5 ms·

I can be (and in fact am) empathetic. At the same time, I still take the position that non-binary people and other cultural minorities can simultaneously enjoy

I can be (and in fact am) empathetic. At the same time, I still take the position that non-binary people and other cultural minorities can simultaneously enjoy non-edited older fiction and understand that it may not have been written with them in mind (and may even be mocking or a little mean). Write new books. Make them as inclusive or exclusive as you want. I just think it's very telling that you hear so much about "erasure" and yet changing an author's words and intent like this is celebrated.

tptacek 4y ago
Yeah, that comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically. It's not saying they're good.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  ... Maybe you should read GP's comment again. It's not asking for empathy, it's judgmental and imo a little unhinged. It claims saying words like 'shrill' are "gendered", and certain authors are "more agreeable" (what the fuck?) as if that justifies these changes. Ask for empathy in a preface, or an introduction, if you have to. Stay the fuck out of Dahl's work. You don't have to like it, but changing it is obscene - Dahl is not alive to permit these changes, and would probably be horrified. They're his fucking words.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Yelling doesn't make the argument more persuasive. Not only is the word "shrill" gendered, it's famously gendered. If you were writing an article about the concept of gendered words, you could do worse than opening with the word "shrill". You could just Google this. Again: none of this --- nothing I've said, and nothing about the comment you've chosen to angrily respond to --- implies that these changes are good. Maybe the previous commenter believes that; I don't know. But I can't read that out of anything they actually wrote. I understand the urge to find someone, anyone, to take the other side of your argument. It's no fun to yell at the clouds! But you have to wait for someone to actually make the other argument. You can't just attribute it to people and then hammer away at them.
        mandmandam 4y ago
        Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else. I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself. Even if shrill is "gendered" (The Google says it "hints" at gendered language, btw), so fucking what. The implication in GPs comment is that this justifies Newspeak-ification... It doesn't. And neither does referencing less "agreeable" authors, such as Joseph Conrad. I mean, wow dude. Talk about the worst possible takes.
        dang 4y ago
        Your comments in this thread have unfortunately been well into the flamewar zone that the site guidelines ask users to stay out of. Since we just asked you to stop doing it and you've kept doing it, I think we have to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I made a point of turning off the flags on this submission—I don't have any problem with the article and you can see from my comments in the thread what I think of these edits to Dahl. But you still can't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how provocative someone's comments are or you feel they are. FWIW, while tptacek's comments to you were probably slightly edgier than usual and maybe a bit over the line, 'gaslighting' seems like a big exaggeration to me.
- jacobriis 4y ago
  "That comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically" That's not what they mean when they say empathy. They misuse empathy when they mean compassion. I think they do it because even they understand it's indecent to say they pity all of these people. empathy: The ability to identify with or understand another's situation or feelings compassion: Deep awareness of the suffering of another accompanied by the wish to relieve it.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    If you know what they're trying to say, there's little point in making a stink about the particular words they've chosen.
    - zajio1am 4y ago
      It is - to make it easier to understand it for others, who are confused by the choice of words.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  I can't square that with their last sentence. Moreover, when I feel empathy with someone who feels different and unrecognized by society, something still keeps me from advocating for the censorship and misrepresentation of a writer's ideas and internal logic. I think what's stopping me is the knowledge that if I'm fortunate enough to write something that lasts beyond me, I sure as heck don't want anyone updating it for the sensibilities of 2053. Putting myself in someone's shoes, I think there's a word for that
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Again: there's no advocacy (at least nothing evident to me) in that comment. It's a descriptive comment, not a normative one.
    - SaltyGoodness 4y ago
      > It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy. Come on guy, it's not that hard to see. People have been pointing it out to you for hours now.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I feel like there are several people on this thread who don't really understand what "empathy" means.
      - dang 4y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack.
        SaltyGoodness 4y ago
        I didn't. In fact, tptacek is right above you making a thinly veiled personal attack at me and others here. What is your relationship to tptacek dang? Every time I see him winding people up, you're there behind him, threatening anyone who stands up.
flenserboy 4y ago
[flagged]
- floppydiskette 4y ago
  What are you on about?
  - dang 4y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 4y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tptacek 4y ago

Yeah, that comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically. It's not saying they're good.

mandmandam 4y ago
... Maybe you should read GP's comment again. It's not asking for empathy, it's judgmental and imo a little unhinged. It claims saying words like 'shrill' are "gendered", and certain authors are "more agreeable" (what the fuck?) as if that justifies these changes. Ask for empathy in a preface, or an introduction, if you have to. Stay the fuck out of Dahl's work. You don't have to like it, but changing it is obscene - Dahl is not alive to permit these changes, and would probably be horrified. They're his fucking words.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Yelling doesn't make the argument more persuasive. Not only is the word "shrill" gendered, it's famously gendered. If you were writing an article about the concept of gendered words, you could do worse than opening with the word "shrill". You could just Google this. Again: none of this --- nothing I've said, and nothing about the comment you've chosen to angrily respond to --- implies that these changes are good. Maybe the previous commenter believes that; I don't know. But I can't read that out of anything they actually wrote. I understand the urge to find someone, anyone, to take the other side of your argument. It's no fun to yell at the clouds! But you have to wait for someone to actually make the other argument. You can't just attribute it to people and then hammer away at them.
      - mandmandam 4y ago
        Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else. I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself. Even if shrill is "gendered" (The Google says it "hints" at gendered language, btw), so fucking what. The implication in GPs comment is that this justifies Newspeak-ification... It doesn't. And neither does referencing less "agreeable" authors, such as Joseph Conrad. I mean, wow dude. Talk about the worst possible takes.
        dang 4y ago
        Your comments in this thread have unfortunately been well into the flamewar zone that the site guidelines ask users to stay out of. Since we just asked you to stop doing it and you've kept doing it, I think we have to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I made a point of turning off the flags on this submission—I don't have any problem with the article and you can see from my comments in the thread what I think of these edits to Dahl. But you still can't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how provocative someone's comments are or you feel they are. FWIW, while tptacek's comments to you were probably slightly edgier than usual and maybe a bit over the line, 'gaslighting' seems like a big exaggeration to me.
jacobriis 4y ago
"That comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically" That's not what they mean when they say empathy. They misuse empathy when they mean compassion. I think they do it because even they understand it's indecent to say they pity all of these people. empathy: The ability to identify with or understand another's situation or feelings compassion: Deep awareness of the suffering of another accompanied by the wish to relieve it.
- tptacek 4y ago
  If you know what they're trying to say, there's little point in making a stink about the particular words they've chosen.
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    It is - to make it easier to understand it for others, who are confused by the choice of words.
mpalmer 4y ago
I can't square that with their last sentence. Moreover, when I feel empathy with someone who feels different and unrecognized by society, something still keeps me from advocating for the censorship and misrepresentation of a writer's ideas and internal logic. I think what's stopping me is the knowledge that if I'm fortunate enough to write something that lasts beyond me, I sure as heck don't want anyone updating it for the sensibilities of 2053. Putting myself in someone's shoes, I think there's a word for that
- tptacek 4y ago
  Again: there's no advocacy (at least nothing evident to me) in that comment. It's a descriptive comment, not a normative one.
  - SaltyGoodness 4y ago
    > It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy. Come on guy, it's not that hard to see. People have been pointing it out to you for hours now.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I feel like there are several people on this thread who don't really understand what "empathy" means.
    - dang 4y ago
      Please don't cross into personal attack.
      - SaltyGoodness 4y ago
        I didn't. In fact, tptacek is right above you making a thinly veiled personal attack at me and others here. What is your relationship to tptacek dang? Every time I see him winding people up, you're there behind him, threatening anyone who stands up.

flenserboy 4y ago

[flagged]

floppydiskette 4y ago
What are you on about?
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 4y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html