4 ms·
Why expend all the effort to prevent people from expressing themselves? What a waste of time and resources. I really want less divisiveness. The world has pl
by metadat 2y ago
Why expend all the effort to prevent people from expressing themselves? What a waste of time and resources.
I really want less divisiveness. The world has plenty enough already.
At present we're all stuck on this rock together.
- darth_avocado 2y agoNot my opinion but the rationale behind this, as argued, is that removing pronouns will cause less divisiveness because fewer people care about pronouns than politics.
- marcod 2y agoDEI is just their latest obsession, since the old ones don't poll as well anymore (gay marriage, woke, CRT, SJW, ..). I don't think there is a bigger rationale behind this than 'we need a wedge issue to rile up the masses'.
- SmirkingRevenge 2y agoExactly. Minorities are their scapegoats, it's not any more complex than that.
- t-writescode 2y agoEvery single employee should change their name to Alex and Sam.
- keybored 2y agoThey scream about fringe issues that few people care about and then claim that it is for the benefit of the majority. Like all the brouhaha they manufactured about trans people, a vanishingly small part of any population.
- Reasoning 2y agoThis post perfectly describes progressives and conservatives.
- happytoexplain 2y agoEven more accurately, it perfectly describes people - specifically, the worst in people. But the devil is in the details.
- keybored 2y ago> But the devil is in the details. Said the person who started his comment by erasing all distinctions.
- Thrymr 2y agoAnd does it reduce divisiveness by forcing this to happen in a few hours across the federal workforce of a couple million people? If this was a serious rationale, the agencies would have some time to make a plan and implement it (say 30 days). This is exactly to sow division and chaos, to find out who the enemies of this administration are, and who will comply without complaining to ridiculous wasteful demands.
- frob 2y agoSadly, with this administration, the divisiveness, like the cruelty, is the point.
- reagan83 2y ago[flagged]
- skulk 2y agoThis comment covers it pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42892253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42892253 Also, don't complain about downvotes.
- reagan83 2y ago.
- happytoexplain 2y agoYou asked a very subjective, opinion-based question, and called the answer offered "objectively horrible" and "speculative". That doesn't seem to make sense, besides being unnecessarily antagonistic. Re: Downvotes - You said, "I asked a perfectly reasonable question and was downvoted", then went on to say something about downvoters having their blinders on. That's sarcastic complaining. In general, commenting on your own downvotes like that looks bad (underdog syndrome), is distracting, and also self-fulfilling (complaining about downvotes is something that invites downvotes).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slater 2y ago"cruelty is the point" is a (seemingly increasingly true) adage about conservatives and whichever their latest boogieman is
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoI don't think I understand "pronouns" if what you say is true. "Pronouns" are not about expressing yourself, but how other people express about yourself. As federal employees, it's probably unconstitutional for them to censor or suppress other people's expressions (certainly to do that without a court order). But maybe I've just never understood what people mean about "pronouns".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- butter999 2y agoThat's like saying, "you can't tell me what your name is, or whether you'd like to be called Mr., Ms. or Mrs. That's not self expression, that's controlling my speech, and so that's censorship." The same logic is employed in both cases. The difference is that telling someone your name has no political charge to it. You can dislike the practice of listing your pronouns, but it's perfectly ordinary to tell people how you'd like them to refer to you.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAnd to be explicit: if someone wants to call you by a different name or pronoun, they're absolutely within their First Amendment rights to do so, ergo someone just listing their preferred pronouns doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago>they're absolutely within their First Amendment rights to do so, Unless someone can rile up a mob into trying to embarass a large corporation or a small business into canceling you. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be sane when there's a low-intensity riot of unhinged individuals threatening you with destitution and terror.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
- DanielHB 2y agoProbably an excuse to fire people who refuse.
- Sharlin 2y agoBecause Americans voted to power the most narcissistic person imaginable – again — who now has a personal vendetta against everything left-leaning because he was "robbed" an election — for whom everything is now about using his power to punish and retaliate against his perceived enemies as well as securing for himself some sort of a "great man" legacy — who, having learned from the last time when there were some adults in the White House, has now been careful to surround himself by spineless yes men — who is nevertheless easy to manipulate by politically savvy people who know how to pander to his massive, yet incredibly fragile, ego.
- alistairSH 2y agoWhy expend all the effort to prevent people from expressing themselves? Because being mean is a feature, not a bug, of this administration. This has everything to do with "othering" anybody who doesn't conform to the Republican notion of a normal person (ie, passes for white, heterosexual, and male; with exceptions for attractive women and Uncle Toms).