7 ms·

>As it turns out, a lot of people choose to be inclusive and non-inflammatory. No, they just don't want to get fired

by ugjka 5y ago

etchalon 5y ago
- LewisVerstappen 5y ago
  - etchalon 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlawson 5y ago
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - etchalon 5y ago
        jlawson 5y ago
        Okay, so the response is, "You deserve to be hurt because you're harmful so shut up"? Anyway, You're twisting words to try to pretend that "woke scolding" exclusively means "asking people to stop one-sidedly hurting others for no real reason". So I'll ask again in a narrower form that is harder to deliberately misinterpret: Telling me I'm privileged (especially as a rationale for excluding me from certain groups at work or school) hurts me. It makes me angry and/or sad. What's your response?
        etchalon 5y ago
        I didn't tell you you were privileged. I personally dislike the conversation around "privilege" since the word invokes an objective response, instead of the subjective one that's intended. Worse, the whole concept of privilege is meant to be academic and thoughtful. Instead, it gets used as a weapon to dismiss opinions and belittle a speaker. If a completely new word had been invented to describe the concept, I doubt the concept would illicit the reaction it does. But given the reactions people do have, I avoid it.
        fsckboy 5y ago
        > The idea that one person saying "this hurts me please stop" is logically or morally equal to the person doing the harm You are saying that a person saying "this hurts me" means that they are actually being harmed. I don't agree. People frequently lie, usually with a motive. And if you think words can cause harm, than perhaps you can see that the words "this hurts me" can be used to get what you want, your motive, and that can cause harm.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't post this sort of flamewar rhetoric to HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. It just dumbs everything down further and makes it even meaner. Plenty of users are making similar points to yours in thoughtful ways that are within in intended spirit of the site. If you'd please do that instead, or else refrain from posting, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- playpause 5y ago
  Coming to this late, but I am interested to know if your view is still the same as when you wrote this 13 hours ago. I don't think you have really answered the question about the logical incoherence put to you in another comment [1], which was replying to this comment by you (now flagged, sadly): > If a bunch of people are saying "this thing hurts me" and your stance is "well you shouldn't be hurt so shut-up". > Yeah, you're an asshole. Honestly, genuinely: my feelings are hurt by reading your comments here - I find it a bit chilling, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm a free speech advocate, and I perceive (rightly or wrongly) a frightening swing away from free speech values in the last few years, and your comment triggered uncomfortable feelings. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps my view is biased somehow. We could debate it, and maybe you'd point out something I hadn't considered, and maybe I'd change my view. But until then, the fact is, my feelings are hurt by your comments. And I'm definitely not the only one - there's more than a "bunch" of free speech advocates in the world who find this line of argument chilling. As a free speech advocate, I believe you should have the right to say what you want, and that my hurt feelings should not prevent you from doing so. But don't you see the logical incoherence in your position? How can you argue that you are not an asshole under your own logic? (To be clear, I am not calling you an asshole, just pointing out that your own logic would seem to conclude that you are an example of one, while also containing the statement that you are not one.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088745
  - etchalon 5y ago
    My view is the same. I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not saying any word, phrase or idea should be illegal, no matter how repulsive I, or anyone else, find it. There's no logical inconsistency here. The notion that personally choosing to use inclusive language is "chilling to free speech" is ludicrous.
    - playpause 5y ago
      You call people assholes, dismiss people's arguments out of hand, and quote people saying things they didn't even say (in quote marks, too). I think you're just a dick. I'm glad you consider yourself a free speech absolutist though, that's something I guess.
gkoberger 5y ago
No. I can't get fired, and I actively choose to try to make my coworkers feel comfortable. Is things like flagging "landlord" a big goofy? Maybe. But there's a ton of unconscious biases that go into language, and I'm always happy to have things flagged so I can make a decision via an opt-in feature. If you think people are only being inclusive and non-inflammatory to not get fired, I think maybe you simply just don't understand that some people are genuinely caring and empathetic.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Aren't you an owner and not an employee? Co-Workers in this context are employees that could sue. You probably generally care but if you didn't it would be foolish and perhaps costly to not play the game. Your situation re-enforces the need to.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Only if you buy into “microaggression” philosophy.
- cato_the_elder 5y ago
  - otterley 5y ago
    Hey, that's uncalled for. Please refrain from making personal insults.
    - cato_the_elder 5y ago
      > I think maybe you simply just don't understand that some people are genuinely caring and empathetic.
      - otterley 5y ago
        OK, so you're both wrong.
farias0 5y ago
Some people are genuinely trying to make other people feel included. Some people just do it because of social pressure. One way or another this does feel like a force for the better.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  And that's great, but why do they force the issue and report you to HR for using "landlord" or "master/slave protocol" in a powerpoint presentation?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Has this actually happened to you?
    - octopoc 5y ago
      How is that relevant? People are concerned about bad things that might happen to them but haven't happened to them yet. Just because it hasn't happened to them specifically doesn't mean their concerns are invalid.
      - otterley 5y ago
        Because the frequency of an occurrence is valuable data relating to its likelihood, just like knowing whether your house is in a floodplain is valuable data in making a decision as to whether you should worry about your house flooding. I mean, how many times has this happened to anyone, let alone the individual in question?
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        If they are using those terms in a way that is trying to stir up trouble, it makes sense to report them. If they did it without any intent to cause trouble, there wouldn't be an issue. I don't call Japanese customers Japs even though that used to be a valid English term because it is now widely considered offensive. These are terms that some groups find offensive and more may find offensive in the future. It makes sense to stay ahead of the game and not cause offense if it costs me nothing to do it, and it makes sense for Google to help people who are trying not to offend people do so easily.
tharne 5y ago
> No, they just don't want to get fired This is exactly right.
snowwrestler 5y ago
But why would people get fired for being uninclusive and inflammatory? You need to follow your logic one or two steps farther to understand the incentives at work.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  Because “uninclusive” and “inflammatory” are just how these folks say “heresy”, and violations of orthodoxy must be punished if ideological doctrine is to be successfully enforced.
  - camdat 5y ago
    Could you give some examples?

>As it turns out, a lot of people choose to be inclusive and non-inflammatory. No, they just don't want to get fired

by ugjka 5y ago

>As it turns out, a lot of people choose to be inclusive and non-inflammatory. No, they just don't want to get fired

etchalon 5y ago

LewisVerstappen 5y ago
- etchalon 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlawson 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - etchalon 5y ago
      - jlawson 5y ago
        Okay, so the response is, "You deserve to be hurt because you're harmful so shut up"? Anyway, You're twisting words to try to pretend that "woke scolding" exclusively means "asking people to stop one-sidedly hurting others for no real reason". So I'll ask again in a narrower form that is harder to deliberately misinterpret: Telling me I'm privileged (especially as a rationale for excluding me from certain groups at work or school) hurts me. It makes me angry and/or sad. What's your response?
        etchalon 5y ago
        I didn't tell you you were privileged. I personally dislike the conversation around "privilege" since the word invokes an objective response, instead of the subjective one that's intended. Worse, the whole concept of privilege is meant to be academic and thoughtful. Instead, it gets used as a weapon to dismiss opinions and belittle a speaker. If a completely new word had been invented to describe the concept, I doubt the concept would illicit the reaction it does. But given the reactions people do have, I avoid it.
      - fsckboy 5y ago
        > The idea that one person saying "this hurts me please stop" is logically or morally equal to the person doing the harm You are saying that a person saying "this hurts me" means that they are actually being harmed. I don't agree. People frequently lie, usually with a motive. And if you think words can cause harm, than perhaps you can see that the words "this hurts me" can be used to get what you want, your motive, and that can cause harm.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't post this sort of flamewar rhetoric to HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. It just dumbs everything down further and makes it even meaner. Plenty of users are making similar points to yours in thoughtful ways that are within in intended spirit of the site. If you'd please do that instead, or else refrain from posting, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
playpause 5y ago
Coming to this late, but I am interested to know if your view is still the same as when you wrote this 13 hours ago. I don't think you have really answered the question about the logical incoherence put to you in another comment [1], which was replying to this comment by you (now flagged, sadly): > If a bunch of people are saying "this thing hurts me" and your stance is "well you shouldn't be hurt so shut-up". > Yeah, you're an asshole. Honestly, genuinely: my feelings are hurt by reading your comments here - I find it a bit chilling, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm a free speech advocate, and I perceive (rightly or wrongly) a frightening swing away from free speech values in the last few years, and your comment triggered uncomfortable feelings. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps my view is biased somehow. We could debate it, and maybe you'd point out something I hadn't considered, and maybe I'd change my view. But until then, the fact is, my feelings are hurt by your comments. And I'm definitely not the only one - there's more than a "bunch" of free speech advocates in the world who find this line of argument chilling. As a free speech advocate, I believe you should have the right to say what you want, and that my hurt feelings should not prevent you from doing so. But don't you see the logical incoherence in your position? How can you argue that you are not an asshole under your own logic? (To be clear, I am not calling you an asshole, just pointing out that your own logic would seem to conclude that you are an example of one, while also containing the statement that you are not one.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31088745
- etchalon 5y ago
  My view is the same. I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not saying any word, phrase or idea should be illegal, no matter how repulsive I, or anyone else, find it. There's no logical inconsistency here. The notion that personally choosing to use inclusive language is "chilling to free speech" is ludicrous.
  - playpause 5y ago
    You call people assholes, dismiss people's arguments out of hand, and quote people saying things they didn't even say (in quote marks, too). I think you're just a dick. I'm glad you consider yourself a free speech absolutist though, that's something I guess.

gkoberger 5y ago

No. I can't get fired, and I actively choose to try to make my coworkers feel comfortable. Is things like flagging "landlord" a big goofy? Maybe. But there's a ton of unconscious biases that go into language, and I'm always happy to have things flagged so I can make a decision via an opt-in feature. If you think people are only being inclusive and non-inflammatory to not get fired, I think maybe you simply just don't understand that some people are genuinely caring and empathetic.

ipaddr 5y ago
Aren't you an owner and not an employee? Co-Workers in this context are employees that could sue. You probably generally care but if you didn't it would be foolish and perhaps costly to not play the game. Your situation re-enforces the need to.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Only if you buy into “microaggression” philosophy.
cato_the_elder 5y ago
- otterley 5y ago
  Hey, that's uncalled for. Please refrain from making personal insults.
  - cato_the_elder 5y ago
    > I think maybe you simply just don't understand that some people are genuinely caring and empathetic.
    - otterley 5y ago
      OK, so you're both wrong.

farias0 5y ago

Some people are genuinely trying to make other people feel included. Some people just do it because of social pressure. One way or another this does feel like a force for the better.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
And that's great, but why do they force the issue and report you to HR for using "landlord" or "master/slave protocol" in a powerpoint presentation?
- otterley 5y ago
  Has this actually happened to you?
  - octopoc 5y ago
    How is that relevant? People are concerned about bad things that might happen to them but haven't happened to them yet. Just because it hasn't happened to them specifically doesn't mean their concerns are invalid.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Because the frequency of an occurrence is valuable data relating to its likelihood, just like knowing whether your house is in a floodplain is valuable data in making a decision as to whether you should worry about your house flooding. I mean, how many times has this happened to anyone, let alone the individual in question?
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      If they are using those terms in a way that is trying to stir up trouble, it makes sense to report them. If they did it without any intent to cause trouble, there wouldn't be an issue. I don't call Japanese customers Japs even though that used to be a valid English term because it is now widely considered offensive. These are terms that some groups find offensive and more may find offensive in the future. It makes sense to stay ahead of the game and not cause offense if it costs me nothing to do it, and it makes sense for Google to help people who are trying not to offend people do so easily.

tharne 5y ago

> No, they just don't want to get fired This is exactly right.

snowwrestler 5y ago

But why would people get fired for being uninclusive and inflammatory? You need to follow your logic one or two steps farther to understand the incentives at work.

teakettle42 5y ago
Because “uninclusive” and “inflammatory” are just how these folks say “heresy”, and violations of orthodoxy must be punished if ideological doctrine is to be successfully enforced.
- camdat 5y ago
  Could you give some examples?