness. I have a pet theory that introverted/asocial people tend to like the blunt approach and the politically incorrect crowd better because it's easier to tell where you stand, which might be great if you're not good at reading people and navigating social customs. Extroverted, more social people have a more developed sense to understand those subtleties and never feel as lost/insecure, so they don't see the upside of bluntness.

seneca 6y ago

> What's wrong with being kind and speaking to people with respect while you disagree with them? The problem is that people intentionally manipulate what "being kind" means to try to silence others. The tactic, as far as I understand it, is to present an incredible level of sensitivity about anything that happens to disagree with their worldview such that even voicing a different opinion is treated as "disrespectful" and "unkind". It's an intentionally manipulative play that exploits people's desire to get along, with the outcome of only the most sensitive person's opinions being allowed to be voiced, everything else being characterized as unacceptable, and dissenters being ostracized. It's weaponizing social etiquette as a means to enforce political compliance, all the while crying crocodile tears and claiming that they just want people to be "kind".

dang 6y ago

This comment and your other comments downthread are crossing into personal attack. Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ritchiea 6y ago
Can you explain to me the personal attack because I’m not seeing it. And I’ve been a commenting member of this community for about a decade so I believe I have something of an understanding of HN.
- dang 6y ago
  Your comment took the form of making judgments about someone's personal issues ("you haven't figured out how to deal with your anger issue") and psychologically commenting about them. That's much, much too personally provocative. The odds of it landing well with a person you're talking to on the internet round to zero. It's also incongruent with a defense of "being kind and speaking to people with respect". To be fair, it's not clear whether you meant the word "you" to be Natales or anyone-in-general. But that nuance is probably going to get lost on people reading the comment, especially the particular person you're talking to. Also, your other comments downthread made it clearer that you were indeed talking about Natales personally, and also that you were inclined to attack other users (e.g. "would that make you feel better", "You clearly have a narrow view"). I know you've been a member of HN for a long time. You're a great HN user!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ritchiea 6y ago
    I definitely was speaking about “the group of people who believe free speech is under attack” and “the group of people who feel like they shouldn’t have to be polite to others” but I understand how that can be misinterpreted. And thanks for the compliment :)