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

Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

dearstackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 444 posts

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#411

Post by AgentME »

odkamkfn wrote: post #145
dwaltrip wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads as a blasé swipe at LGBTQ+ attempts to achieve equal rights, societal acceptance, and common decency from others. I'm guessing that's not what you intended? Disclaimer: I don't have a strong opinion about the specifics of the stackexchange case. Without knowing all of the details, it seems the actions and new policy was a bit extreme and will do more harm than good.

Really? You got all that from "Keeping your identity small has certainly gone out of fashion"? How? This is a serious question, I absolutely have no idea how you're getting from point A to B here.

On a topic about pronouns, is "trans identity" not the obvious meaning/aspect of "identity" here? Yes, I know the PG essay. The PG essay is great when applied to not thinking of yourself as a "X programming language developer" so you don't get too caught up in language wars that really don't matter as much as they feel like, but it's pretty offensive to use it to argue against identifying as LGBT.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#412

Post by sammy_bam »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #23
fenwick67 wrote: post #7

I would love a nice couple paragraphs that said "here's what happened", otherwise taking any side in this is just taking shots in the dark, I'm basically reading "certain events happened with a certain individual and that's not okay"

If you're not aware of the drama, then it really isn't meant for you. The following threads have some background (and dang has linked a few more threads leading up to these): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21175225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 The tl;dr (but still pretty long) is that Stack Overflow instituted a new Code of Conduct that required the use of a person's [preferred] pronouns. This…

I refuse to use pronouns for people outside the binary and I'll only use the pronouns they have claimed.

I think this is a state and corporate power issue. I have never in my life been compelled to say certain words or risk losing my professional reputation, access to SO and more, but I can't, in good conscience, participate in this Orwellian social experiment I have never been asked my opinion of and for which, even the slightest deviation from the company line earns one virtual persona non grata status.

I'll use 'they' and be done with it.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#413

Post by sammy_bam »

sammy_bam wrote: post #412
parsimo2010 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not aware of the drama, then it really isn't meant for you. The following threads have some background (and dang has linked a few more threads leading up to these): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21175225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 The tl;dr (but still pretty long) is that Stack Overflow instituted a new Code of Conduct that required the use of a person's [preferred] pronouns. This…

I refuse to use pronouns for people outside the binary and I'll only use the pronouns they have claimed. I think this is a state and corporate power issue. I have never in my life been compelled to say certain words or risk losing my professional reputation, access to SO and more, but I can't, in good conscience, participate in this Orwellian social experiment I have never been asked my opinion of and for which, even…

This should read 'the pronouns of the binary identity they are now claiming.'

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#414

Post by AgentME »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #205
beerandt wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pronouns. More generally, it's "I expect you to conform with the way I perceive the world, even if it's not the way you perceive it." The entire point of a pronoun is to convey my perceived relation to the noun. We do it all the time with possessives and formalities; if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way?

Based on Monica Cellio's blogpost ( https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html ), I think what happened is that, last year, she posted saying that she prefers, when possible, to refer to people in ways that don't require using pronouns at all. Later, this was misinterpreted to mean that she refused to use people's requested pronouns, and she was fired from her position. That might have been reasonable if she had actu…

The way she writes about a sharp distinction about a "negative commandment" vs "positive requirement" in the rules here makes it sound like she's really against respecting people's preferred pronouns and looking for a loophole that doesn't require her to do so. I don't have anything against gender-neutral language, but that kind of seemingly-motivated reasoning makes me uncomfortable, and I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing made SE think she was looking for loopholes to get out of respecting the CoC.

If it were a common expression of homophobia to to refer to gay people's husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends as their "roommate", SE made a rule against doing that, and a moderator asked if it would be fine if they always referred to the partners by their full names ... I wouldn't really get the impression that the moderator is trying to follow the spirit of the CoC.

Maybe not every user needs to be on board with the spirit of the CoC, but the moderators that are responsible for enforcing it probably should be.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#415

Post by odkamkfn »

AgentME wrote: post #411
odkamkfn wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You got all that from "Keeping your identity small has certainly gone out of fashion"? How? This is a serious question, I absolutely have no idea how you're getting from point A to B here.

On a topic about pronouns, is "trans identity" not the obvious meaning/aspect of "identity" here? Yes, I know the PG essay. The PG essay is great when applied to not thinking of yourself as a "X programming language developer" so you don't get too caught up in language wars that really don't matter as much as they feel like, but it's pretty offensive to use it to argue against identifying as LGBT.

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing against identifying as LGBT in any of the comments here. Try to be more charitable when reading what other people have to say.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#416

Post by PhasmaFelis »

anon12345690 wrote: post #406
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling people what they want to be called is not "enslaving your speech and thought."

no its not but FORCING people to use those words or be fined or banned or jailed is definitely tyranny

Being required to behave civilly at work is not "tyranny." I don't know where you got "fined or jailed" from.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#417

Post by anon12345690 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #416
anon12345690 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no its not but FORCING people to use those words or be fined or banned or jailed is definitely tyranny

Being required to behave civilly at work is not "tyranny." I don't know where you got "fined or jailed" from.

lol civilly? yea 99.99% of people dont have a problem and get along just fine. whats not civil exactly? oh you mean demanding that literally everyone else treat you special? got it.

heres some articles since i think youre being ignorant on purpose:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-...

https://californiafamily.org/2018/good-news-law-penalizing-m...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-california-law-allows-j...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/california-law-threat...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/23/teacher-acc...

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#418

Post by gowld »

yitchelle wrote: post #206
onetime0001 wrote: post #32

I don’t understand why gender/pronouns is even being discussed. Someone’s personal feelings don’t really have any place in a question/answers site. It’s fine to respect a persons feelings and such when talking to a person but when answering a question or asking the question. The gender/pronoun is irrelevant.

The folks moderating SE are very pedantic about the wording of passages. Once I called SE a "forum", and I was politely told not to call SE a "forum". I would really hate to be a person that is not very fluent in English and trying to interact with SE.

OP is about someone who is extremely fluent in English, an expert in the eyes of the community, who was kicked out pecificaly for the sin of trying to interact with SE in fluent English.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#419

Post by gowld »

puzzledbythis wrote: post #221
Buge wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a mod and employee chat group, they were discussing a new future code of conduct. One element said "You must use people's preferred pronouns if given". A mod (volunteer) (Monica) said "Is it OK if I never use any 3rd person singular pronouns?" She got no answer for a while and was then fired as a mod on Friday at 6pm less than 1 hour before before Shabbat and Rosh Hashana (she is Jewish and a mod of the Jewish Sta…

Could you please help me understand how this relates to Cellio's previous concerns in October 2018 about a problem with Twitter and customer support and moderation? Does that concern ( https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-ta... ) have anything to do with the pronoun code of conduct problem at issue here, or is it totally unrelated other than Cellio's involvement? I have to admit, having read Cell…

The October 2018 incident was the previous round of Twitter warriors harrassing SE into kowtowing to their agenda at the expense of the SE user community.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#420

Post by damnyou »

anon12345690 wrote: post #409
damnyou wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are things you are forced to say in workplaces. For example, you can't act nice towards almost everyone on a team but ignore the only Black person. That's exactly what trans people want, to be given the same respect as everyone else. If you use pronouns for everyone other than the only trans person on the team, they're quite rightly going to be upset.

no youre looking at it backwards. if the only black person on the team kept saying I want you to call me "your majesty" and i ignored them then its not cause theyre black but because theyre unreasonable and demanding from everyone else guess what, easier to dump the unreasonable person. but of course if you cant see people for more than their skin color then youll think its discrimination. i cant help you with that.…

Just standard anti-trans fear mongering then. If you cannot tell the difference between they/them and your majesty then it's hard to take you seriously. I hope I never have to work in the same team as someone with such poor judgement.
Post reply on HN