Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by concordDance 1175 days ago
> Surely we can all agree that allowing them to follow their ideas will lead to bad discourse.

I actually think that if someone genuinely thinks someone else is a pissface then it's their right to call the other person that. I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible. This applies to pronouns too.
1 comments
Timon3 1174 days ago
Sure, is somebody arguing for something differently? It's strange to me how often people repeat "oh, but they are allowed to", when that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
link
concordDance 1174 days ago
It's the difference between "what you're doing is wrong" and "what you're doing isn't compatible with our vibe, so you're not welcome".

I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense.

link
Timon3 1174 days ago
> I think the main difference between my faction and the main trans activist faction is we don't think honest misgendering (done due to an earnestly held belief about the sex of the other person and some moral convictions against white lies) should be a firing offense.

This seems counter to what you wrote earlier:

> I also think that excluding such a person from your conversations may be sensible.

Let's say your a customer of a company, and an employee "honestly misgenders you", even after you've repeatedly asked them not to. What can the company and you do to exclude them from your conversations, without firing them?

Should a company also accept a racist employee calling customers the n-word? Is it acceptable to fire somebody for that?

link