Hacker News Reader

Comment by clipsy | Hacker News Reader

> The original not teaching sexuality and gender law was only supposed to apply to grade 3 and under.

No, it was never limited to grade 3 and under. Certain sections of it were. You were bamboozled by right-wing propaganda if you believed the bill only affected grade 3 and under.

View on HN

You'll win more hearts and minds if you just present misinformed people with the facts. Telling people that they were "bamboozled" makes them feel embarrassed (and probably less receptive to the important part of your message).

It is neither my responsibility nor my desire to care for the feelings of people who would -- either through malice or ignorance -- relegate me to being a second class citizen.

Would you believe that many folks (including myself) did, actually, present people with the facts at the time? And that the response was an overwhelming “you’re being alarmist” or “why do you want little kids to learn about sex, hmm?”

Forgive us for being a little salty about it.

Yeah, that's understandable. And I'm certainly guilty of reacting that way at times.

This just seemed like a clear situation where the original commenter was genuinely open to others' opinions but instead was dealt an insult. That's going to discourage other people from opening up their minds in the same way.

I do agree with you (especially in this case). Just adding a bit of useful background color.

I suspect this is going to get worse, and maybe there’s some value in shouting into the ether that some people did try to explain in good faith, before it got worse. Dunno what that value might be, but maybe it’s there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com