4 ms·
This is a classic example of a publicity stunt based on the awful premise that people should be happy that Stack Overflow isn't more toxic. After all, on some p
by KirinDave 9y ago
This is a classic example of a publicity stunt based on the awful premise that people should be happy that Stack Overflow isn't more toxic. After all, on some places on the internet people openly talk about raping or killing people, so what's a little mean spirit and oppression on a tech help site?
What's more, the author has defined "toxic" in a way that guarantees a negotiation process after results are offered. They can simply sink the discussion by demanding that, "diversity of thought means I need a new Nazi and a hyper conservative anti-lgbt religious person on my panel. Surprise surprise, no one can agree on anything."
I seldom reach for this categorization off the bat, but given that this is a classic anti-debate tactic that I see all the time, I'm going to call it. This entire effort is disingenuous bullshit, and I flagged it hoping to avoid having to see more of this kind of bad logic and bad posting on the Hacker News main page.
- sabarn01 9y agoI think SO has gotten what I would call more rules bound. When I started participating in 09 and there were fun code golf challenges some open discussions etc. Now its very strict questions must be directly answerable no discussion no challenges. I don't understand what people find toxic about it. It just seems to be vague. Maybe I'm not getting something. Its fundamentally a site where people help you for internet points that seems on its basis to be the definition of non toxic.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago"11. An independent panel that both you and I agree upon will define what it means to be “toxic”." I mean, that's about as fair as you can get when it comes to negotiating an agreement on something as subjective as "toxicity".
- KirinDave 9y agoHaving a panel whose members are open and that you could judge before comitting hours of work: that would be fair. Instead you have to come with evidence and then negotiate the panel allowing a potentially disingenuous actor to counter pick your evidence. The way the author worded this challenge demands we consider them an antagonist. Their definition of unacceptable is rape and death threats. Given this fact, we must assume they'd demand judges with similar views. To engage in this challenge genuinely, we are forced to accept the author's absurdly high threshold (10%?! That's a wildfire!) and their absurdly permissive definition of harmless toxicity. I will do neither.
- AcerbicZero 9y agoI agree that having the panel decided in advance would be better, but I don't think that discredits the overall challenge, or the goal. It doesn't say you have to decide the panel make up after you start, so there is no reason to assume you couldn't negotiate that up front. If the author is making unreasonable demands during that negotiation, you've lost at worst an hour or two of time emailing back and forth, and you can write your own article fully discrediting this challenge. I guess my point is that potential for unreasonable demands, doesn't make this challenge any less (or more) valid. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective on this, and your willingness to engage in a discussion of it.
- KirinDave 9y agoI've listed at least 3 things that individually are problematic (predisposition, process, and the arbitrarily high threshold). Putting them together, I see no reason why we SHOULD extend a principle of charity.
- 9y ago
- TedPetrou 9y agoA few things need correcting. I did not claim that people should feel happy on Stack Overflow. My claim is that it is not a toxic wasteland. That is it. I understand people have bad experiences on the site and I hope I can offer some good suggestions to SO on how to improve. Building a straw man around "raping or killing" isn't going to work. Toxicity has a lower threshold and nowhere did I insinuate this was where the threshold was.
- KirinDave 9y agoIf "raping and killing" were not your threshold why did you bring it up?
- ThoAppelsin 9y agoI believe it is just a manner of speech to talk about the extremes to claim the innocence of your defendant. Without such examples, declaring Stack Overflow as a saint would sound dull.
- KirinDave 9y agoHaving seen this exact line of reasoning used to reject varying levels of harassment in a variety of settings, I do not believe this.