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

421–430 of 444 posts

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#421

Post by AgentME »

odkamkfn wrote: post #415
AgentME wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The obvious interpretation of "'Keeping your identity small' has certainly gone out of fashion." in this context seems to me to be "caring about pronouns is a big identity; people should have smaller identities than that".

That's not necessarily saying people shouldn't be trans. The charitable reading [aside below] is that it could be saying that if they're trans, they should still expect to be disrespected and we should be fine with that.

I think that there are respectful ways to make that point. What are the exact limits to how much respect we should be expected to extend to people who defy our preconceptions of society? The line exists somewhere. But that kind of conversation should be approached with care and clarity. To just hint at that point doesn't imply a nuanced view, but implies a general disrespect to a lot of the hard-won acceptance of LGBT people.

Aside: I don't think I'm wrong calling it a charitable reading. Charity doesn't mean I'm going to think endlessly until I find a non-offensive thing it could mean; I'm still going to weight my reading by how I expect most people to have read it. Ultimately I'm publicly arguing against what other people are reading, not the intention that exists privately in the writer's mind. Even if the author just happened to think now was a good time to remind people they should avoid Ruby vs Python holy wars, it's little use for me to read it as that and respond to that if no one else is reading it that way. If people really think the critics' reading (that the critics have explained) is so off-base, there's been plenty of time by now for them and others to elaborate on whatever the intended reading really was.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#422

Post by odkamkfn »

AgentME wrote: post #421
odkamkfn wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The obvious interpretation of "'Keeping your identity small' has certainly gone out of fashion." in this context seems to me to be "caring about pronouns is a big identity; people should have smaller identities than that". That's not necessarily saying people shouldn't be trans. The charitable reading [aside below] is that it could be saying that if they're trans, they should still expect to be disrespected and we sh…

I'd put it like this: "Caring about pronouns to the point where you attack someone who, for stylistic reasons, chooses not to use any pronouns at all, on a site dedicated to answering questions from almost entirely anonymous people... is a big identity; people should have smaller identities than that."

You are obscuring the details of the case to make your case and you should be ashamed.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#423

Post by brandmeyer »

beerandt wrote: post #374
brandmeyer wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also did this at 6 pm on a Friday. She's Jewish. In fairness, there really isn't a good time to fire someone. I would normally think that the end of the work week is one of the least bad times to fire someone.

Agreed, but I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of being expected to be sensitive to the personal beliefs / self-identity of the person you're addressing. The very principle they "fired" her for. Edit: Also, even if that's the best time, you should ensure you make personal contact, and not just do the equivalent of a ghosting.

No, I agree. There is a minimum level of etiquette that should be followed when terminating someone, even if it is for cause, and even if they are a volunteer.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#424

Post by Gibbon1 »

beerandt wrote: post #184
sesuximo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the real issue here is not pronouns per se but rather it is SO's behavior in response (firing, ghosting, inconsistency).

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?

> if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way?

Because no one sane can keep up outside of a small personal group of friends.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#425

Post by mthoms »

anon12345690 wrote: post #403
mthoms wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you do us all a favour? Please stop incorrectly stating that the problem is with pronouns in general. It's been pointed out many, many times. The point of contention here deals with one person intentionally refusing to use the pronoun someone else has requested when addressing them . Notice the emphasis on the words "intentional" and "them". (To be clear, this comment in no way meant to justify S.O.'s horrendous…

no, because the problem is with pronouns theres nobody specific in the story. nobody requested a pronoun. if it was that simple then why would any of this happen? its cause this is about pronouns being a problem and people wanting to edit everything to be gender neutral to cater to the perpetually outraged

You're plainly wrong. According to the "fired" mod herself, the issue is centered on SO's (soon to be introduced) policy of using preferred pronouns.

See https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html

> the company is changing the CoC to require use of preferred pronouns

In other words, it's a policy whereby an individual may request to be addressed a certain way, and that request must be honoured.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

It sounds like you're the one generating false outrage.

NB: It's not exactly clear how/if she violated anything, in fact, it sounds to me like she did nothing wrong. But that's not the point I'm making: The point is that everything stems from this new policy.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#426

Post by mcv »

fenomas wrote: post #376
mcv wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer with the most upvotes still gets shown. The problem is that much later answers that are more correct with later technologies, don't gather enough upvotes to make it to the front of the pack, so they get ignored. Allowing duplicate questions, at least after some time, could fix this problem.

Yep - in fact it would make more sense to me if SO not only allowed duplicate questions, but also added a decay such that even highly-rated Q/A pairs would eventually get overtaken by newer content. Questions and answers just aren't evergreen things that one can expect to last through the ages. And even if they were, treating them as such means that SO's new users generally can't contribute anything. I find SO's curr…

Maybe something like what HN does. From what I understand, recent things get shown higher here than older things. Older things need more upvotes to keep up. Probably something like votes/age or something.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#427

Post by mcv »

anon12345690 wrote: post #405
mcv wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously shouldn't be (and aren't) getting fired or jailed for being in whatever percentage of the population. But if people are going out of their way to hurt a minority, then something needs to be done to stop it. That's what those laws and HR classes should be addressing. And if that's the thing you intend to be fighting, then yes, you've got a fight. But this shouldn't be a fight. Respecting people for their…

define hurt. you cant just make up rules. people can say whatever they want. its free speech and its important. and are you seriously ignoring all the people who do get fired and jailed? lol wait till it happens to you i find your comment offensive so youre banned for life from the internet. is that what you want? or should my offense be my own problem? ill let you figure out which one is better

> "define hurt."

In this context, intentionally denying people their identity. Those bathroom bills that force people to use the wrong bathroom, for example. But anyone who insists on calling a transgender woman "he" or a transgender man "she", even after having been corrected, is intentionally hurting them. It's intentionally being an asshole to someone.

> "you cant just make up rules."

We can do. Hopefully after some careful deliberation, or you end up with stupid rules like those bathroom bills, but yes, rules get made all the time.

That doesn't mean we should legislate everything. We can't and shouldn't. But what should and shouldn't get legislated, or captured in less formal community rules, is an ongoing discussion.

> "and are you seriously ignoring all the people who do get fired and jailed? lol wait till it happens to you"

I'm not. Lots of people are indeed getting fired and jailed for being LBGTQ, belonging to the wrong minority, etc. But nobody is getting fired or jailed for belonging to a demographic that is 99.9% of the population.

> "i find your comment offensive so youre banned for life from the internet."

There's a massive difference between accidentally offending someone, and going out of your way to offend. I'm addressing the latter. If we manage to address that, it becomes easier to assume that the offenses we do experience were not intentional.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#428

Post by prepend »

jolmg wrote: post #139
Buge wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monica wanted to write in a way such that she would never use the words "he", "she", or singular "they". Stack Exchange said it's not OK to write in a restricted way like that, the words must be used.

As I understood it, Stack Exchange didn't say anything. They just fired her for asking.

They said that by firing her.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#429

Post by mcv »

beerandt wrote: post #368
mcv wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the reason that some people are so insistent on preferred pronouns, is a backlash against people who insist on misgendering them. They've had to fight for every shred of recognition. This could have been a complete non-issue if there hadn't been so much stubborn hate and disrespect towards transgender and non-binary people. A single case of misgendering would be easy to take as an honest mistake if it wasn'…

I get that, and sort of sympathized at one point. But for one thing, if you're not allowed to avoid the controversy except by not speaking at all, then the hands been overplayed. Personally, I always try to draw the line from a natural rights approach. If one "right" requires the infringement of the rights of someone else, then it's not really a natural right. If your personal belief requires me to have a certain per…

I mostly agree with you. There's two extremes in this: restricting speech because it's impossible not to offend someone, and intentionally offending someone. I think both are bad. I think the best way forward is a good faith best effort. Try not to misgender someone, but if that means you avoid gendered pronouns in general, and not just to single out transgender people, then that should certainly be fine. And when you get it wrong, correct yourself. At the same time, it's pointless to condemn someone for getting it wrong; mistakes happen. But it would be nice if they're just honest mistakes, and not people intentionally trying to misgender people.

So yeah, we need some balance. You can't expect to never ever get offended, but at the same time, we should be trying to accept people who are different.

The comparison with racists doesn't quite work, as they're defined specifically by not accepting people who are different in a specific way. Of course they'd like to see that normalised, but at the same time they oppose the normalisation of others who are not hurting anyone in any way, and that's something that needs to be called out. But transgender people just want to be themselves, not hurt anyone, and not get hurt by anyone. And I think the reason they overreact is because they get hurt so much. I think you and I would react much the same way if we were constantly under attack merely for being ourselves.

Re: Dear Stack Exchange, Inc.

#430

Post by beerandt »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #424
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?

> if gender is truly a fluid, to-be-perceived, non-biological construct, then why shouldn't we treat it the same way? Because no one sane can keep up outside of a small personal group of friends.

That's what I'm saying. Pronouns (of all types, not just gender) should convey the speakers perception and intent, so there's nothing to keep track of. Think of vous/tu or thou/you. If you have kids, it's the difference between saying to your spouse "our kid drew all by himself" and "your kid drew on the wall". The pronoun selection conveys meaning perceived by the speaker, and not always the literal categorical noun substitution. But it's for the speaker to decide.
Post reply on HN