3 ms·

'Problematic' is such a fantastic word. Labelling a person, in whole, as 'problematic' but we're the nice and inclusive ones.

zxzax 5y ago
For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. If you find your behavior is causing problems for people, you can change that behavior (I encourage all employees/owners with a commitment to problem-solving to do this). For two, when the word is used in the context of inclusivity, usually the problem is that someone is behaving in a way that's exclusionary -- it's not being nice to encourage them to continue that behavior.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Labelling someone problematic is super exclusionary. Usually more so than the 'problematic' behavior. Take a step back and it's cliques all the way down.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    That's putting the cart before the horse -- in that context you would only see it used when the person's behavior already is super exclusionary. It's specifically used to describe that exclusionary behavior that has already happened. Of course people can get it mixed up but that's the job of the people doing the community management to make sure that doesn't happen.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      The comment I responded to said "how problematic they were" -- not "they were being". And it was about a case where a funny names list had circulated, the founders said "yeah, don't do that" but then objected to holocaust references in the reaction to it. This was extremely 'problematic' -- not the references, the objection to them. So, exclusionary to whom? Some people might value not dragging the dead into a dumb debate about a funny names list. It's not unreasonable.
      - zxzax 5y ago
        I didn't make that comment, I agree that comment could have been worded better. I'm assuming by the use of past tense they didn't mean to suggest that they are inherently problematic for life. Edit: I don't have any additional comments on this particular happening, I believe there was several other HN threads with more than 1000 comments where this was discussed extensively.
        refenestrator 5y ago
        But even the actual disagreement they had at Basecamp was small fry, angels on the head of a pin level stuff. Would you break out 'problematic' to describe that? How small is the circle of non problematic people?
        zxzax 5y ago
        You would probably see people using it any time a lot of people feel alienated by the behavior. Usually I see good community managers as people who go out of their way to be agreeable to the whole community, helping to reach common ground and consensus. That's their job, to solve those people problems. The size of the circle is whatever your community defines it to be, for some communities it's obviously easier to find consensus than for others. Example from the reddit post: Linux people seem to be fine with both GPL and BSD license, but BSD people seem to view GPL as problematic. So practically speaking it seems it can be easier to reach consensus in Linux, around some particular code licensing issues anyway (Please don't start a flamewar about this, I personally don't take any sides here when it comes to licensing).
        refenestrator 5y ago
        I appreciate your earnest engagement here. I think 'problematic' when discussing legal terms of a license is a lot less loaded than 'problematic' about a person, or personal behavior if we want to narrow that down. It raises questions of who gets first right to be alienated. And do we credit their alienation. If I said I feel alienated by the constant social justice signalling, do I get credit for my alienation? Or do I get the stinkeye and maybe fired?
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. They're literally responding to: > Good people don’t wanna work with problematic people. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27169569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27169569)
ksec 5y ago
Evil are created by those who felt themselves as so righteous. - Me

zxzax 5y ago

For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. If you find your behavior is causing problems for people, you can change that behavior (I encourage all employees/owners with a commitment to problem-solving to do this). For two, when the word is used in the context of inclusivity, usually the problem is that someone is behaving in a way that's exclusionary -- it's not being nice to encourage them to continue that behavior.

refenestrator 5y ago
Labelling someone problematic is super exclusionary. Usually more so than the 'problematic' behavior. Take a step back and it's cliques all the way down.
- zxzax 5y ago
  That's putting the cart before the horse -- in that context you would only see it used when the person's behavior already is super exclusionary. It's specifically used to describe that exclusionary behavior that has already happened. Of course people can get it mixed up but that's the job of the people doing the community management to make sure that doesn't happen.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    The comment I responded to said "how problematic they were" -- not "they were being". And it was about a case where a funny names list had circulated, the founders said "yeah, don't do that" but then objected to holocaust references in the reaction to it. This was extremely 'problematic' -- not the references, the objection to them. So, exclusionary to whom? Some people might value not dragging the dead into a dumb debate about a funny names list. It's not unreasonable.
    - zxzax 5y ago
      I didn't make that comment, I agree that comment could have been worded better. I'm assuming by the use of past tense they didn't mean to suggest that they are inherently problematic for life. Edit: I don't have any additional comments on this particular happening, I believe there was several other HN threads with more than 1000 comments where this was discussed extensively.
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        But even the actual disagreement they had at Basecamp was small fry, angels on the head of a pin level stuff. Would you break out 'problematic' to describe that? How small is the circle of non problematic people?
        zxzax 5y ago
        You would probably see people using it any time a lot of people feel alienated by the behavior. Usually I see good community managers as people who go out of their way to be agreeable to the whole community, helping to reach common ground and consensus. That's their job, to solve those people problems. The size of the circle is whatever your community defines it to be, for some communities it's obviously easier to find consensus than for others. Example from the reddit post: Linux people seem to be fine with both GPL and BSD license, but BSD people seem to view GPL as problematic. So practically speaking it seems it can be easier to reach consensus in Linux, around some particular code licensing issues anyway (Please don't start a flamewar about this, I personally don't take any sides here when it comes to licensing).
        refenestrator 5y ago
        I appreciate your earnest engagement here. I think 'problematic' when discussing legal terms of a license is a lot less loaded than 'problematic' about a person, or personal behavior if we want to narrow that down. It raises questions of who gets first right to be alienated. And do we credit their alienation. If I said I feel alienated by the constant social justice signalling, do I get credit for my alienation? Or do I get the stinkeye and maybe fired?
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. They're literally responding to: > Good people don’t wanna work with problematic people. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27169569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27169569)

ksec 5y ago

Evil are created by those who felt themselves as so righteous. - Me