6 ms·

This comparison is beyond facile, so much so that it reads as basically a bad faith attempt to jam up the conversation with nonsense tangents. Trying to take a

This comparison is beyond facile, so much so that it reads as basically a bad faith attempt to jam up the conversation with nonsense tangents. Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime. Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades. That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist".

veidr 3y ago
The problem with that type of conversational exaggeration is that it leaves no more room to describe actual genocidal people and groups. How would you describe those, then? "'A person who really actually literally doesn't want me to exist'?" I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."
- tech_ken 3y ago
  That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".
  - soundnote 3y ago
    The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
      - soundnote 3y ago
        With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
- soundnote 3y ago
  I have acquaintances who spout stuff like "all Christians should be killed" (would mean at least a dozen of my friends getting killed :) ) and openly go like "guys, have you thought that if we just started killing rich people, the world would become a better place and we wouldn't even have to kill all that many people". One person who was both trans and a furry complained about how people considered their existence a political matter and how that was sad. Two weeks later and they were (completely unsurprisingly) wishing for a communist revolution. Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter. Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity." Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: What evidence do you have that Eich hates you? He made one political contribution and now that's hate? Gosh we are really devaluing the word "hate"
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"? Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time. Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?
lelanthran 3y ago
> Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime. Nitpick; anything that is outlawed is a crime. This is why I chose a crime as my example. > Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades. I agree, but comparing a supporter of some legislative lobby to genocide is pure hyperbole. You're trivialising genocide when you claim that someone wanting to stop you doing what you do is the same as ethnic cleansing. > That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist". There is no wiggle room for interpretation there; "don't want those people to exist" has always meant pure genocide. It's said for drama and for pure emotional impact, while trivialising real "don't want those people to exist" history.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work. Have a good one
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work. From your first response to me you have been unnecessarily rude. "Facile"? "Bad-faith"? "Stooge"? Just because a large number of people don't believe that preventing same-sex marriage is the same as the holocaust doesn't mean we are acting in bad faith. FWIW, I get the same response from ideologically pure believers when I nitpick their use of phrases like "stare-rape".
torstenvl 3y ago
No. It isn't fundamentally different. You view it as morally different because that is your political view. While you are entitled to your political views, you are not allowed to make them "fundamental" for everyone else. Conflating a good faith policy debate with not wanting someone to exist is patently dishonest. It is a dishonorable bad faith form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  No. It is fundamentally different. You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+. While you are entitled to your moral view, you are not allowed to conflate it with a policy discussion. Conflating a civil rights issue with a policy debate is patently bad-faith. It is a dishonorable form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    > You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+. I understand that you're new here and probably think this is someplace where you can make assumptions about people, like on certain other social media sites. But I am actually a gay judge advocate (military attorney) who helped write the Obama policy allowing transgender service for the first time in U.S. history. The fact that I believe reasoned, accurate, and earnest political discussion is important does not give you, or anyone else prone to hysterics, any basis to conclude what exactly my policy positions are. Instead, what it demonstrates is this: in my experience, respecting people who disagree with me—even when the disagreement is something I'm emotional about and affects me personally—has allowed me to win more hearts and minds. And what's more is, it's the right thing to do. Making false accusations against people you are mad at is not virtuous under any circumstances. It's my sincere hope that you take this teachable moment and reflect on how to be a better participant, both here on HN and in our nation's policy-making machinery.
    - tech_ken 3y ago

veidr 3y ago

The problem with that type of conversational exaggeration is that it leaves no more room to describe actual genocidal people and groups. How would you describe those, then? "'A person who really actually literally doesn't want me to exist'?" I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."

tech_ken 3y ago
That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".
- soundnote 3y ago
  The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
    - soundnote 3y ago
      With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
soundnote 3y ago
I have acquaintances who spout stuff like "all Christians should be killed" (would mean at least a dozen of my friends getting killed :) ) and openly go like "guys, have you thought that if we just started killing rich people, the world would become a better place and we wouldn't even have to kill all that many people". One person who was both trans and a furry complained about how people considered their existence a political matter and how that was sad. Two weeks later and they were (completely unsurprisingly) wishing for a communist revolution. Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter. Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.
lelanthran 3y ago
> I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity." Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: What evidence do you have that Eich hates you? He made one political contribution and now that's hate? Gosh we are really devaluing the word "hate"
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"? Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time. Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?

lelanthran 3y ago

> Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime. Nitpick; anything that is outlawed is a crime. This is why I chose a crime as my example. > Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades. I agree, but comparing a supporter of some legislative lobby to genocide is pure hyperbole. You're trivialising genocide when you claim that someone wanting to stop you doing what you do is the same as ethnic cleansing. > That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist". There is no wiggle room for interpretation there; "don't want those people to exist" has always meant pure genocide. It's said for drama and for pure emotional impact, while trivialising real "don't want those people to exist" history.

tech_ken 3y ago
I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work. Have a good one
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I have no idea why all of you settled on "OP was equating taking their civil rights to genocide" but the reading seems clearly bad. "Trivialising genocide" is quite a take and one which I think is clearly silly. The same movement which would take away same-sex marriage is openly salivating about using legal force to commit violent reprisals against the LGBGTQ communities, and lawyering about the precise wording of a comment is stooge work. From your first response to me you have been unnecessarily rude. "Facile"? "Bad-faith"? "Stooge"? Just because a large number of people don't believe that preventing same-sex marriage is the same as the holocaust doesn't mean we are acting in bad faith. FWIW, I get the same response from ideologically pure believers when I nitpick their use of phrases like "stare-rape".

torstenvl 3y ago

No. It isn't fundamentally different. You view it as morally different because that is your political view. While you are entitled to your political views, you are not allowed to make them "fundamental" for everyone else. Conflating a good faith policy debate with not wanting someone to exist is patently dishonest. It is a dishonorable bad faith form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.

tech_ken 3y ago
No. It is fundamentally different. You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+. While you are entitled to your moral view, you are not allowed to conflate it with a policy discussion. Conflating a civil rights issue with a policy debate is patently bad-faith. It is a dishonorable form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  > You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+. I understand that you're new here and probably think this is someplace where you can make assumptions about people, like on certain other social media sites. But I am actually a gay judge advocate (military attorney) who helped write the Obama policy allowing transgender service for the first time in U.S. history. The fact that I believe reasoned, accurate, and earnest political discussion is important does not give you, or anyone else prone to hysterics, any basis to conclude what exactly my policy positions are. Instead, what it demonstrates is this: in my experience, respecting people who disagree with me—even when the disagreement is something I'm emotional about and affects me personally—has allowed me to win more hearts and minds. And what's more is, it's the right thing to do. Making false accusations against people you are mad at is not virtuous under any circumstances. It's my sincere hope that you take this teachable moment and reflect on how to be a better participant, both here on HN and in our nation's policy-making machinery.
  - tech_ken 3y ago