Hacker News Reader

Comment by merpnderp | Hacker News Reader

I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated "If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt comfortable enough saying this even though there were obviously people there from outside the group and nothing like that could be kept secret.

View on HN

So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a non issue).

>Politics are people's private business

What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.

I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism (which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.)

Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing personal about that.

Or maybe English isn't their first language?

I've seen similar situations at scientific conferences. To be fair, the Republican caucus was trying to significantly cut the budget for the field at the time.

So much for tolerance. How about transgendered Republicans? Would they have been welcomed?

Like Bruce Jenner?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/br...

(Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)

Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.

What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.

>Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.

The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.

Yes, that was indeed the case.

Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".

It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".

The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce.

If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick.

Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.

Why should I have to explain why I accidentally called someone by the name they went by for 65 years. It's not a contradictory view. It's a slip up. My response was literally a 5 second google search, went with the name in the title, and posted.

No malice, no motives, just a mistake. Stop reading so far into it.

The way you worded your response was basically, "If it was an error why are you a bigot?"

Hmm, you are right, I read into it a bit too much.

Like I said, I felt insulted by you labelling my off-hand comment as "outrage", especially after you agreed that I was factually correct.

In hindsight I can see why you took offence to my original comment, but there is a massive difference in connotation between saying "I am offended" and "you are outraged". [0]

As I am a big proponent of free speech online, your implication of what I should and should not be able to say has been quite vexing to me, hence my annoyance. But I shouldn't have conflated that with whatever your views on trans women are.

[0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164

>As I am a big proponent of free speech online, your implication of what I should and should not be able to say has been quite vexing to me, hence my annoyance.

See

>Stop reading so far into it.

and

>Be civil. [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yes I think I've already reached an understanding with the OP, but thanks for chiming in.

You're welcome! One last thing, I noticed that you referred to OP using a gendered pronoun. Given that women (and other genders too!) are allowed to use the Internet in many countries [0] it is best to not gender pseudo-anonymous entities who have not explicitly signaled their gender or preferred pronouns. Unlike in Portuguese, Spanish, or whatever your native tongue may be, in English there are gender-neutral pronouns available. Two possible alternatives are singular they [1] or the Spivak pronoun e [2]. Defaulting to masculine pronouns as you did creates an environment that is unwelcoming and hostile for some, so to foster a welcoming space for all you should default to gender-neutral language. Overall your English is pretty good, keep practicing! Just wanted to clear that up, and thanks again!

[0] https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=SK3VRr7bFVkC&pg=PA138#v=on...

I referred to the OP with a gendered pronoun because he misnamed Caitlyn and it is well known that men are more likely to mislabel trans women, as well as more likely to be trolls online - as you are being now, so I assume that you are male too. I will leave you to it now, well done for your little essay.

You correct people and not pull a tantrum based on one comment. Please, teach yourself respect. The OP obviously understood the point.

I think the OP has made his point quite well already, and I understood him. No need for added outrage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com