7 ms·

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homo

by Zikes 12y ago

The ban on debates is particularly jarring. I get the idea, a debate could easily turn into a heated argument, but if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".

mcguire 12y ago
"...someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not" It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are. [Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]
davorak 12y ago
> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect. > if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general. It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.
- mcguire 12y ago
  >> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. >That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification.... Only if such is not going to interfere with the current discussion, instruction, or other activity, which presumably represents what you are all there for, at that time. Which might be the reason for banning debates: "Take it offline."
beering 12y ago
Perhaps not the most subtle example: I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral. If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.
- Zikes 12y ago
  You can manufacture as many straw-man examples as you like, but it won't matter. My comment did not say that I said anything specific or anything that could or should be construed as offensive. Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong, that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional distress? Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers? My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-confrontational. "No, it wasn't."
- wmj 12y ago
  > Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot Would you? Let's test it. Your whole comment is a subtle -ism because I say so. Apologize for it and retract it immediately.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
thumbtackthief 12y ago
Is there a chance you said something that others would consider homophobic or sexist when that's not what you intended? Is there a chance others could have a different interpretation of your casual remarks?
- Zikes 12y ago
  Is there a chance? Certainly. Should we let everyone's internalized emotional damage be projected onto society at large? Certainly not. If we're going to let everyone interpret our words however they wish, then the entire concept of language becomes meaningless.
  - thumbtackthief 12y ago
    Personally, I want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. If the offense was unintentional, I then can decide whether saying that thing was important enough to me to warrant upsetting someone else. Maybe it was. Usually it's not. I suppose some people might prefer living in a bubble where they never have to think about how what they say impacts other people, but I was glad to go to Hacker School where that wasn't the case.
    - Zikes 12y ago
      I would also want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. It gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate my words, and reply accordingly. The reply might be "oops, sorry", or it might be "no, it wasn't." Thats the argument here. If further debate or discussion were necessary following that exchange, I would welcome it, but "oops, sorry" cannot and should not be the default because it assumes that whomever takes the defensive first is always in the right, and that is its own "bubble" worth worrying about.
      - thumbtackthief 12y ago
        Again, the 'no debate' is more two-pronged: 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible, and 2) Keep the debate private, as opposed to long threads on the HS boards that just deteriorate into this. The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought she was being a little sensitive; _however_ I'll still be more careful in the future. Whether or not I agree that she should have been offended is irrelevant: I said something that offended her, she seems like a nice enough person, and making that tiny switch in my language was a small-enough sacrifice that I was happy to err on the side of caution.
ibejoeb 12y ago
Now we watch as the debate happens here by throwaway proxy. I'm certainly not going to attend HS, so do what you want, I suppose. I probably won't be hiring anyone who comes out of the program, either. I can't imagine interacting with a product of this environment. So conditioned to avoid not just confrontation but plain discourse. This is a social lobotomy.
- thumbtackthief 12y ago
  It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.
  - ibejoeb 12y ago
    I'm going after the debate embargo. I don't think it's good for business. I choose not to embrace it. I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity. I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.
    - thumbtackthief 12y ago
      "After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels." I don't see anything wrong with keeping such discussions private. Especially when you are dealing with a minority standing up for himself or herself, keeping it to one-on-one instead of having to face off against a squadron of privileged people who for the first time in history are being asked to acknowledge viewpoints other than their own seems like a decent idea to me.
      - wmj 12y ago
        If a false allegation has been made publicly, then it must be debunked publicly as well. Otherwise, it remains as such in people's minds. It's both illegal and immoral.

by Zikes 12y ago

mcguire 12y ago

"...someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not" It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are. [Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]

davorak 12y ago

> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect. > if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general. It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.

mcguire 12y ago
>> The ban on debates is particularly jarring. >That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification.... Only if such is not going to interfere with the current discussion, instruction, or other activity, which presumably represents what you are all there for, at that time. Which might be the reason for banning debates: "Take it offline."

beering 12y ago

Perhaps not the most subtle example: I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral. If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.

Zikes 12y ago
You can manufacture as many straw-man examples as you like, but it won't matter. My comment did not say that I said anything specific or anything that could or should be construed as offensive. Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong, that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional distress? Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers? My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-confrontational. "No, it wasn't."
wmj 12y ago
> Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot Would you? Let's test it. Your whole comment is a subtle -ism because I say so. Apologize for it and retract it immediately.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

thumbtackthief 12y ago

Is there a chance you said something that others would consider homophobic or sexist when that's not what you intended? Is there a chance others could have a different interpretation of your casual remarks?

Zikes 12y ago
Is there a chance? Certainly. Should we let everyone's internalized emotional damage be projected onto society at large? Certainly not. If we're going to let everyone interpret our words however they wish, then the entire concept of language becomes meaningless.
- thumbtackthief 12y ago
  Personally, I want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. If the offense was unintentional, I then can decide whether saying that thing was important enough to me to warrant upsetting someone else. Maybe it was. Usually it's not. I suppose some people might prefer living in a bubble where they never have to think about how what they say impacts other people, but I was glad to go to Hacker School where that wasn't the case.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    I would also want someone to tell me if I've said something offensive. It gives me an opportunity to re-evaluate my words, and reply accordingly. The reply might be "oops, sorry", or it might be "no, it wasn't." Thats the argument here. If further debate or discussion were necessary following that exchange, I would welcome it, but "oops, sorry" cannot and should not be the default because it assumes that whomever takes the defensive first is always in the right, and that is its own "bubble" worth worrying about.
    - thumbtackthief 12y ago
      Again, the 'no debate' is more two-pronged: 1) No need to defend yourself, because no one is saying you're terrible, and 2) Keep the debate private, as opposed to long threads on the HS boards that just deteriorate into this. The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought she was being a little sensitive; _however_ I'll still be more careful in the future. Whether or not I agree that she should have been offended is irrelevant: I said something that offended her, she seems like a nice enough person, and making that tiny switch in my language was a small-enough sacrifice that I was happy to err on the side of caution.

ibejoeb 12y ago

Now we watch as the debate happens here by throwaway proxy. I'm certainly not going to attend HS, so do what you want, I suppose. I probably won't be hiring anyone who comes out of the program, either. I can't imagine interacting with a product of this environment. So conditioned to avoid not just confrontation but plain discourse. This is a social lobotomy.

thumbtackthief 12y ago
It's 'conditioning' to be polite and think about what you say. It's sad that you think that's a negative.
- ibejoeb 12y ago
  I'm going after the debate embargo. I don't think it's good for business. I choose not to embrace it. I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity. I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.
  - thumbtackthief 12y ago
    "After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels." I don't see anything wrong with keeping such discussions private. Especially when you are dealing with a minority standing up for himself or herself, keeping it to one-on-one instead of having to face off against a squadron of privileged people who for the first time in history are being asked to acknowledge viewpoints other than their own seems like a decent idea to me.
    - wmj 12y ago
      If a false allegation has been made publicly, then it must be debunked publicly as well. Otherwise, it remains as such in people's minds. It's both illegal and immoral.