Hacker News Reader

Comment by BearOso | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly the thing the essay seems to be complaining about. It's not the ethics of equality being targeted, it's the moral hypocrisy.

People put on a false front with offensive messaging claiming support of these groups, but the whole purpose is to build clout or benefit themselves. They don't care about the message at all.

Messages like "I support lgbtq, and if you don't you're a bigot," are self-aggrandizement. "I support lgbtq," is all that's needed if you want people to know they are supported. No one needs to hear it at all if the discussion isn't relevant. Just try to treat everybody with respect.

View on HN

Your argument is, "Don't say 'I believe X and if you disagree with me you're bad'. Just say, 'I believe X.'"

But then literally in the same sentence, you say, "If you do the thing I don't like (in this case, calling people bigots because they don't support lgbtq) *then you are self-aggrandizing."

"Nobody should be called a bigot for their views on lgbtq, but it's virtuous to call people self-aggrandizing for calling people bigots."

Either name-calling is okay or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

You can argue hypocrisy or about the way the argument is presented here, but it’s beside the point. Saying “there is only one correct opinion on this matter and if you disagree then you’re a bigot” is exactly what is driving people to oppose those opinions, regardless of whether they are correct. It’s just a really, really poor move, in terms of rhetorical strategy.

I agree that people don't like being called out for their views (on race, lgbtq, women, whatever). They would rather be left to believe what they believe in peace and not face the disapprobation of others.

Calling individuals may even further radicalize them, as you say. I am not convinced on this point, I sort of think their mind is not changing either way, but maybe I am wrong.

What I am sure of is, it is not the responsibility of people whose rights are being taken away to be polite to their oppressors for the sake of rhetorical strategy.

> What I am sure of is, it is not the responsibility of people whose rights are being taken away to be polite to their oppressors for the sake of rhetorical strategy.

This is very much the TERF line of thinking.

That term is considered to be a pejorative.

Re your last paragraph: I feel I'm quite left, but it feels like a lot of these activists are busy trying to make enemies out of everyone, which makes me think "I'll just shut the hell up" and, if I ever get confronted as being a part of the enemy class (I'm a heterosexual male, get the pitchforks!) , I'll just point out, "if you don't want me as your ally, then hey, no worries, I can be your enemy."...

Have you heard of or witnessed someone who was confronted as part of the enemy class just for being a straight male?

Where are you going that you need a contingency plan for this situation? Are you expecting this in a work situation, on a campus maybe, or just walking down the street?

During BLM, I've seen rhetoric that said "If you're silent, then you're part of the problem!". Sheesh! Luckily I don't live in that quasi-apartheid country and don't have to speak out and say how guilty I am for taking my privileges for granted.

I support their right to challenge the oppression, but please, don't make me the enemy if I'm minding my own business. Yes, I get that there's tremendous privilege of being able to not be enraged by the issues...

That's how I feel. Everyone always has to have an "us vs them" methodology. Like you have to take sides. No thank you, I'm apathetic to the situation. I'm not going to deliberately make life worse for anyone or support it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com