Hacker News Reader

Comment by jordigh | Hacker News Reader

I was there to witness the private mailing list that culminated in this, and there was a very clear example of that happening there.

A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal."

A sub-discussion then erupted about the etymology of "Sally" and whether or not it was technically correct to someone who preferred "Sal" to be called "Sally" instead. Instead of, you know, just calling people what they want to be called and be done with it. And not be condescending about it.

View on HN

Thank you for sharing the context. One of the problems we have with written interaction is that we don't have all the information that we have in face-to-face communication.

One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?

I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.

My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...

Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.

If someone has stated what they wish to be called by, and rather than respecting their wishes, you choose to go down a tangent on how what you said is not a problem, then that is condescending, whether you intended it or not. Although I would have a very difficult time believing that someone who did that did not intend to be condescending.

From the context supplied it appears to me that this was a first offense. If it were a repeat offense, I would agree. I still recommend a softer tone. If your goal is to maintain a healthy collaboration, that helps. Either way, the offended party is inferring motives that may or may not be accurate.

That sounds utterly trivial - why was Sal/Sally so upset by an attempt to be polite by not using a short form/pet name. That must happen to her all the time in formal settings.

As for "voicing concerns with current practices", what were those concerns and practices? Technical?

It wasn't an attempt to be polite. They didn't use the long form of their name (which would be irritating but I can see that being an attempt to be polite), they used a rather infantilising diminutive. The effect was condescending and "Sal" was well within their rights to object.

In the general case, telling someone that actually you are the person who has the last word on what they are called is bullying.

Sure, if someone says "call me this" and you don't, I agree, that's annoying. But it should be a polite request, not the start of a fight.

And what is the long form then? The only female name I can think of that shortens to Sal is Sally. This whole story seems suspect.

Sally is traditionally short for Sarah, though if someone with a longer name like Salvadora/Salvatoria were living in an anglophone society, I could also see them going by Sally.

"let's call her Sal" is an idiom for "her name isn't Sal, but let's use that as an example".

Because they had already stated what they wished to be called. Once someone does that, conversation on the topic should be done; there is nothing more to be said. Choosing to ignore that is a massive sign of disrespect to the person, and should not be tolerated.

In some cultures, it is impolite to refer to someone by their given name. "Mr X" or equivalent is the polite way to address them, especially in (for example) a business context.

And yet, I almost never see this happening in online communities and have never seen anyone take offence at being referred to by their first name instead, despite the fact that in an in-person context they might do.

I'd love to understand why the two scenarios are different.

It sounds like the issue in the example you state was perhaps the "talking down", not the name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com