Stackoverflow got a new Code of Conduct, most downvoted post ever


rohezal

rohezal

Advanced Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,712
Most negatively rated FAQ on SO. My comments were deleted. I am happy we have some places without this nonsense. Like this board :).


Q: Do I have to use pronouns I’m unfamiliar or uncomfortable with (e.g., neopronouns like xe, zir, ne... )?

Yes, if those are stated by the individual.

So, what about "bad-faith" pronouns like "attack-helicopter" or "Your grace"? Does one still have to use those pronouns?

How does one determine whether or not a pronoun is "legitimate", especially if they are unfamiliar with it?

Can people just freely invent their own pronouns or is there a list that one should choose from?


https://meta.stackexchange.com/ques...der-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes?cb=1


PS: I have two apprentices which are transgender. In fact I am using the pronoun Person [per (he/she) / pers (his/her)] myself when the sex / gender of a person is unclear. I consider myself a left wing humanist with the core belief that every human has equal rights, each humans life has the same value and every human must be free to live pers life like per chooses too. But this is just religious madness. And it needs to stop.
 
Last edited:
Should the downvoters be considered as haters ?
 
Last edited:
rohezal said:
So, what about "bad-faith" pronouns like "attack-helicopter" or "Your grace"? Does one still have to use those pronouns?
Click to expand...
Why not? Even if someone is being an annoying little shit about it, what does it cost you to use different pronouns where appropriate? How often on stack overflow do you even refer to someone in third person in such a way that you'd need pronouns anyway? 99% of the time when talking about another poster you use their name, or if they were the first poster, OP.
 
I prefer that people on forums do not use any pronoun for me. I don't like people talking about me in the third person when I am also present. It just is rude (although I won't attempt to stop someone doing that).

So I agree, gender pronouns are 99 percent irrelevant in forums. And for that one percent, why does it matter? It's just an indication of respect.
 
I've been called a girl, a guy, a hippie, a nazi, a weirdo and a normie on boards, why people would be offended because of some pronoun eludes me.
 
The problem is, you are not even allowed to avoid pronouns in the new CoC. It is a religious / political statement you are forced to make. That you address the "self choosen identity" instead of the person you are talking too. If you want, we can choose one neutral pronoun and use this for everyone. This is fine for me. But not to force people to address you in a certain way you choose. It is forceful and wrong to force your way of speech on people, it is a sign of a totalitarian movement. Imagine to have address people with their rank in scientology from now on in this board. Would you be comfortable with it?
 
Last edited:
That whole SJW stuff is just bullying under the empathy flag. I'm all for empathy, but against it being abused by bullys. If they hadn't found this convinient and seemingly hard-to-call-out way of conduct, you'd see them run into people and accuse them then of being rude and unattentive and then escalate the situation - the usual/traditional.

Cerbera said:
I identify as an APC, because I like having multiple people inside me at the same time. :)
Click to expand...
Which?
 
There's no such person as an SJW. That's a somewhat perogitive term that I believe doesn't help explain what's happening here in my opinion.

I see two apparently reasonable belief systems that have come into conflict. One position says that people should have the opportunity to state what their preferred pronouns are, which seems reasonable to me*. The other position says he/she pronouns are traditional and aren't broken, which I can understand even if it isn't my position.

I don't think I have much use for gendered** pronouns here, but I do occasionally find myself using them on IRC if talking about the boards. I've used 'they' to refer to people whose gender I can't identify, or who have indicated themselves to be somewhat non-binary.

* It may be reasonable, but I can't see a way of implementing it that isn't clunky, short of Sam Smith's brief twitter post to say they prefer the pronoun 'they'.

** Words don't have gender, they have sex etc. etc.
 
I honestly have no idea, where the term SJW comes from / who coined it. Those referred to by SJW, independent of who refers to them by SJW, are still bullies to me.

Infix-Edit: I talk about two sets now, that may or may not be overlapping.

Someone expecting others to adjust their language according to the former with such high complexity, I deem bordering on - if not full on - narcissistic personality disorder.
 
WizardStan said:
Why not? Even if someone is being an annoying little shit about it, what does it cost you to use different pronouns where appropriate?
Click to expand...

Nothing. I think the issue is accidentally using the wrong pronouns and then the other person getting upset. That is something the trans community seems to have little tolerance for.

We have all probably seen the Gamestop video of the poor employee being berated because he accidentally said "sir" instead of "ma'am."

That kind of thing shouldn't happen. Yet it does, and often.

[doublepost=1570908283,1570908109][/doublepost]
ClockworkCoder said:
I imagine from the so called "alt right"

It's neither an accurate, nor a helpful term.
Click to expand...

Neither is alt right....

PS. Every time I see or hear "xer," I think of Xur and the Kodan Armada from the movie The Last Starfighter. Pretty good 80's movie if you want something to watch.
 
Off-Topic:
This thread so far got me reflecting on that whole SJW, CoC and whatnot business - once again. This time, it dawned on me, why I detest that stuff as intensely as I do.
It makes offense the default. Often enough, one cannot be sure, what was meant by something said. I used to be one, who had a hard time even recognizing the possibility of mal-intent. Though I never fell short of seeing many possible meanings. Being aware, that meaning behind words tends to be ambiguous, should sensibly be the default but isn't. And among those, who only have the capacity to see one meaning behind a given string of words, there are the ones, who's interpretations favour benign intent, and the ones, who rather see offense, whenever the words allow something offensive to be found. I want to call the latter EO for now, easily offended. For the EO crowd offense is the default, i.e. seeing offense, wherever possible. (Not necessarily intentionally, rather by means of behavioural patterns.)

Now, to get rid off all the offense, they see, they concoct their CoCs and fight The Good Fight, whenever given the opportunity - even if the opportunity wasn't given willingly. I think, I fear, and I claim, their CoCs penetrate the brains of their subjects and plant the seed for the EO mindset. I mean the debates alone help everyone to level up their offense recognition skills. And after supposidly getting rid off all and every offensive wording with CoCs, what do you think, how something clumsily phrased will tend to be interpreted. Not by intention but still, that business is reconditioning and spreading the EO mindset.

Offense is the default.

I find that damaging on so many levels. I'm offended by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top