4 ms·

It is actually relevant in this case because the text portraits defensive communication as bad, and this editing stance fits the bill. In fact the current state

by afh1 2y ago

It is actually relevant in this case because the text portraits defensive communication as bad, and this editing stance fits the bill. In fact the current state of political speech in the west puts everyone in defense, such as with this kind of crap. Anyway a great read, it applies to various contexts, from work and family to politics and online discourse.

pvg 2y ago
It is actually relevant I call this the 'everything is related to everything somehow' truism - sure, you can make the case for almost any comment or submission but it's not some universal beat-the-forum-conventions cheat code. Could one write some sort of reasonable comment critiquing this edit? Maybe. But generic, reflexive harumphing is not that and tends to trash threads which is one of the many reasons it's discouraged.
- tolerance 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pvg 2y ago
    Appealing to the rule books is a lazy way to avoid discussion This is the entirety of the comment we are discussing: "Edited only to reduce gender-specific references". Really? Effectively it just says ‘Really?’. This is neither discussion nor evidence of any effort to engage in one so if these things matter to you, you might be better off bringing them to the attention of the author of that comment.
    - tolerance 2y ago
      Yeah, and in spite of that comment people are trying to offer a line of discussion that is in conformity to the guidelines you cited. But it looks like you're more interested in policing the discussion according to guidelines than engaging in the discussion after people get hip to your policing. At this point, I'm doubtful if you even tried to read the article that we're talking about because this exchange is starting to feel like a dramatic meta-demonstration of the subject matter (defensive communication) and the community's response to the subject matter (the editor's perceived ignorance of how their changes contribute to defensive behaviors) and I don't think that you are primed to appreciate the success of this achievement.

by afh1 2y ago

pvg 2y ago

It is actually relevant I call this the 'everything is related to everything somehow' truism - sure, you can make the case for almost any comment or submission but it's not some universal beat-the-forum-conventions cheat code. Could one write some sort of reasonable comment critiquing this edit? Maybe. But generic, reflexive harumphing is not that and tends to trash threads which is one of the many reasons it's discouraged.

tolerance 2y ago
[flagged]
- pvg 2y ago
  Appealing to the rule books is a lazy way to avoid discussion This is the entirety of the comment we are discussing: "Edited only to reduce gender-specific references". Really? Effectively it just says ‘Really?’. This is neither discussion nor evidence of any effort to engage in one so if these things matter to you, you might be better off bringing them to the attention of the author of that comment.
  - tolerance 2y ago
    Yeah, and in spite of that comment people are trying to offer a line of discussion that is in conformity to the guidelines you cited. But it looks like you're more interested in policing the discussion according to guidelines than engaging in the discussion after people get hip to your policing. At this point, I'm doubtful if you even tried to read the article that we're talking about because this exchange is starting to feel like a dramatic meta-demonstration of the subject matter (defensive communication) and the community's response to the subject matter (the editor's perceived ignorance of how their changes contribute to defensive behaviors) and I don't think that you are primed to appreciate the success of this achievement.