An Update to Our Community and an Apology • Hacker News Board

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#271

Post by lesstenseflow » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #151

jodrellblank wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wasn't monica fired for suggesting she used gender neutral pronouns generally? In the comments to the linked question, Monica Cellio says StackOverflow have not told her what parts of the CoC she was violating. I don't think it's public knowledge why she was demodded. (Is 'fired' an appropriate word to use, when Monica wasn't an employee?)

The most direct statement seems to be from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont... > Asked to confirm that Cellio was the moderator in question, a company spokesperson said, "Cellio (she/her) would not use stated pronouns, which violates our current CoC …

Also from that article:

> Cellio, for what it's worth, does not include any preferred pronouns on her Twitter account.

Yet, when they refer to her, Stack Exchange puts pronouns next to her name, clearly against her own “preferences.” It’s like they’re literally forcing onto her an ideology or worldview which they know she does not share.

What bizarre, hypocritical, vindictive behavior from Stack Exchange.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#272

Post by save_ferris » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:06 AM UTC

tenpies wrote: post #181

djsumdog wrote: post #16

-542 before it was locked. That's incredible. People are really really afraid to talk about this particular topic (which they don't mention in the statement), because this type of call-out to be banned happens a lot. The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" is an amazing book that documents how this is happening in academia, and it's happening on the software world too. Most people in our industry, in the US, EU…

> I'd like to think the majority of people just want to live and be kind to each other What you're getting to is the Golden rule in almost all human civilizations: treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is when this rule broke down because the majority's "would like to be treated" became a hate crime to a small, but vociferous, radical contingent of the population.

> the problem is when this rule broke down

When did this rule break down, in your opinion? When has a society ever fully agreed amongst themselves? There’s certainly not a moment in American history that qualifies, and I doubt you’d find much simultaneous global peace in world history too. It’s never really existed.

There’s actually a fairly compelling argument against the golden rule, often referred to as the platinum rule[0].

The problem with the golden rule is that it assumes everyone wants to be treated the same way, because doesn’t everyone else want to be treated the same way I do? Not necessarily.

0: https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/how-the-platinum-rule-trum...

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#273

Post by baggy_trough » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:12 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #270

henrikschroder wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of special pronouns as names. All the etiquette we have surrounding names apply equally to pronouns. It's not expected to remember someone's name if you've only met them briefly, but the more you've interacted with the person, the more embarrassing not remembering their name becomes. Mis-naming someone intentionally, repeatedly, is rude and quickly moves into harassment territory. But the flipside is also true,…

> ...if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember. To the extent that there is any controversy here, it's in this guideline. I'd just soften 'rude' to unreasonable. 1. I have not seen any code of conduct make room for this scenario. It's taken as a given that pronoun preferences are reasonable. 2. Some people think singular 'they' and 't…

You cannot compel people to talk in a certain way. To do so is totalitarian and evil.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#274

Post by otterley » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

tmp20191006cars wrote: post #226

MauranKilom wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether one think it's valid or not, people are hurt and suffer from the actions you suggest. Even if no harm is intended, harm is actively being done. At the same time, there is a limit to the linguistic, religious and/or philosophical concessions that pronoun users can reasonably make. It appears to me that that there is not always a middle ground that satisfies both sides. I (as someone who has no horse in this ra…

I personally concur with the strategy of empathy and courtesy, but others won't, and I don't think that's anywhere close to a good reason to kick them out of civil discussion. But I simply don't buy the "hurt and suffering" argument. Just because someone has a different opinion and expresses it doesn't mean the hearer is hurt and suffering to any degree that has a snowball's chance in hell of overwhelming the right t…

No, no it isn’t. In a private forum, you lose your rights as soon as you walk in the door. The host makes the rules, not you. You stay at their pleasure.

Also, I find it odd to describe lack of empathy and courtesy as “civil discussion.” If anything, it is the opposite of civility.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#275

Post by otterley » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

MauranKilom wrote: post #252

chiefalchemist wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So someone got sacked for using a person's name instead of a pronoun?

No, it's far away from being that simple, and probably too complicated to summarize in a single sentence. For starters, the discussion was about a future CoC change and its theoretical enforcement. The actual allegation is repeated violation of the current CoC, but no warning regarding that was ever handed out. Nobody (not even the mod in question) has been told the exact violation, despite repeated queries.

You don’t need a reason to kick someone out of your house.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#276

Post by otterley » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #61

thelazydogsback wrote: post #56

It's hard to be believe that people who are brave enough to deal with LGBTQIA issues in their own lives and face actual in-your-face challenges would actually give a crap what pronoun someone used on a technical forum, and it seems absurd to regulate such behavior. If I don't want to be a dick and am aware of the preference, then I will try and use the person's preferred pronoun - but I'm certainly not obligated to d…

The problem with forcing compliance is some people are naturally going to want to resist the demand regardless of their personal opinions. I took a technical writing class in college where I attempted to use "they/their" as a gender neutral pronoun. This was not a political statement, I just felt it sounded more natural. The professor objected and gave me a disproportionately poor grade, insisting that I use either "…

What year was this? It sounds like English standards 10-20 years ago. Not sure whether this would recur today.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#277

Post by humanrebar » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

seandougall wrote: post #259

tmp20191006cars wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might I suggest that most people who insist on using pronouns derived from one's biological sex (rather than gender) are not attempting to engage in harassment, but are simply refusing to concede a currently unsettled political and societal question?

Ah, yes, the fabled "biological pronoun". Pronouns are not biological constructs. They don't have chromosomes, genitals, or secondary sex characteristics. They are, by definition, tied to gender. How would life work if pronouns were determined biologically? For example, how would you figure out what pronouns to use to describe me, if we met in person? You'd have to ask me to drop trou immediately after we met, which…

> That's just disingenuous, or at the very least shows that they haven't given it any actual thought.

Or maybe they are thoughtful, caring people that are generally kind but have a different take than you do.

At any rate, your arguments in this thread do not settle the question, even if they were irrefutable. Point being, you just replied to "the issue isn't settled" with an impromptu attempt to finally settle things.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#278

Post by tmp20191006cars » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

damnyou wrote: post #231

tmp20191006cars wrote: post #190

I've never seen a code of conduct that makes calling someone by the wrong first name a bannable offense. So why is it so with pronouns? IMHO it's because this issue is politically unsettled -- it is not universally resolved across society. A fair percentage of people do not accept the concept of transgenderism, and instead see a transgender woman as a mentally ill man (and vice versa). While this issue is politically…

It is completely appropriate to enforce a trans-affirming policy. A view that considers a group of people -- other people that participate on the site -- mentally ill, has no place in workplaces, large-scale online forums and polite society in general.

I'm not among this group we speak of, but I will never accept that view of them. They are not malicious, they are just different, and we should be tolerant of them even if they are not tolerant of transgenders.... in the same way that we are tolerant of Islam even though Islam is not tolerant of women's rights.

I consider them (Christians) to be mentally ill what with all that christian god stuff they preach. Do you therefore think I also have no place in "workplaces, large-scale online forums and polite society in general" because I consider this "group of people -- other people that participate on the site -- mentally ill"?

I think this way leads to a Oberton window that only narrows, like a boa constrictor. I prefer broader thinking and more tolerance for a wider set of views.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#279

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #196

shadowgovt wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have been making an interesting point, but the "preferred pronoun of the week" bit at the end kind of kills it. Have you ever met someone who changes their gender identity weekly, or asks people to use a derivation-free nonsense word to refer to them?

Yes, they proudly call themselves gender-fluid and state that they change pronouns frequently. And many state to use non-existing words as pronouns such as xhy, requiring a mental effort to remember a new word they invented and also to remember to whom that word is associated, so the satire of using blerg as pronoun is spot-on while also offensive to some.

> while also offensive to some

You would think that would be a strong indicator to not do that thing in a public forum conversation, but no accounting for taste, I suppose.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#280

Post by vunie » Sun, Oct 06, 2019, 4:21 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #250

vunie wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be insensitive (and I apologize if it is) but if being referenced by normal pronouns is enough to drive someone to commit suicide (or cause emotional distress), I'd argue that this person is in more need of medical treatment than having his or her quirks pandered to by others. Using a language normally doesn't cause problems for healthy human beings.

"normal pronouns"?

> "normal pronouns"?

What english language speakers normally use when refering to a person, usually based on the perceived gender of said person.