3 ms·

I thought it was not proper to discuss names of people they do not like to use anymore?

by fp64 1y ago

esseph 1y ago
That would be an ignorant misunderstanding of why that is done, or an intentionally and aggressively obtuse one.
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  Speaking as someone who has made up myriad "screen names" and email addresses and forum usernames, and someone who has struggled with the validity of his own given name, I considered why it is called a "given name" and how arrogant it may be to unilaterally make one up instead. These are commonly known as "assumed names" or "aliases". I decided that not only was it futile, after a lifetime of going by one name, to convince people to call me something else, or know me by another name, but it is also arrogant to try and manipulate those names which have been given to me by people who love me. And furthermore, how insulting and appalling it was, for me to say that I didn't like the name I was given, in fact being baptized with that name, would be a repudiation of not only my parents, but my mother church and her authority to accept the name which my parents proposed at that time.
- fp64 1y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but how am I supposed to know the reasoning behind it if for certain reasons I am not supposed to know it? In this case, I do not care why he had changed his name, I read the beginning of the article and it did not explain why this is something that needs discussion, and stopped reading when it just stated his birth name.
  - bbaw 1y ago
    The article seems to often quote from a book he wrote and it seems like covering a book from a political figure is newsworthy enough. Posting an article from Nov which is itself an edit from even older on HN now on the other hand is likely just attempting propaganda.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
jrs235 1y ago
Huh? The platinum rule is treat an individual the way they wish to treat others. So, if someone wishes to dismiss calling others by their preferred names then others can treat that individual in that manner. If it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose.

I thought it was not proper to discuss names of people they do not like to use anymore?

by fp64 1y ago

I thought it was not proper to discuss names of people they do not like to use anymore?

esseph 1y ago

That would be an ignorant misunderstanding of why that is done, or an intentionally and aggressively obtuse one.

AStonesThrow 1y ago
Speaking as someone who has made up myriad "screen names" and email addresses and forum usernames, and someone who has struggled with the validity of his own given name, I considered why it is called a "given name" and how arrogant it may be to unilaterally make one up instead. These are commonly known as "assumed names" or "aliases". I decided that not only was it futile, after a lifetime of going by one name, to convince people to call me something else, or know me by another name, but it is also arrogant to try and manipulate those names which have been given to me by people who love me. And furthermore, how insulting and appalling it was, for me to say that I didn't like the name I was given, in fact being baptized with that name, would be a repudiation of not only my parents, but my mother church and her authority to accept the name which my parents proposed at that time.
fp64 1y ago
I understand what you are saying, but how am I supposed to know the reasoning behind it if for certain reasons I am not supposed to know it? In this case, I do not care why he had changed his name, I read the beginning of the article and it did not explain why this is something that needs discussion, and stopped reading when it just stated his birth name.
- bbaw 1y ago
  The article seems to often quote from a book he wrote and it seems like covering a book from a political figure is newsworthy enough. Posting an article from Nov which is itself an edit from even older on HN now on the other hand is likely just attempting propaganda.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

jrs235 1y ago

Huh? The platinum rule is treat an individual the way they wish to treat others. So, if someone wishes to dismiss calling others by their preferred names then others can treat that individual in that manner. If it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose.