301–310 of 333 posts
This is natural selection at work. Stack Exchange has become a frustrating site to use. "Closed as duplicate: different and unrelated question" reopen further explaining the question and how its not related "Closed as duplicate: the first question that was immediately closed with no replies" OR! Google around, find SE link on issue, everybody is arguing about why the user wants to do it that why, convinces them to do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
seriously. I've been doing this stuff a long time, there's usually a reason why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. I understand you don't like it, think it shouldn't be done that way, and so forth. But I promise you, I've already considered the alternatives. And if you mention an alternative I haven't considered, I'll consider it then. But please, for the love of god, just answer the effing question and stop assuming…
> I've been doing this stuff a long time, there's usually a reason why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. People who've been doing it long enough probably also have the experience to know how to ask a good question that explains the why of the unusual request. "I unfortunately stuck on an low-power embedded device that for some weird reason only supports MD5" is going to be treated differently on SO than "I'm new to…
just answer the damned question, and if you have concerns, ask. I'm more than happy to explain it, I just don't want to have an hours long discussion when I asked a fairly specific question.
Anyone else felt disconcerting about the reoccurring theme of platform attracts communicated generated content, only to shift interest/motive once critical mass is achieved?
Community starts with good people; creates good content; attracts more people; that new people tends to average; contents tends to average; new people tends even more to average; contents quality becomes average; community isn't good anymore. The cycle certainly didn't start with groups over a computer network, but I think it's very unlikely that it started before written texts. So there's ~8k years window there. It'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people This is either incorrect or relies on an unconventionally broad notion of "misgendering." Normally misgendering is understood to be the act of using pronouns other than a person's preferred pronouns, the point of controversy is that now simply avoiding pronouns can be considered an act of misgenderin…
If you very conspicuously avoid using pronouns for someone, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on and that you’re deliberately avoiding gendering someone correctly. It’s not as bad as using the wrong pronouns, but it’s still very disrespectful.
Particularly on a Q&A site, avoiding gendered pronouns altogether strikes me as the _most_ practical policy. It's what I (try my best to remember to) do on Hacker News. I don't know what pronouns the GP prefers, and I can't very well ask them right now, so if I have to refer to them, I'll either say "they" or "the GP".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that more as "I disagreed and commented on a future CoC change, but I won't discuss a CoC change that's not been publicly revealed, because it's beside the point".
Well, I read a post from another ex-moderator[0] and it seems the CoC change has a part about pronouns, but it doesn't mean that all the changes are about this and that Monica left because of the changes on pronouns. But that still doesn't change the fact that "firing" a mod for disagreeing with and commenting on a future change of a CoC seem wrong, especially since it didn't look like SE tried to discuss the issue b…
So the disagreement and comments by Monica regarding the CoC was about pronouns. But Monica had waited before another ex-mod talked about this [0], I think because she didn't want discussion about this CoC change to distract from her issue (being "fired" as a mod without discussion).
[0]https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole pronoun drama that is inherently American is tearing down international communities left and right despite it not being even an issue.
Imposing speech codes is most definitely an issue. It goes to the core of deeply held values. It replaces tolerance with intolerance as the value to be upheld. Those imposing the CoC are getting exactly what they want - driving anyone who disagrees from the field.
The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people, or allow user content to do the same. All these ex-mods wrote these coy essays with discussions of free will and human rights in order to avoid discussing the issue at hand. Trans people are surely a more important part of the StackExchange community and business than a few unpaid volunteers. I am no…
>The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people This is either incorrect or relies on an unconventionally broad notion of "misgendering." Normally misgendering is understood to be the act of using pronouns other than a person's preferred pronouns, the point of controversy is that now simply avoiding pronouns can be considered an act of misgenderin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does biology have to do with what I wrote? If someone says call me Pete and you then insist on calling them Sam, you are being a jerk. Also “write neutrally” tends to not actually be written neutrally. “Guys” being one of the common examples, it is used neutrally but inherently has a male biases. This can be frustrating to many women, trans or cis. Invisible Women has a lot in it about this problem and knock on…
Well I'm not an American or native speaker, it's rude to think we all live in the same culture and moral code too. The other threads show that there has never been a complaint about misgendering anyone on purpose but the new CoC lays out bunch of very difficult to characterize commandments. The biology has to do with it that no matter what we decide how to speak in society, it doesn't inherently change the fact sex h…
You can change your sex but not your gender.
My understanding is that the train of events that resulted in mod Monica Cellio’s demodding from SE started with a gender-related complaint tweet ( https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-ta... ). Companies are now very sensitive to this pattern, esp. true for SE due to the ongoing changes there.
Mods should have cooler heads than this, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it really wasn't even an issue, this wouldn't be coming up as often as it does, though, would it? To me, "if someone tells you they prefer singular 'they', use that" is non-controversial, just like "if someone tells you they go by 'Goldie,' use that" should be. Insisting "No, I am going to call you by the pronouns I believe are 'correct' for you" is akin to "No, your legal name is 'Marigold,' and I am going to cal…
It's StackEexchange. Pronouns don't matter. I've never seen a reason for this person pronouns to be used. No one's generalist are topic of conversation, and it's not a a gossip forum, so there is no reason to use third person pronouns to refer to users at all! If this is true, it's damning: > Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an…