Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brothers, I Must Go

christianity.meta.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#11

Post by ianleeclark »

alerque wrote: post #10
Elrac wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read most of that salty social-media-suicide note and got the same vibe. "Help! This site is failing to tolerate my religiously motivated bigotry -- I'm being oppressed!" I would not be surprised if SE's internal dialog includes the words "good riddance."

Salty eh? Okay. I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed, but thanks for thinking about me. The way volunteers have been treated is not good, and the rules the company is making are going alienate lots of people. Not the ones they care about apparently, but lots of people none the less. There is a difference been limited speech (which SE has always been a limited zone, not a free zone) and forced speech. You might…

> I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed

Dude you quoted Niemöller. The first line of the poem immediately brings to mind political prisoners being thrown into Dachau.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#12

Post by tsukurimashou »

ianleeclark wrote: post #8
tsukurimashou wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns, I don't care about the gender of the person replying to me. Maybe I miss remember but when I started using the internet we were using usernames and being constantly told not to expose personal information. I feel like people were focusing more easily on whatever their community was dedicated to.

> How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns There are some stack exchange sub-sites that this would be reasonable to do, but many others that aren't. That's why. It's pertinent information for a lot of questions that are going to be asked.

Why not restrict it only where it matters?

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#13

Post by ianleeclark »

tsukurimashou wrote: post #12
ianleeclark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we just stick to usernames and don't care about pronouns There are some stack exchange sub-sites that this would be reasonable to do, but many others that aren't. That's why. It's pertinent information for a lot of questions that are going to be asked.

Why not restrict it only where it matters?

> Why not restrict it only where it matters?

It's likely easier for StackOverflow, the corporate entity itself, to only have a single rule-set, rather than have to manage and ensure moderators are adhering to a bunch of different rule-sets.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#14

Post by XCabbage »

rozab wrote: post #3

So this guys problem is that the new CoC requires him to respect peoples chosen pronouns? And it looks like this was that Monica person's problem too. I think SE are totally within their rights to enforce a policy like this without negotiation, although clearly a miscommunication has occurred. I think the people who object to it are imagining a situation with a mythical SJW boogeyperson saying "Don't misgender me! my…

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem.

This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's.

Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names.

Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That, apparently, was enough to get her fired.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#15

Post by [deleted] »

alerque wrote: post #10
Elrac wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read most of that salty social-media-suicide note and got the same vibe. "Help! This site is failing to tolerate my religiously motivated bigotry -- I'm being oppressed!" I would not be surprised if SE's internal dialog includes the words "good riddance."

Salty eh? Okay. I explicitly noted I wasn't being repressed, but thanks for thinking about me. The way volunteers have been treated is not good, and the rules the company is making are going alienate lots of people. Not the ones they care about apparently, but lots of people none the less. There is a difference been limited speech (which SE has always been a limited zone, not a free zone) and forced speech. You might…

[deleted]

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#16

Post by [deleted] »

bjourne wrote: post #2

Apparently there is an ongoing Stack Exchange sites' moderator rebellion: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1650/i-am-resign... https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...

[deleted]

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#18

Post by jasonvorhe »

XCabbage wrote: post #14
rozab wrote: post #3

So this guys problem is that the new CoC requires him to respect peoples chosen pronouns? And it looks like this was that Monica person's problem too. I think SE are totally within their rights to enforce a policy like this without negotiation, although clearly a miscommunication has occurred. I think the people who object to it are imagining a situation with a mythical SJW boogeyperson saying "Don't misgender me! my…

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that…

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#19

Post by kilo_bravo_3 »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #18
XCabbage wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that…

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

Because they are jerks.

And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon.

There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable:

1. Jerks

2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.

Re: Brothers, I Must Go

#20

Post by vnth93 »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #18
XCabbage wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that…

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.
Post reply on HN