[flagged]
Most comments on HN on this topic that veer outside of a narrow range of acceptable thoughts, even from those people that generally support this topic, are flagged and killed.
It's very hard for anybody to be persuaded about any set of ideas where you see a large part of the discussion shut down.
I'd be surprised if my comment that doesn't even weigh in on this topic, but merely voices support for discussion to expand mutual empathy, isn't similarly downvoted.
The problem is that any discussion involving gender, sexuality or identity will sooner or later devolve into flamewars, with zero arguments backed by serious research - particularly the "conservative" crowd tends to aggressively stick to "there are only two genders" while ignoring every single research piece to the contrary.
The problem is that any discussion involving gender, sexuality or identity will sooner or later devolve into flamewars, with zero arguments backed by serious research - particularly the "liberal" crowd tends to aggressively stick to "there are more than two genders" while ignoring every single research piece to the contrary.
You talk about "arguments backed by serious research" versus the "conservative" crowd; but AFAI see those types of posts are flagged anyway, possibly brigaded.
Yeah no shit you’re going to get downvotes. This post does not read as asking for mutual empathy. It reads as bashing the other side and proactively claiming to be a victim if they dare to do the same to you, which they ought to, because this post does not contribute to the topic as you observe.
I think you’re wrong about people’s willingness to discuss, but even if you were correct, this is not a helpful post.
so weak, in fact, as to be entirely different - the most relevant thing being that flagged comments are killed.
Also, this is a very uncharitable take - It might be a tactic used when "you don’t have the majority opinion to actually make it happen" but that's not always the case, plus the mechanism of becoming the majority, comment wise, requires comments not to be killed i.e. it's possible it is the majority opinion, just unspoken b/c of aggressive downvoters.
> It reads as bashing the other side and proactively claiming to be a victim if they dare to do the same to you
but flagging isn't "bashing", that's the point.
Whether it be "that's not true" or "I disagree"?
I said that comments outside of a certain narrow range of acceptable opinion get shut down.
> "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command... and if all others accepted the lie, which the party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth"
This is not a good faith post. It should be downvoted.
When I said this post I meant OP if not clear
Are you making a good faith comment?
You have posed this as a question. My answer is yes. But perhaps you don't really mean it as a question, and instead mean it to solicit others to flag my comment to silence my point of view. Is that the case? If so, then logicalmonster was right.
I have spent the past 15 years working in tech in an American west coast city, I have personally known several transgender people in professional and social contexts, and encountered many more. I have also known or encountered innumerable cisgendered men and women. From these experiences, I have concluded that cisgender men are more dangerous than cisgender women, more quick to anger, more prone to aggressive posturing and certainly more prone to physical assault. Do you doubt these observations as well? Will you allow me the ability to conclude anything from my personal experiences, or do you demand that I perform rigorous scientific studies to conclude anything of this sort? I am telling you, in good faith, that it has been my personal observation that I should be wary of cisgendered men and transwomen. Because although both are usually not violent, both exhibit a predilection for aggression that significantly exceeds what I have come to expect from cisgendered women and transmen.
You can have any opinion you like, but it’s kind of pointless to think that your small experiences are sufficient to generalize. on top of that, I feel like you’re probably just making up your anecdata or exaggerating the size of it to justify your desire to state an opinion you know other people will not like.
I don’t really care what your opinion is either way. But your experiences are about as valuable as my grandparents’ experience with “the Blacks”.
No, you don’t need to conduct a study to state your opinions. But at the same time, your opinion is meaningless, and it’s not “silencing conversation” to acknowledge that and end the discussion there.
But let’s have it anyway.
I don’t have any opinion on whether transwomen are more aggressive than cisgendered women. If I had to guess, yeah, they probably are? Why does that matter?
Your reaction to my statement has proved logicalmonster's point: "Most comments on HN on this topic that veer outside of a narrow range of acceptable thoughts, even from those people that generally support this topic, are flagged and killed."
You haven't succeeded in getting my comments flagged, but you called for it. I knew you would, and that's why I made that comment. To give you an opportunity to demonstrate your censorious inclinations.
Also Chris2048 is right:
> No, you don’t need to conduct a study to state your opinions. But at the same time, your opinion is meaningless
This is double-speak. You don't require me to have opinions based on scientific studies, but at the same time my opinions are worthless. That's double-speak.
No, it's much broader than that. It's a claim that your statement is outside the bounds of what a human could honestly think, and therefore that it's invalid anywhere, not just here.
"If you're being honest, you agree with me. If you disagree, you are being dishonest." That's either very narrowminded, or a very cheap rhetorical gambit.
Given they claimed, at least, to have personal xp on the matter then why is it meaningless?
Care to back up these statements?:
> it feels like it cannot possibly be
> I feel like you’re probably just making up your anecdata or exaggerating the size of it
> your experiences are about as valuable as my grandparents’ experience with “the Blacks”
That last one is clearly a reference to racism, so what are you accusing? surely not that you don't care either way?
> it’s not “silencing conversation” to acknowledge
but dog whistles and insinuations intended to attract flags do.
> Why does that matter?
Maybe have a conversation and find out?
Because personal experience is highly unlikely to amount to enough evidence to make a claim that anyone should feel comfortable generalizing to a population of humans. Positive or negative.
> Maybe have a conversation and find out?
My dude, I literally said “let’s have [a discussion]” and posed the exact question you are quoting to invite a conversation.
Then what is the solution? quoting a study after all?
You also didn't explain why you mention all the things you "feel" about the poster, given you have such high standards of evidence - e.g. that they are making stuff up - what is that based on if not xp?
> My dude, I literally said
Saying "sure, let's do this" after making it very clear that their opinion didn't matter, and you think they were making stuff up? I don't think it was inviting a discussion in good faith, whether you said it or not.