ihatemondays

5 ms·

1.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
Obviously some people didn't understand that this policy would be included in "don't be a dick", otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all this pushback.
2.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ You're still perfectly "allowed" to maliciously misgender people, it'll just get you warned or banned.
3.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
If you don't take part in any conversation that requires use of third party pronouns, then this change doesn't concern you, simple as that. People are making a huge deal out of nothing.
4.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
StackExchange is more than StackOverflow, and StackExchange is more than just the main site. Third party pronouns are widely used in meta and chat.
5.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
And according to the SO 2019 survey, "only" 91.7% of people on SO identify as male (do keep in mind that not everyone who identifies as male uses he/him too), yet most people default off to he/him when referring to other
6.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
> Also, I wonder what happens the first time somebody says their preferred pronoun is "God", or something 127 characters long? or Little Bobby Tables? or...? As they said on the answers... bad faith actions like having a 127 ch
7.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
The FAQ clearly states that if you don't know then you're free to use they/them, and only are required to use their preferred pronouns if you're asked to do so by the person or if you very clearly knew before (say that y
8.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
I don't get the backlash either, I think it's a combination of genuine bigotry and the "nice" feeling of being on the side of everyone. In the end, it does feel weird to upvote a post that is at -700 or to speak positive
9.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
So let them speak, not you. Most people I've seen that are complaining about this are from western countries.
10.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
One of the central ideas that lead SE is "Assume good intent". There's no presumption of malicious intent.
11.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
Article is from 2015, not 2018. Title is incorrect.
12.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
I've literally talked to RMS before about this. Torvalds etc might have such views too at more extreme levels, but RMS definitely has it himself.
13.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
This. And on top of all that, he quite literally voluntarily resigned, it's in the title.
14.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
...sub-human employees? What?
15.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
> If you were both under the age of consent, as is often the case, in many jurisdictions [0], neither of you were able to give consent, and your sex act was technically non-consensual on both sides. This is not just theoretical -- there
16.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
Thanks for the tip, I will gladly lie about who I am by saying that I'm a man, so that I can receive respect for doing the same work I do now.
17.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
> It's also the reason we have an Open Source movement, that being the watered down and more corporately palatable version of Stallman's idealistic vision. If you ever talked with Stallman, read his texts, listened to his talks
18.
by ihatemondays 7y ago
These are preventable risks. We have the technology where this would be a much less likely problem (hexacopters, octocopters, better string for the parachute etc), as many people in this very thread have pointed out. Things Tyson pointed ou