Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

20
  • 6
    So where should we draw the line on anti-semetic content, to use your example? I don't think you're arguing that we shouldn't discourage and remove such content, right? If someone believes, as many do, that all Jews are sinners against god and will go to hell, is that an ok thing to post about on SE? They have every right to believe it, but are you really arguing that that kind of content belongs on SE and should remain there?
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 17:59
  • 8
    Depending on the context it may be very important to a discussion to post exactly that. I can't see it ever being appropriate on SO, but there many be other SE sites now or in the future where it's not only allowed but critical to have them. Supposed there were an SE site exploring anti-Semitism? A contrived example I admit, but my point is that the context matters.
    – President James K. Polk
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:02
  • 23
    "You know, I don't even know what 'misgender' means" - that's literally at the heart of this whole issue, I strongly suggest doing some reading before continuing to comment on it.
    – Em C
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:22
  • 21
    @EmC: Looking it up won't help as different people use different meanings of the word. Obviously intentionally using the wrong gender-specific pronoun would be misgendering, but some claim that using a non gender-specific pronoun when they've asked to be referred to with a gender-specific one, or somehow avoiding pronouns completely, is also misgendering.
    – President James K. Polk
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:30
  • 6
    @JamesKPolk There's a lot of different issues here, so we should try to be precise with our arguments. The claim about avoiding pronouns is not that it is misgendering, but that doing so deliberately in order to show your opposition to using someone's requested pronouns is rude, not nice, and disrespectful – ie violations of the old CoC.
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:34
  • 8
    @ScottHannen: Indeed. With so many different philosophies of life around we must expect conflict, not fear it. We should resolve to first try to negotiate a solution to any conflict before taking unilateral action. In doing so we will learn about other belief systems and ideas, and we may may actually throw some of ours away and adapt theirs. It's the marketplace of ideas, don't cut yourself off from it.
    – President James K. Polk
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:36
  • 9
    @divibisan: I don't completely agree. We cannot exclusively leave determinations of rudeness, niceness, and respectfullness in the eyes the aggrieved party. We must also consider the intent of the accused.
    – President James K. Polk
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:40
  • 8
    @JamesKPolk Your point is spot on. A balance in rights and responsibilities of both parties is required in any given interaction between 2 people. And guess what ... the CoC does not provide this balance.
    – dfhwze
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:43
  • 5
    @ScottHannen I really feel like you're creating a strawman here by claiming that people who feel unsafe are doing it just because they don't like disagreement. There is real, respectful debate and disagreement going on here about how the CoC should be written, interpreted, and enforced. No one is claiming that that is making them feel unsafe. What makes people feel unsafe are (the tiny minority of) arguments that disagree with their right to exist. To return to James' example, it's the difference between disagreement on Israel's policy and disagreements on the right for Jews to exist.
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 18:46
  • 5
    @ScottHannen That seems like a bad faith interpretation of the post. The question mentions explicit homophobia, people blaming trans people for this situation, and anger at SE for trying to help trans people. It doesn't say that they feel unsafe because people won't use certain pronouns, they say they feel unsafe because of actual homophobia and personal attacks
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 19:05
  • 4
    @ScottHannen I think the problem is we're mixing 2 different issues. This question isn't about the new CoC – it's about some of the actual hostility and hate that have come up in the course of the debate over the CoC. It's a minority of comments, sure, but it's there.
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 19:08
  • 2
    @ScottHannen The question describes many different reasons they feel unsafe, and you've ignored them all to focus only on the one single example that supports your negative interpretation of the poster. That's what I mean by bad faith
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 19:11
  • 3
    @JamesKPolk My thinking on that is that if SE doesn’t earn back my trust, I wouldn’t trust them with “Be Nice” anymore than the new CoC. And if I trust that they can fairly enforce the rules, then I don’t see the new CoC as more dangerous than the old one. So I see them as separate but related issues, though obviously many disagree with this.
    – divibisan
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 20:49
  • 3
    @SilencedTemporarily “They can, then, choose not to respond to a non-binary person’s question, rather than misgendering them.” Not if it’s because they’re non-binary. This is exactly the same selective disengagement that makes gender-neutral pronouns and even pronoun avoidance so problematic according to the CoC.
    – Stop Being Evil
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 22:56
  • 3
    @JamesReinstateMonicaPolk Definitley capitalize Jew. otherwise it's offensive (Orthodox Jew here). ;-)
    – TheAsh
    Commented Oct 31, 2019 at 7:05