Please don't pick the most irritating point in an article to comment on just because it's so irritating. This is the most minor thing that he had to say.
May be that is a minor case to a US citizen. But might not be to a wider world of audience. He might not like it, but if he had any respect to his wider reader, may be he should not have wrote it. But then again, I know US tends to be more relax or loose in these sort of things. I guess it is a culture crash.
The original point was minor, if provocative. Unfortunately, though, posting an HN comment about a minor provocation can actually have a major effect on a thread—especially if it gets upvoted to the top, as indignant comments often do. That's why we moderate those and why I replied to you. The fault lies more with the upvoters and repliers than the original commenter, usually—but it's a co-creation. We all need to resist it because it leads to much shallower and less interesting discussion.
Exactly. Ive is a British citizen and the story was broken in the Financial Times, a British newspaper.
Maybe we should have just referred to plain "Barack Obama" over here because fuck this President shit, we don't have an elected head of state in the United Kingdom?
Also, not all jobs come with an associated title. I'm a software engineer, but people don't refer to me as Software Engineer Joe Bloggs. "President" absolutely is used as a title. This is especially clear with former presidents, who retain the title. (E.g. George Bush, who isn't president, is still President Bush.)
Knighthood isn't bestowed on people the monarchy likes, it's given to citizens who contribute greatly and above expectations to England's civilian, military, and peacetime achievements.
It's ok to not respect cultures. That is your right, and sometimes it's a good thing to shame shitty cultures. That being said, I agree. This felt out of place and unnecessary.
In Britain we don't necessarily agree with the titles given out by the queen. However they do serve a purpose. If you have made it in England then you get a knighthood of some sort. Only a small minority of people offered the 'sir' title don't take it.
The purpose is hierarchy. Sir Tim Berners Lee deserves that title. He is afforded recognition. Sir Bob Geldof has got there too. Although not everything to do with Band Aid was awesome, we give Sir Bob the dues. Then there are the rogues such as the arms salesmen. Athletes get the honours too. Get a few gold medals at the Olympics and you are there.
Unfortunately there are inherited titles, but, as mentioned the system is not universally liked and far from perfect. It is a hierarchy with the German lady married to some Greek bloke calling herself Queen at the top.
But what happens in a society where you don't have these things?
You have to have wealth and toys to confer status. You have only made it when you have the McMansion and the European super/hyper car, maybe with the private jet.
The British system is far cheaper. You can be respected with the 'sir' title and live in a Victorian terraced house with Blue Plaque outside. No private jet needed. With 'sir' the reputation goes before the person who has the title, it is what they say that matters, not however much bling stuff they own that matters.
It is understandable that in other parts of the formerly colonised world that this hierarchy is not desired, but there is an advantage to a society where people know their place and are content with their lot. Otherwise it is like America where you have to get rich or die trying with no happy in-between.
What's with the idea that every aspect of other cultures must be praised? I'm allowed to think some shit other cultures does is straight up stupid or weird and that doesn't make me wrong. Nobody has to get hurt. I don't agree with all of my own culture and am fine with people not understanding or valuing the things I hold dear. Life's weird and people are weirder. Nothing wrong with that. What would you say if I don't like your favorite color?
I agree with the Sir part, but it’s clearly Gruber’s irony there.
The article being negative isn’t a proper critique though: it’s a pundit writing, it’s not their role to make things better, but to point out fallacies and pain points. He did, in my opinion quite properly.
> That's pretty disrespectful and ignorant to other cultures and customs.
Not all customs deserve respect. I guess I don't have to produce a list of all the things that were once "customs", and that now horrify us. "Sir" is a honorific that implies class distinction, to indicate that someone is socially above you, by virtue of birth or by the decision of a monarch.
I know that the British crown now give knighthoods to honor notable artists, scientists, politicians, etc. It also still uses it in the traditional sense. In the UK, you can have a seat at the House of Lords (the upper house of parliament) because of your social status, either by birth or by position in the clergy. I certainly do not respect any of that.
Yes, I know they are separate, but they are both shadows of a class system that is repugnant to modern western values. And although what you are saying is true, it is only the current practice. Notice that the UK has no written constitution.
It particularly astonishes me when Americans defend these costumes, given that their country was essentially created in opposition to such a class system.
Pretty much everything that happens in the present is the shadow of some or other repugnant historical practice or event. Knighthoods are just one of the civilian honors you can get in the UK. It's not much different from the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something like that. The honor happens to come with a title. There are similar perks in US culture (e.g. Professor so-and-so, Doctor so-and-so).
That's pretty disrespectful and ignorant to other cultures and customs.
It made me realise that this whole article is really spiteful and negative. It doesn't contribute anything to making things better.