sockypuppy

> what should we do right now?

This is a long answer, so here's the TLDR: All sides of the debate need to tone down the name-calling, demonization, boycotts, and ostracism of opponents. Treat the other side of the debate like they're intelligent and well-meaning, but somehow picked up some misinformed, misguided, or mistaken assumptions and doesn't realize. Try to figure out how to change people's minds so they believe the right thing, instead of focusing on punishing people who believe the wrong thing.

I'm the rare HN'er on the opposite side of this cultural divide, so I thought my perspective would be informative. A lot of people who read the previous sentence have probably already characterized me as either a poorly educated hick or a slavering, sadistic bigot.

The truth is, that by dehumanizing your opponent and assuming bad faith, you guarantee that people who don't agree with you won't listen to what you have to say. This means you can't really change minds.

If you want to further the cause of gay rights, figure out the reasons people disagree with you, and try to convince them otherwise. Try to teach and explain; stay away from confrontation, condemnation and personal attacks. If someone else (on either side) becomes indignant, keep calm and encourage them to do likewise.

For example, in a little bit I'll give you a list of questions I've had about gay rights that no one's ever answered to my satisfaction. Based on past experience, I should give you a few warnings about my questions first.

You will probably think these questions are highly inflammatory, but I don't intend them to be trolling or snarking; rather they're things I'm honestly confused about. You should try to remain calm and think logically while reading my questions. This is apparently very hard for most pro-gay-rights people, for reasons I don't really understand.

Opponents of gay rights say these questions have no good answers. Instead of providing good answers, proponents of gay rights call anyone who asks these questions very bad names like "hateful," "offensive," "bigot," or "dinosaur," and don't actually answer the questions.

I don't know the answers to these questions because neither side ever actually answers them. The only thing I have to go on is the behavior of the two groups. Based on the above typical interaction of the two sides of the debate, I have to say the opponents of gay rights win: The pro-gay-rights side's only answer to skeptical questions is calling names. I'd probably change my mind if the pro-gay-rights side offered good answers and the anti-gay-rights side were the ones who weren't able to offer a coherent response.

Here are the questions:

What are the reasons you believe what you do? What is the evidence that homosexuality is an in-born quality as opposed to a choice? How strong is it? What about concerns that gay people are promiscuous, spreading AIDS and other STD's? Is a gay household an unhealthy environment for children? To what extent is homosexuality associated with crimes like rape and pedophilia? Why is homosexuality traditionally considered morally wrong (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible), a symbol of decline (e.g. the late Roman Empire), and even outlawed? If the millenia-old traditional viewpoint was wrong, why did it last so long? Were the anti-gay-rights people always wrong, or has technology changed the picture (e.g. maybe STD's are now less serious due to inventions like condoms and antibiotics)?

And one last question, which doesn't really change how I lean on the question of how I feel about gay rights: Why do so many pro-gay-rights people try to advance their agenda by calling names and boycotting organizations, instead of simply patiently explaining their side of the story?

    s/LGBT-friendly/orthodox/
    s/hateful/heretical/

And we thought we were over the sloppy thinking habits that lead to forceful suppression of unpopular viewpoints...

If people don't choose their sex partners, why is rape a crime?

> [Anonymity i]s also required for opinions that are not aligned with the mainstream.

As someone whose political beliefs align less than one hundred percent with the "standard SF liberal" position on HN, I feel this pain.

For example, I'm rather skeptical that gay rights are a Good Thing -- yet I'm also very afraid that I'll be permanently tarred and feathered as a bigot, and permanently lose opportunities, if I post that sentiment under an account that can be connected to my real identity.

Whenever I bring it up, one side of the debate starts quoting Scripture and the other side says that anyone who questions their views, or has the least bit of skepticism, is worse than Hitler. I honestly don't know how to initiate a rational discussion of the issue. And I especially suspect that the side that immediately dismisses any other line of thinking by calling names as loudly as possible does so to cover weaknesses in their argument.

It's not that I have it in for gays; rather, it's that no one's ever explained to me the argument for why the gay rights movement is a Good Thing, in a way that I find convincing. Based on my own analysis, it seems to be a weak position [1] -- perhaps not one which should be adopted, and certainly not an axiom which is beyond reproach or questioning of assumptions. And I'm a stubborn, independent thinker -- as a matter of principle, I refuse to believe something simply because it's popular among the crowd I hang out with -- or because one side has declared the opposition to be heretics. (Fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/)

[1] Basically, I think our society should treat homosexuality / bisexuality as it treats adultery -- nobody goes to jail or gets their life destroyed as long as any sexual activity involves only consenting adults. But it's a lifestyle choice that people should disapprove of, not least because it's disruptive to the family structure consisting of children raised by two parents of opposite sex in a committed relationship, which -- all else being equal -- is the best environment for a child to grow up in. Also, I'm skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is not a choice -- if a person doesn't choose who they have sex with, why is rape a crime?

I'm certain many readers will object to the above, but I haven't been able to get someone to make a cogent argument that actually addresses my points; everyone just screams "DIE IN A FIRE" at the top of their lungs at me when I bring this up in a liberal place like HN.

> It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years.

It's also an interesting thought experiment to consider whether beliefs we deeply and routinely hold today will become as morally unacceptable as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and ought to be punished.

For example, what if it becomes wrong to believe in meritocracy? If in fifty years, everyone from scientists to politicians to the media blasts the message that it's wrong and hurtful to heap prestige, financial rewards, etc. on brilliant hackers and successful entrepreneurs?

Presumably many HN'ers strongly believe in meritocracy and point out historical examples of stagnation in non-meritocratic societies, mathematical/economic arguments why meritocracy is good, etc.

What if anyone who sincerely believes in meritocracy, and makes these kinds of logical and data-backed arguments in favor of meritocracy, is met the same way that today anyone is met who argues against the liberalization of our treatment of homosexuality?

Please, treat people who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong the way you would want believers in meritocracy to be treated in the hypothetical world I've laid out. First, because you want a civilized precedent for dealing with distasteful beliefs, to reduce the downside if your own beliefs will one day be regarded as distasteful. Second, it simply makes the pro-gay argument look weak if the best way you can deal with opponents is call them names like "bigot," or threaten to blacklist them and destroy their livelihood.

Another fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/

In this context, probably not. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6938877

> "you are gay", "fagget" etc.

> Because that is what they believe to be the best way to hurt my feelings

TLDR: These people probably aren't trying to hurt your feelings, their language -- while shocking to you -- is a product of a different culture.

I think this is a cultural difference between you and them. You must realize that much of HN -- I'm assuming this includes you -- lives in a bubble of left-leaning people from left-leaning urban areas.

Growing up in a different time and place, in middle and high school I always thought calling someone "faggot" or "gay" was roughly the same as "idiot", "jerk" or "asshole" -- a generic insult not meant to be taken literally. And in the context of a multiplayer game, especially online, such a word is typically used to express momentary anger at the in-game situation, not trying to attack you personally.

It was quite a culture shock to me when I got to college and discovered that most people on campus viewed insulting someone by calling them a "faggot" to be political incorrectness of the same order as calling someone a "nigger" or "retard".

I've had something of an unusual career path, and I've found out first-hand that a lot of companies don't like people with weak resumes / references, and it's hard to build these up (especially references).

I always try to convince companies I'm interviewing with to do a "try-before-you-buy". Of course, it's a lot easier to do the trial week as an employee if you're starting out from a position of being unemployed, rather than taking vacation to do this.

> Wonder what else [Obama] "didn't know"

Here's a laundry list from a libertarian / conservative commentator who often says insightful things even when I disagree with him:

[Obama] was himself clueless as to the extent and severity of the problems in his signature legislation. Two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, he was still parroting the Susan Rice line about anti-Islamic videos, which the CIA knew within hours had had nothing to do with the murder of Ambassador Stevens.

Obama had no idea for three years his IRS might be slow-walking Tea Party applications for tax exemptions. He wasn’t in the loop about Eric Holder’s phone taps on Fox News or the Associated Press.

Nobody told him. The president has not been more deeply implicated in the scandals since re-election because he could credibly say, "How was I supposed to know what was going on?"

Source: http://buchanan.org/blog/queen-obamaland-5957

> can code their way out of a box in an interview, but cannot deliver working code in a production environment

> perfectionism seems to be a common thread to not delivering in my (limited) experience

I'm afraid I'm the engineer being described here. I pride myself on technical excellence, theoretical understanding and practical experience with lots of different technologies.

Yet my work history mostly consists of an unbroken trail of unfinished projects and undelivered deliverables stretching back decades.

How can I cure myself of this? Or should I switch careers?