Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Calling some of this infantilization is kind of sad.

Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at least an environment where social conventions are anomalous and rapidly changing. So is promiscuity, once called free love. These are things that universities have always been havens for. Others things (puppy rooms) are experimental, also an artifact of a nonconformist and liberal environment.

Students and academics have more license to be quirky and eccentric than lawyers and soccer moms. That's a good thing.

I also cringe when I here about PC student audiences that can't tolerate stand up comedy. It all feels like a part of the recreational righteous rage, liking to be right and pointing at the kid that said the C-word.

OTOH, it's also a side effect of effective social movements that take place at universities. If I look back at social movements that universities played major roles in, I don't think they've been bad. Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. Amazingly. There is tremendous support and solidarity from the public. It's a breathtaking rise in collective conscience. If I'm going to be yelled at by 19 year olds for saying "tranny" but we get to a point where transexuals can work and live normally, homosexuals can have families…. I'll take it.

Part of the way that is achieved intolerance towards "assholes," homophobes, xenophobes, sexists. Students, being young and insufferable spray that all around. Long term though, it sticks mostly where it should.

But yea, I agree. Young people are annoying.

None of the campus movements that brought about any change was created by students afraid of words, though. Quite the opposite. These students aren't standing up for anything except their own inability to understand comedy, irony, and other non-straightforward ways of expression that they should have learned before they even got in high school. In other words, the only thing these students are standing up for now is their own stupidity. And the only thing that's changed from the past is the adults who know better are now letting it happen instead of telling the students to shut up with their stupidity. Thus, no comedians on campus. Because humor is one of those ways of expressing oneself described above.

I dont think its sad to call some of the described behaviors and accommodations infantilization.

Higher ed is there to educate, prepare and provide networking and access to the job market. Very few people go with the end goal of learning for learning's sake. People attend higher ed as a vehicle to a better economic future. As such, coddling and comforting and extending parental protection institutionally does a disservice to people growing up and getting ready for the cold world out there which awaits all.

The world is by nature wild and unsanitized. I understand the need to want and bring about a better more civilized, if less natural world, but I don't think suppressing reality is the way to subjugate reality to our form.

> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime.

T* is a slur that is too often the last thing a woman hears before she is brutally murdered.

To add to this, i've quoted a detailed definition.

"the term "tranny" is used as a dehumanizing slur to describe transgender individuals and is oftentimes the last word someone hears before they are brutally attacked. Similar to the anti-gay F-word, the term "tranny" is commonly used to humiliate and degrade transgender individuals."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use...

So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. You can't win this game. You also can't win the game of arguing that a word isn't hateful so I guess I shouldn't be commenting back.

> So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself.

This is utterly ignorant of context. There are names used exclusively in hatred against a group, and there are names a group is happy to be called.

By your logic, perhaps we should be going around referring to women as whores, black people as niggers, trans people as trannies, gay people as faggots, because "you can't win this game".

Yet civilised society does not. And with good reason.

Personally, the only person I've known to use tranny conversationally is transexual. I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically. Words mean what people saying and hearing them think they mean.

In any case, I'm not arguing for anything in particular. I don't think there is a logic to this. My point is not about what words we can use.

My point is that anger and insurrection against systematic hate, cultures of intolerance, injustice are directed against the instruments of intolerance. But, rage and insurrection are not always nuanced tools especially in the hands of young people. They get mad at the words themselves, not just the hate. Sometimes it's fueled by the wrong thing, like enjoying moral platitudes. Sometimes by the right thing.

Either way, I think the net results are good.. essential even, but some of the side effects can be insufferable.

Well, we can agree that the results are good, but the problem against broad use of individually-defined words is that they are individually defined. So okay, you call your friend a whore, and she knows it's a joke because people at large don't understand what polyamory is. Cool. That's fine.

But what about the chucklehead fifteen feet away eating a sandwich, who just heard you reaffirm his belief that it's okay to call women whores, because they're not really people, right, just sex objects?

For you and your friend, that's fine. But this the sandwich eating bastard goes out and --secure in the knowledge that women don't get a say, because nobody around him uses language that suggests they do-- rapes someone, and doesn't think it's a big deal.

And there's that rape culture that people my age are always screaming about. And there's the hate culture that people my age are always screaming about.

We're not screaming about you, who are as annoying to us as we are to you. We're screaming about the people you're teaching by example. The ones who rape women (1 in 4 women have been raped in the US) and men (1 in 6), who murder gay and lesbian and bi and trans* folks (I don't have numbers there, mea culpa) and face no reprisal, because nobody in power takes it seriously.

Seriously. We get twitchy about those words because hearing them might mean that we're about to be killed.

I have to admit that I still sometimes instinctively feel an intense dislike for humorless, shrill, 'social justice warriors' or 'feminists' (using the word in the way I find it often used negatively around me).

I don't know why I react negatively, considering that I consider myself a feminist, but I suppose that's the whole point of something being 'instinctive'. It's a heuristic that may or may not make sense. But it's one borne of ignorance and the privilege of not having to think about these things (being a white, highly-educated male), and being surrounded by, I assume, upstanding males who don't rape, and upstanding white folk who are not racists.

it's posts like yours that remind me that my instincts can be wrong and harmful in practice, and while I'm free to feel as I feel, it's posts like yours, and stories from my friends, that shock me whenever I hear them, and that give me some perspective and make me realize my instinct is not a precious thing to protect or defend above everything else.

Please remember that it really helps to explain things the way you do. I'm not saying it's a responsibility to do so, or that not doing so gives 'us' the right to remain oblivious. Far from it.

I'm simply saying that practically speaking, posts like yours are much more helpful than blanket judgments and (perceived) knee-jerk outrage. It benefits everyone to try and paint a picture of a perspective that is not necessarily shared personally, however unnecessary it should be to do so.

I wish I was good enough to be sensitive all by myself, but the sad fact is that even I as a person with a sizable amount of close friends who are gay, bisexual, female, or minorities (in every sense of the word), can forget that not everyone shares my rather privileged perspective.

And it's really helpful for me to be reminded that, say, a rape joke might not be a problem for me, but that it might be a problem in a larger context where rapists justify their actions by it.

> I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically.

Oppressed groups sometimes reclaim slurs against them. That's fine, if it hurts anyone, it is merely themselves. It's not others hurting them.

And thus the pointless treadmill continues.

http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmi...

Instead of calling the treadmill pointless, mayhaps destroy the power source that keeps the treadmill going. People treat the mentally disabled with such contempt, disrespect, cruelty, and even hatred. That's why the treadmill runs. That's why people try to evade having their language pressed into the service of hatred and oppression. Language is the site of many battles.

> People treat the mentally disabled with such contempt, disrespect, cruelty, and even hatred.

Really? I cannot imagine why anyone would feel hatred towards a mentally disabled person, and while some people might be cruel, they're probably cruel towards anybody who's weaker than them. So I don't really agree with your categorization.

However, I admit that a lot of people use the terms "retarded", "stupid", "idiot", etc. in a mean, hateful, cruel way, but these terms as insults are usually directed towards people who are not mentally disabled, exactly because they are not! (When you call a retard a "retard", that's not an insult, it's the truth. It's an insult only if you call a non-retarded person a "retard"!)

I'm sorry its difficult for you to navigate the complexities of interacting with other individuals?? We're dealing with people here, not ideas. The only possible way you could thing T* and Jew are equivalent is if you are arguing in bad faith in order to express your exasperation. You can express your exasperation in more constructive ways, and honestly I think you were speaking in good faith and if you just edited your post to remove the slur and let it go, being made slightly wiser about other human beings, then everything would just be fine.

I am 100% sure you can tell the difference between calling someone a t* and calling someone a Jew, and I am 100% sure you know when it is appropriate to identify someone as a Jew and when doing so is othering and degrading.

As a trans, I'm more offended of your use of "t*" than "tranny". The word isn't unspeakable and to me, there is no difference between "she's trans" and "she's a tranny". By treating it as an "unspeakable" you give it power.

Context matters. If someone wants to use "trans" as an insult, they will.

"Don't speak to me you trans" and "Don't speak to me you tranny" are both offensive remarks. The difference of using "trans" or "tranny" doesn't change the message.

I'd also like to note that the use of "tranny" is still used self-referencingly by many trans.

"Queer" is an insult where I am from but many homosexuals are increasingly using it self-referencingly ("I'm queer.") and I see less people get all up-in-arms over the word "queer" than "tranny", which I find strange.

My choice of words is shaped by the wishes of the trans woman closest to me in life. I will respect your personal decisions about the words you use, but my use of words must be subordinate to my respect for the people I hold dearest to me, and I will advocate for a world where they do not need to put up with words that inspire fear being used blithely by people indifferent or hostile towards them.

You're free to advocate otherwise. Others are free to ignore you or advocate against you.

It is my belief that giving words power is silly. By fearing them you show others that they can use that word to control you. If you are indifferent, their words fall flat. They become weak and powerless. By advocating the fear of words, you give them increased power. You teach people to fear the word because it can hold power over others. Those who wish to abuse that power will see that and use the word.

In the end you result in the abusers having more power, people with no ill-intent to feel bad for the usage, and people whom the word is targeted at grow more fearful of it. That's a lose-lose for all involved.

By not giving the word an "unspeakable" status - the abusers realize the word holds no power and stop using it, people who have no ill-intent don't have to feel bad for using the wrong word, and the people whom the word targets don't grow to fear the word.

I find advocates of making a word "unspeakable" because it, in certain contexts, can be "bad" is counterproductive is all. You increase the power of the word, nasty people will use it with even more glee, and nothing is accomplished other than self-victimization.

This really isn't that hard. Do you refer to black people as "niggers", or gay men as "fags"? No? Okay. Now add "tranny" to that mental list.

This is also called the euphemism treadmill. Over time almost any word assigned to a social stigma will become pejorative. The word retard used to be the only way to refer to the "differently abled" in polite society.

Well, it's not so much 'words that are assigned social stigma' as it is 'words that become red flags for people who might be murdered right after hearing them'.

Which I think is a pretty solid argument for not using those words, unless you're cool with frequently hanging the threat of murder over <insert minority>'s heads. Personally, I'm not cool with that.

> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime.

"Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.

Seriously? Maybe you are trolling, to reinforce the point of the article. Otherwise, in context, I think using those words helped make the point of the attitude shift over time.

I was making a point, please consider the context and intent.

Your post is triggering me. Please add trigger warnings before you use those words.

Seriously? Now even words can be vicious? Almost as stupid as calling them "micro-aggressions" when nobody is hurt.

If we are to be truly tolerant, we must tolerate intolerance.

> The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

- Karl Popper

Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.

The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.

Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.

> it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Then we can be intolerant of people who argue with violence instead of with words. That doesn't require us to be intolerant of people who hold certain opinions.

> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal"

This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat.

You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com