3 ms·
> “Same way you prove someone is posting maliciously in any other context -- you make a judgement call based on history?“ Since when is that the evidenciary st
by mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “Same way you prove someone is posting maliciously in any other context -- you make a judgement call based on history?“
Since when is that the evidenciary standard for making a decision like this? At the very least that certainly doesn’t seem in line with Stack Overflow’s policy (which favors assuming positive intent and working to rectify before punishment), so seems implausible in that specific case. More generally, “make a judgment call based on history” sounds like a recipe for huge abuses of power and double standards in applying the policy. Instead you need clear guidelines on exactly what it means (which seems near impossible in this case.)
> “People who care about having the correct pronoun used will either gently correct you or have their pronouns in their profiles.”
There are a lot of problems with this. For one, it assumes you can identify “people who care” and removes the possibility of people who might care but don’t speak up for any variety of reasons.
More importantly though, without a clear policy on the first part, then writing something which presents any way in which someone can “gently correct you” may already be a violation of the code of conduct, or could selectively be treated as such, with no hard guidelines by which someone could defend themselves as having made an honest mistake.
Going further, a lot of the discussion in the SO meta posts seemed to be around the idea that pursuing a gender-neutral writing style that structures language so as to not need any type of pronoun reference was itself a form of misgendering or disrespect. It’s not fully clear, but there’s significant reason to think the people lobbying for the SO policy were trying to say that you both have to write using pronouns and also have to know and use the correct pronouns, and that any other type of behavior would potentially be considered a violation.
- Pfhreak 7y ago> Since when is that the evidenciary standard for making a decision like this? Since internet forums were a thing? Actually, since law was a thing? There's always a human in the loop, and the human is always making a judgement call. In some cases there's a lot at stake, at other times there's very little. But ultimately people look at the guidelines, look at the history, and make a decision with the best info they have. > More importantly though, without a clear policy on the first part, then writing something which presents any way in which someone can “gently correct you” may already be a violation of the code of conduct, or could selectively be treated as such, with no hard guidelines by which someone could defend themselves as having made an honest mistake. You are arguing a problem that doesn't exist in practice. I use singular they. I sometimes include it my profiles online, in other places I don't. If someone gets it wrong and it bothers me I'll say, "Hey, no big deal, but I use singular they." I get one of two outcomes -- either a bunch of downvotes and insults, or a "Whoops, my bad" response. And we all move on.