4 ms·

I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men ha

by jorvi 3y ago

I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. Likewise as said earlier, I understand you have limited time and will. I understand having only X amount of those to spend on each decision. And with your experience, you probably have developed a good intuition for which comments need to be sussed out to preserve the peace. That’s honestly fine with me, just don’t make claims that a decision like that preserves a balanced view of a discussion. That’s where the rub lies for me. > If users break the site guidelines They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines.

dang 3y ago
> I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. I believe you! but what I'm saying is that this had nothing to do with your particular view or with somehow endorsing the other comment as "true" and yours as "false". It would be interesting to take a look at the specific case if you can dig up the link. > They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines. I'd say that's true up to about 30%. There's still a lot of bedrock there. That's on purpose—we want them to be general enough to apply to lots of situations, but not so vague as to apply arbitrarily to anything.
- jorvi 3y ago
  I think we’ll end up talking in circles, if we aren’t already. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond repeatedly and clarifying your perspective!

by jorvi 3y ago

dang 3y ago

> I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. I believe you! but what I'm saying is that this had nothing to do with your particular view or with somehow endorsing the other comment as "true" and yours as "false". It would be interesting to take a look at the specific case if you can dig up the link. > They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines. I'd say that's true up to about 30%. There's still a lot of bedrock there. That's on purpose—we want them to be general enough to apply to lots of situations, but not so vague as to apply arbitrarily to anything.

jorvi 3y ago
I think we’ll end up talking in circles, if we aren’t already. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond repeatedly and clarifying your perspective!