22 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 1 '20 at 20:47 history edited Mark Booth CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Nov 6 '19 at 14:46 comment added Mark Booth Incidentally, I am not ignoring einpoklum and LаngLаngС because I have no answer for them, I have chosen to disengage as this kind of 'ganging up' demanding 'evidence' is a primary component of Sealioning harassment, which the Lavendar community has been having to deal with for years. I can only comment on what I saw in the lead up to this situation, I am not a social scientist and have not performed a rigorous analysis. All I know is that people are hurting and I want to help prevent that hurt. Ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Oct 19 '19 at 18:18 comment added LаngLаngС The point @einpoklum makes is a valid one. Who studied this, what's the quantification for that data. Even more important: where did such things happen? On IPS, Parenting, Politics, language related sites etc? That I'd consider quite bad with high probability. In chat? On the other hand, if such a thing ("not again…") should occur on, say SO, Photography, AskUbuntu, etc then I'd like the subquestion addressed: "Why should any of this matter on such a Q&A?" For the latter case I see only vague accusations referencing long deleted stuff. For that, and as a vegan, I ask where's the beef?
Oct 14 '19 at 15:55 history edited Mark Booth CC BY-SA 4.0
added 643 characters in body
Oct 11 '19 at 15:51 comment added einpoklum @MarkBooth: I'm sure some of it happens, but - what is the actual scale of this problem? Are there any statistics? Estimates?
Oct 8 '19 at 19:06 comment added Nij When someone is saying they cannot be disagreed with about something, that's not about being wrong, it's about being uncorrectable even if they are. That's something that can't be accepted in any discussion that is meant to be productive or useful. Being wrong is something that can be dealt with; refusing to accept the possibility is not. @sgf
Oct 8 '19 at 11:27 comment added sgf @Nij if you can find someone honestly arguing that you should, go ahead and shut them down. See, this is exactly the sort of mindset that people like me find so repulsive - the idea that being wrong about touchy issues implies that you should be shut down.
Oct 7 '19 at 10:04 comment added Nij If. Why bring up a marginal case that is often not relevant?
Oct 7 '19 at 9:08 comment added Luis Rico @Nij but assuming bad faith from everyone that disagrees with you isn't helping either. If someone tells you their experience and it turns out to be a misunderstanding, should you not point that out?
Oct 7 '19 at 8:55 comment added Nij When you ask a trans person to tell you about their experience, and then argue that they didn't actually experience it, you're not helping, you're harming. You don't have to agree with everything a trans person says, and if you can find someone honestly arguing that you should, go ahead and shut them down. But you're apparently not even trying to understand what they say, let alone do anything useful. So why bother interjecting in the discussion? @LuisRico
Oct 7 '19 at 8:36 comment added Luis Rico People asking about trans issues and then arguing with the responses they get from trans people or their allies. People disagreeing with you is an issue? Should everyone agree with trans people on everything?
Oct 4 '19 at 11:35 comment added Mark Booth Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it isn't happening. I may not be seeing a given problem because it isn't there, or because I don't recognise or notice it when it occurs or I may be ignoring it because I don't understand it or actively believe it is wrong or not a problem. I may not even remember seeing something because of my own implicit/unconscious bias or even my own acknowledged biases and prejudices. If you don't believe using 'he' as a 'gender neutral' pronoun is exclusionary and sexist, for instance, then you won't notice when it happens.
Oct 4 '19 at 8:37 comment added einpoklum "These issues have been going on for years" - in some parts of some sites. See @nvoigt's answer; some of us absolutely do not see any of this occurring, and it seems to us like the neighbors next door dragging us into their domestic disputes.
Oct 3 '19 at 15:03 comment added user212646 I can't say I see it either. In chat, anything happens, but that's not on site. Basic consideration and respect already applies in chat. If this is about being referred to by the generic "he", frankly, it seems a bit silly. On site; answering, asking, and commenting; nothing about your person is relevant and it almost never comes up. If you're a she or something else and it truly bothers you, and somehow it doesn't feel weird and irrelevant to correct people on it, go ahead and inform us. I seriously doubt more than a handful of users will intentionally "misgender".
Oct 1 '19 at 11:28 comment added Mark Booth I agree @GeorgeStocker which is why I have tried to be careful with my answer. There are other points I would have liked to have made, but which would probably have gone beyond what is considered acceptable.
Oct 1 '19 at 11:26 comment added George Stocker The major problem we have in being able to communicate these issues is that it’s not clear where the line is for talking about what happens in the TL and other private spaces. Therefore we default to vague or no statements, while those that resigned are free to say whatever they want, without recourse.
Oct 1 '19 at 10:16 comment added Trilarion Unconscious/implicit bias is actually what I was looking for. Thanks for mentioning it. English is not my mother language.
Oct 1 '19 at 10:09 comment added Mark Booth Thanks for the clarification @Trilarion, I've never seen it called latent bias before, though I can see how that might work as well as unconscious or implicit bias, which are the terms I've mostly seen used.
Oct 1 '19 at 9:41 comment added Trilarion I meant latent bias, because it's not obvious on first glance. People might not even be aware that they have a bias themselves or the bias might be small but noticeable. Something that lurks under the surface usually but comes out from time to time. I think that it would be worth quantifying it, but it would also be very difficult to do so. I try not to be blind cognitively, but still I could not really say if this happens often or rather seldomly.
Oct 1 '19 at 9:00 comment added Mark Booth As I said, this has been going on for years, and unless you have some reason to, you may not even notice it. It's a kind of cognitive blindness which appears to come from our unconscious biases. I'm not sure what you mean by latent denunciation though, you'll have to explain that.
Oct 1 '19 at 8:51 comment added Trilarion These are very good points for some kind of latent denunciation, although I have to say that from my experience I cannot remember to ever have seen such cases. I guess either they do not happen that often or the moderators are quite quick in cleaning them up or I'm not paying enough attention. It would probably be difficult to quantitatively estimate the intensity of such remarks although without we can never be sure if we really improve or not.
Oct 1 '19 at 8:08 history answered Mark Booth CC BY-SA 4.0