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

An Update to Our Community and an Apology

meta.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 424 posts

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#301

Post by Gibbon1 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #293
michannne wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's…

So let me get this straight: - You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi. - She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?" - You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI." Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die…

> stupid hill to die on

Of late I've been saying not the mole hill I'd choose to die on. Also the question what's in it for me if I'm right? If the answer is 'nothing' we're done here.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#302

Post by [deleted] »

wincy wrote: post #290
stefan_ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they should remove many many more moderators, for no reason other than not doing so risks turning their site and resource into a Wikipedia 2.0, a place where cliquey moderators hang out to discuss their favorite flame bait topics all day, populate gigabytes of meta pages and lash out at unwitting, novel contributors. Wikipedia think a lack of a fancy SPA editor is the reason behind their editor demographics,…

The Thanos plan for fixing StackExchange, really?

[deleted]

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#303

Post by DanBC »

derefr wrote: post #300
DanBC wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> changing social norms affect people on the spectrum, Gender fluidity is much more common among autistic people, so most autistic people handle it just fine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26753812

Sensory processing disorders are common among people on the spectrum; but they do not tend to handle one-another’s (often opposed) disorders well at all, e.g. people who feel a need to stim, vs. people with misophonia who hate the sound people make when clapping their hands against themselves or constantly grunting. Explained more here: https://autofspoons.com/2017/12/02/competing-access-needs/

Sure, "autistic people are all individuals with different views" is something I can agree with, and it's probably more correct than "autistic people cannot cope with using the word 'her' when asked to do so".

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#304

Post by michannne »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #293
michannne wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's…

So let me get this straight: - You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi. - She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?" - You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI." Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die…

> Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right?

No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me , and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#305

Post by [deleted] »

adrianN wrote: post #292
DoreenMichele wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trans individuals and other marginalized people often spend a lot of time online as a kind of safe haven from difficult personal circumstances. People online can be horrible asshats to a degree they wouldn't dare be in person. These two facts tend to collide and go bad places. (This comment is only describing the problem space, not taking sides in an argument.)

As other comments here already described, the gender of the person writing questions or answers on SO shouldn't matter at all. If you really want to avoid all issues with this, just randomize usernames for every topic and mandate gender neutral language. There is no need to use gendered pronouns in the Q/A format.

[deleted]

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#306

Post by garmaine »

jeegsy wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #40

This is sad, but I feel it was an inevitable consequence of allowing religion-orientated stackexchanges to be created in the first place. It's practically inviting a holy war. The people running them would likely be those who care deeply about doctrine, and the chances of a headlong collision over LGBT doctrine were always high.

Allowing? Why would you not allow them in the first place? In any case, there shouldn't be any collisions if they are separate network sites except in the case of fiat decisions from the top.

The nature of SE is that each site has a very specific topic. The SE company approves which sites / topics are allowed. So yes, by consequence of how the system works they would have to explicitly approve a “Christianity”, “Judaism”, “Islam”, etc. stack exchange.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#307

Post by fencepost »

shadowgovt wrote: post #282
xienze wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever met someone who changes their gender identity weekly Isn't that what "gender-fluid" is? > or asks people to use a derivation-free nonsense word to refer to them? Isn't that what pronouns like "xir" are all about? You seem more hung up on "have you personally met someone like that?" than "do these people really exist?" The answer to the latter question is yes, they do.

I felt that the last sentence tag indicated the author was thinking of gender-fluid people as abstractions rather than actual human beings; hence the verify whether they were snarking from experience or just spreading negative stereotypes they have no experience with. I can understand the former; the latter corrodes discourse. And for what it's worth: we're smart people with the ability to attend to the rules of stri…

I felt that the last sentence tag indicated the author was thinking of gender-fluid people as abstractions rather than actual human beings

Fluid as in changing frequently? Maybe, I don't personally know anyone who fits that description and frankly I'd probably be unimpressed by someone with gender swinging like a weather vane.

Nonbinary? Yes, an immediate family member who is also stable in their identification and in a stable long term relationship. Also some folks I've interacted with in professional settings where it's none of my business how they identify.

Also several people from my fairly close circle in college, but it's been long enough since I graduated and everyone scattered that I don't talk much with any of that circle regardless of gender.

My snark was directed more at what sounds like a potentially troublesome change that could add a lot of headaches to what I suspect is already an often thankless volunteer position.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#308

Post by natecavanaugh »

save_ferris wrote: post #272
tenpies wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 platin…

I'll be honest, I don't find the Platinum Rule at all a compelling argument against the Golden Rule. There are many cases of people in power claiming that their behavior is what the other person "really" wants (such as women "really" want to be treated poorly, or the slaves really prefer subservience as it's their destined station in life). And who am I to be able to speak about what someone else wants? It's a full time job enough to figure out what I claim I want, or want in any given moment vs what I truly desire underneath the socially accepted artifice of what I "should" want or want long term. Trying to presume what others want is pointless, IMHO. But I can do a little presumption and say that for the most part, people are pretty similar, and in those cases where I get it wrong, a mea culpa goes a long way to smooth out the differences. Of course, as much as possible, I will try to customize based on what I think the other party may want, but that is fundamentally based upon my following the Golden Rule, and the Platinum Rule is just a refinement on that, not really a fundamental principle I can base my actions upon.

Of course, much of this may be a distinction without a difference in actual application :)

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#309

Post by luckylion »

shkkmo wrote: post #74
luckylion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree on the facts, but neither was there a rule (yet) that says you have to, nor has she done that. She has asked whether it would be against the future CoC not to. No comparison is perfect, but it feels similar to me asking a cop whether it's going to be illegal to do X under the new law that is being discussed, and them arresting and charging me for doing X. Neither is X currently outlawed, nor have I c…

The StackExchange staff did clarify elsewhere that they believe the old CoC prohibits misgendering and that the CoC changes are just meant to clarify the matter. They claim she repeatedly refused to change CoC violations, she claims she was just asking about using gender neutral language. It seems to me that there were likely several misunderstandings that lead to increasingly heated discussion and then the SE staff…

SO leaked some parts of the chat but not the relevant parts, according to a staff member that was in the chat. As the fired moderator asked for evidence, it would be easy for SO to release it. This reeks of a political firing under some pretense.

Misunderstandings have been suggested by the fired moderator as well, with a plea to talk to her. According to her, they haven't been taking her calls and not replied to emails. That's consistent with their public stance, so it seems plausible to me.

My pet theory: it's a "punish one, educate a hundred" move. They chose a respected moderator for a laughable offense to send a clear signal that they won't allow any amount of violation of their new rules and that reputation and contributions do not protect you. Question authority and you're gone, no matter who you are. That this comes a month after the new CEO makes me believe it's the shift to a new policy, one that runs the site not as a community, but as a product to sell to other corporations.

Re: An Update to Our Community and an Apology

#310

Post by mthoms »

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…

>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.

The very definition of "civil" is "courteous and polite" (Oxford).

>The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad

For better or worse, there is no such thing as a "right to express opinions" on a privately owned internet site.

Post reply on HN