Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It isn't interesting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Snarky one-liners on flamewar topics are flamebait, which the site guidelines ask you not to post: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Edit: I made a mistake in the following bit because I missed your initial ">". Sorry! Quoting the OP is obviously legit.)

Hauling the most provocative thing you can find on someone's personal blog into a thread on a flamewar-prone topic is guaranteed to make things worse. We're trying to avoid the online shaming/callout culture here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

Sorry for being snarky, and as you discovered while I was sleeping, it was quotes from the article.

But on a serious note, this is the core of bullshit that powers progressive identity politics, and progressive cancel culture.

I understand RMS' comments on "them/they" as a pedantic, semantic, technically correct grammar nazi argument. But then, the authors of the demand letter to cancel RMS argue, because a trans person took offense with his statement, RMS is a transphobe.

And this kind of smearing is only possible if you subscribe to the postmodern notion that intent doesn't matter, and that "x-phobe" simply means that you offended a person of group x, regardless of your intent.

Is this really shaming?

It's a quote from the article that's key in presenting the principles of their open letter. If the poster had gone to Molly's website and found it for themselves, and posted it here I'd certainly contest it's flamebait.

This seems different, because we're accepting that this article has a place here, I don't see how you can not quote key segments of the article.

The rest I definitely agree with.

Oh, I misread it. I thought the GP had specifically gone to someone's personal blog to find something worse. If it was quoted by the OP that's not the same thing at all. Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry henrikschroder!

The cancel culture loves to state absolutes as gospel truth and that hurt feelings are all that needs to happen in order prove their point. It's pretty weak from any logical point.

Molly de Blanc, whoever she is, is a bully. Plain and simple. These are textbook bully tactics practised by children in schools everywhere. You learn where people's weaknesses are and you prod. You learn where the boundaries are and stay just on the right side of authority to avoid being in trouble yourself.

In a sphere where we usually choose our names and expect other people to use them, instead of what's written in some official document, I don't see how chosen pronouns are any different.

Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called.

You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.

Because pronouns are ingrained into our language centers; we automatically and subconsciously classify people based on physical appearance and derive pronouns from that. For better or worse, it's part of our programming.

Names, however, are not. We've learned names are not connected to any physical trait, and thus we process and store them differently.

Expecting the entirety of humanity to simply "unlearn" language is a huge stretch - especially for those with gendered languages (English is not a gendered language).

Further, the fact that pronouns "hurt" trans people is largely subjective - there is a very large portion of the trans community that would disagree with that assertion.

Words are words. Perhaps we should stop placing as much weight in them, fullstop.

Exactly.

Well ... no. People are called Baker because some ancestor was a baker. Then over time the link from the name to the occupation got lost.

Just as we might have "derive[d] pronouns from that" but are currently on the same way as with "Baker" - removing the word from it's physical beginnings.

Then in the end words are a tool and not a thing by their own - as evidenced that you can hardly read a 500 year old text - including your pronouns, that were different back then.

If it helps - at least one party - communication to use different/new pronouns, this is where language will go.

Being a baker is not a physical trait.

The linked blog post says nothing about pronouns specifically, it's making a much broader statement that is clearly nonsense.

When you promote putting people on lists, bear in mind that some of us are happy to reciprocate. I certainly wouldn't want to employ someone who thinks "if it offends a trans person, then it is transphobic" is a reasonable maxim.

The OP was responding to the maxim he quoted, specifically:

> There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable.

That is a much broader statement - pronouns are only one possible example* of something which might "hurt a trans person".

Stop playing games.

Edit: Other examples are arguments about trans access to women's sports/prisons/shelters/etc., which TERFs may say "hurt females" and are thus misogynistic. Whose hurt wins?

This appendix is pretty much filled with lies and misrepresentations of his statements. Please avoid spreading it. It is pretty much "fake news".

>"RMS has spent years on a campaign against using people’s correct pronouns."

This is false.

Pronouns are just a way to refer to an entity in your text, the issue with classical pronouns like he, she, and it is that they imply certain properties about the entity that they refer (that they are a single entity, their gender, and whether they are a human). The pronoun itself is not a gender and I just can't see how using any polite pronoun that tries to not make any assumptions regarding properties of said entity is transphobic. Another alternative is to use the person's name to refer to them.

I guess using gender neutral pronouns exclusively for transgender people can be considered transphobic but this is not something that stallman advocates for. In fact his statements regarding gender neutral pronouns do not mention transgender people at all, it seems that he advocates for the gender neutral pronouns to be used for _everyone_ (which should in the long run be advantageous to transgender people).

Regardless though, he himself uses the pronouns that people ask him to use for them. So he is basically being accused for being a transphobe for... saying that having a single gender neutral pronoun to replace all pronouns is better? Really? It saddness me that people decide to "cancel" him instead of engaging in a (public or private) dialog with him. There is a good chance that he hasn't even heard their arguments.

Your comment is posted here as a reply to another comment, but it seems like the content is unrelated. The quoted sentence says nothing about pronouns in particular. Instead, it says that if someone says anything at all that any trans person finds offensive then the person saying it becomes tainted without any recourse. (I checked the post it was from and it hasn't been taken out of context - it really is as general of a statement as it appears to be on its own.)

Ironically, that means that if a trans person finds your comment, or the blog author's post, offensive in some way then now you or they are transphobic and there's nothing you can say or do to dispute that. Clearly, that is unacceptable.

Thanks for expanding my snarky comment, but yes, this is exactly my point as well. There is absolutely no way to defend yourself against this kind of smear, because someone, somewhere, will find your opinion offensive. And if that's enough to cancel you, then it's no longer possible to have public opinions. At all.

But intent matters. It has to matter. I believe RMS' intent with his "they/them is plural" statement is to be a grammar nazi, and not that he wants to put down trans people. His argument is tactless, pedantic, and he's wrong because language changes and grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, but he's not transphobic. He's wrong, but not because some trans person took offense with what he wrote.

The problem is you alone cannot be victim, judge and executioner.

>Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called.

How does one express what gender neutral pronoun they want to be called without expressing their preferred gendered pronoun?

There are many languages without gender neutral pronouns.

You've been all over this thread and other threads perpetuating ideological flamewars. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of their ideology. Please stop now, and review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended: thoughtful conversation on topics of intellectual curiosity. Not smiting enemies.

Try the standard English pronouns and see how it goes.

English is not the only language people speak you know.

We're talking in English about Stallman's idiosyncratic English pronouns. What other language did you have in mind when you wrote Apache helicopter gunship?

The pronoun associated with a gunship is "it", I have no problem referring to people as "it" if that's what it prefers.

Of course you'll agree. You will do it for two reasons: 1) you are a nice person and would like to be polite, avoiding offending anyone, 2) if you fail to do so, there are people who will make sure you'll regret your decision.

Would you please stop posting flamewar comments? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. You've posted dozens of them in the last 24 hours alone. This is not cool.

Moreover, using HN primarily for ideological or political battle is one line at which we start banning accounts—regardless of what they're battling for or against—and it looks like your account is well over that line. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it. There's lots more explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

I just realized I might have been guilty of that, too. In general, I try as best as I can to avoid these discussions as they seem counterproductive, but it's a bit more difficult regarding the recent RMS issue. This is Hacker News, and he is the hacker. Literally one of the main characters in Levy's famous book. And independently from valid criticism, he's now under flood of accusations, some of them being false. Not because I read something, but knowing RMS personally I know they are false. That's why it's sometimes hard to resist answering a comment or two. I really appreciate your work and I'm sorry if I cause any trouble by that.

The comment you replied to seems to be about what Stallman said. ("You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.") It certainly was about names and pronouns. Not a variation on a tired transphobic straw man meme.[1]

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-att...

You didn't provide criticism, you made a word meme. There's a big difference. Your reaction does not add to this discourse and furthermore I'd say it damages it.

Consider this: If I disagree with the sentiment that "if a trans person is offended, then it is transphobic" and someone reads your reactionary comment, guess how much more work I have to do to positively engage with someone? The answer is a lot. Said another way, your reactionary statement justifies someone else's extremism.

If you cannot debate people positively, maturely, and without reaching for tools like reactionary statements or sarcasm then please just sit the conversation out.

> Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called.

That's true and RMS will gladly call you using any pronouns you choose: https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html#rms-is-not-transphobic

It's sickening that the media continues to give people like that any semblance of credibility.

Lots of people think that's the media's job. There's a meme going around showing some rich wall street tycoons sitting in their office watching the Occupy Wall Street protesters from years ago with a speech bubble saying: "Introduce them to identity politics".

Here it is - https://m.imgur.com/gallery/KdeMOdA

Another version has a timeline chart below it showing some interesting facts but I can't find that one right now.

It’s a form of extreme subjectivism that is just not practically feasible in any society.

Postmodernism is truly nefarious.

So anything non-deontological is postmodern?

We cannot truly know someone's intent. We can evaluate the impact of their words and actions. If you define words like “racist” and “transphobic” to be solely about professed intent, then you will find that bigotry seemingly doesn't exist.

Tomorrow another group of people might decide something about your intent and you might have no way to make your case.

Anyway, you have to really stretch it beyond reason to see transphobia behind anything RMS has said, written, or done.

As for the impact of his works and actions, everyone has access to a full software stack to explore, learn from, and work on, without the need to be inside some university or company, i.e. to have the money or to pass admission processes that might be putting certain groups at a disadvantage, or outright excluding them. This was also his intent all along and he sacrificed a lot for it.

> We cannot truly know someone's intent.

Oh, you can get pretty close. What you do is you look at their attitudes towards the marginalized individuals, to marginalized communities, their opinions as a whole, their advocacy, their friendship groups, etc.

If, on balance, they appear to support and promote people of colour or transgender people (as much as they do any other people group) - then this person is probably not racist or transphobic.

However, that's haaarrrd. And doing that groundwork doesn't win you clicks as a media outlet. Whipping up a mob does win you clicks however. And advertising revenue.

And then many people - who have only read those articles - shout about it, like mobs tend to do, it seems like it has universal approval, and people assume it's probably true.

If you don't define words like "racist" and "transphobic" to be solely about intent, those words become meaningless.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Really? Is the purpose of a combine harvester to kill people? Of course not. Yet people have died in combine harvester accidents.

Is the purpose of the electric car to make CO2? Of course not. Yet for a long time (not sure whether this has changed yet) more CO2 was wasted in their production and transport than they could ever hope to save in over 10 years of operation.

Is your purpose to make blaisé, ill-thought-out over-generalisations on the internet? Of course not. I imagine you lead a full and fulfilling life offline, spoiling orphaned kittens rotten and brokering peace treaties in your spare time.

Just because a person (or, if you prefer, a system) produces an unintended side effect - whether by accident, ignorance or bad publicity - it does not make that their purpose, or even reflective of the kindness in their core being.

And sometimes, these things can be fixed with education. Sometimes these things can be fixed with holistic reporting and good PR. Sometimes, other people need to learn to do their own research to understand and accept the context in which things are said.

But alas, the internet will never learn these things. Because the purpose of a system is what it does - and what the internet does really well is spread hate and division.