Hm, chat seems like it doesn't reflect changes to my main profile.

@forest i would balance this by noting that she does refuse to use some pronouns. it's not as simple as "she's 100% in the right", though SE did...some really horrible stuff here.

How long do I have to wait for it to sync?

@forest 6-8 weeks

har har

sorry, couldn't resist

@heather Well so what? I'd refuse to use certain pronouns, but I wouldn't be targeting any users. I can write in gender-neutral language if I wish without any pronouns.

@forest so you'd say specifically stating that you refuse to use only one group's (which is often marginalized to begin with) pronouns isn't hurtful?

Monica didn't say "I refuse to call you a she, I will only call you he".

@heather One group? No, I just wouldn't use pronouns that are weird or hard to remember.

But I won't intentionally use the wrong pronouns. I'd just avoid using any pronouns.

sigh. folks, this discussion has been done to death. i've kinda given up telling folks to stop, because it ain't working.

@forest ...i can understand it being difficult to remember sometimes, and even awkward on occasion, like with it/its as pronouns, but you have to remember these are people to whom pronouns are important validators of their identity. i'm not saying you can't write pronoun free sentences.

everyone play nice, everything okay

sorry @ArtOfCode i'll desist if you wish

@ArtOfCode I'll keep it civil. Had no intention of doing otherwise.

everyone not play nice, art kicky finger get to work. this is your only warning

@heather Using it/its as a pronoun for a person feels... wrong. We're people, not things.

@heather your call. As always, any conversation is welcome here if it can be kept civil.

@forest sure, not saying it doesn't. but if that's how a person identifies, who am i to tell them that that's not valid?

Hey forest? This is kinda causing extra drama, and the rest of us haven't had a month to recharge. We have been over and over and over this repeatedly in circles.

Please remember this.

@JourneymanGeek I heard @ArtOfCode's warning, don't worry.

@heather Identifying as an object though?

@forest Identity isn't always gender.

@forest not identifying as an object, just using the pronouns that make that person feel the most comfortable.

language is hard. gender is hard too. sometimes it's just a matter of doing your best to make the two match up in a way that doesn't leave you feeling nauseous and horrible.

@heather Oh so "it/its" was just a hypothetical? I would feel bad referring to someone in a way that's traditionally used for being very insulting, just as I would if someone wanted me to call them "dumbass" or something. I wouldn't feel polite calling them that in public even if they wanted me to.

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man is grammatical uncomfortableness really worth more than uncomfortableness related to one's base identity?

Is it really about grammar though?

@forest not entirely hypothetical; there are people who use it/its. it might make me feel uncomfortable, but i'd use it if it's what it wants.

@forest what is it about here?

i don't know, i'm legitimately asking.

@heather Even if it makes me feel uncomfortable, as people will stare at me (irl) or flame me (online) for being "insulting" or being rude to someone?

@forest some of the discomfort is about grammar

@heather Well for me, I can barely remember if someone is he/she online, much less if they're xe/shi/xhr/pdf/rtf/txt/htm/whatever. Combine that with certain pronouns being uncomfortable to use.

I mean, what if I wanted to be called "your highness". Would you really call me that in public?

@MonicaCellio Whether or not there's any advice on that webpage is your call. The GDSE chat room, The Ink Spot could be a better place to ask for assistance.

@forest ... have you read meta recently

@forest totally been through all this. Repeatedly.

@ArtOfCode Only briefly.

@forest may i suggest Glorfindel's very useful pronoun script?

ya might wanna do that

@heather I don't use userscripts. I just use my brain.

If you're requesting some wierdass pronoun, and we arn't sure you're serious, we'd refer it to mods, then CMs ;p

^

we've done literally all of this discussion so far several times over on meta

If you know you are not serious, we will totally do the needful.

@JourneymanGeek That's not my point. My point is, would you feel comfortable with that pronoun?

e.g. if anyone requests attack helicopter as a pronoun, that's...almost definitely not in good faith.

As in, assume I really, genuinely were serious about being called "your highness".

@forest for me, whether i'm comfortable with it is besides the point.

anyway, i have to go eat dinner; i'll be back.

@forest is that important?

o/

@forest Your highness isn't a pronoun ;)

it is a title.

@JourneymanGeek Well you get my point.

It's his state of mind.

is it important that I'm comfortable using a pronoun? why?

Nope.

@ArtOfCode Same reason it's important to make others comfortable.

I'll do my best to remember if someone is a he or she, but my memory is... not great for that.

conversely, why could i not accept minor discomfort over a tiny linguistic thing in return for making someone else feel not-shit about themselves

Oh of course. Deliberately using a word to upset someone is bad.

seems like a very not-balanced scale

@ArtOfCode Maybe because people would think you are the jerk for using it?

What would you think about me if I referred to someone as "it"? You'd think I hated them.

You'd think I was a hateful person. You'd not want to associate with me.

@forest uh... again, why?

@ArtOfCode Why would someone think you're a jerk for referring to another human being as "it"?

@forest I literally had a friend who seriously preferred it.

I did it anyway.

@forest or i might be a rational person and go "hey any reason you're calling this person it?"

and then you say "yeah cuz they asked me to"

@ArtOfCode I wish I was in a situation where all those around me were rational.

and i go "cool okay guess I'll start doing that too"

Where I live, I could literally get beat up if I called someone "it".

@forest welcome aboard. this is the internet. ain't no punching people here.

On sites I go on (well, some at least), I would get banned for calling someone "it". :P

@forest 4chan?

I wouldn't think they would ban you for anything.

No, on 4chan I could use the n-word and f-word as much as I want and not get banned.

Unlike here ;p

Of course :P

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man For some, it is a minor discomfort, but for others, it's far more extreme. I don't want people to think of me as "that one person who thinks of people as objects".

Cause we have actual standards and rules.

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man i mean... you're not being forced. you're just being told "it'd be great if you would cuz it makes people feel better about themselves... but if you really can't then just don't make it obvious cuz that's also a dick move"

just don't tell people "not gonna use that for you, it's weird"

@JourneymanGeek Well 4chan does too, they're just... different. :D

And we try to treat each other with respect like civilized people

just... don't use it. preferably don't use any pronouns. write gender-neutrally. and get on with life.

If someone says "actually I'm a she", I'm not going to ask them "oh yeah, well do you really have a uterus and XX karyotype or are you actually a dude!?!?!?", I'm going to refer to them as she and make a mental note that they are female. If they say "actually I'm an it", I'll think either they're joking, or they're putting me in a position where I'm going to look like a jerk when referring to them. I'll make a mental note "just call them 'they' or by their name and avoid gendered pronouns".

@forest I had a friend who basically felt it didn't have a gender at all. Not "non binary" (though I didn't know it then), not trans...

Was an aromantic, asexual, agender-identifying person.

I've known a few people like that. I usually refer to them as they (even if I don't really like that), or, preferably, by their name. I do slip up a lot, though, but that's not intentional.

But literally was someone I knew a while and knew was actually serious.

THey didn't like they. Or didn't know

shrug

Or we used its nick some of the time, but not all.

"her" nick? I thought you just said they were non-binary. :P

slip

See, we all slip up.

I am not bloody perfect. I just try

Also, I'm pretty sure most trans people don't like being called "its".

I think this is highly culture-specific, to be honest.

I don't really like the push for the American culture online, where a specific American subculture's ideals are the only ideals worth anything, and the only situations that really matter are American ones.

In many places, there's a very real social repercussion to using certain pronouns, even for others.

→ 31 messages moved to Chimney

meh. America has a culture the way Colorado has a temperature.

Nobody's pushing for "American" culture.

Well, I meant a specific American subculture.

But yes, Americentrism is rampant online.

It's not really the whole of American culture. More like a subset of it that's prevalent in certain areas.

Lots of folks are pushing for their culture, dressing it in the paper clothing of "Americanism" to hide their real agenda.

@DavidA Right. That's what I meant.

@Shog9 Americentrism is a term used to point out the hypocrisy of some Americans, not a term that Americans label their ideology or agendas as.

I still hate it.

One of those insufferably long slatestarcodex essays on the topic

The two strains of American culture you see in tech are generally Libertarian and "woke". Plus a lot of people who just want to get work done.

@forest perhaps you need to think about why you're so uncomfortable with using the right pronouns.

@heather Because of how people will think of me (for "its"). For stranger pronouns like "xhe", the issue is primarily that it feels weird to use and, well, I'll forget it 99% of the time.

@DavidA Libertarian? I thought it was more American Liberal, with the occasional capitalist Conservative. Idk what "woke" is except for that it has something to do with black culture?

@heather If your insinuation is that I harbor hidden resentment towards people suffering from gender dysphoria or who are discriminated against as a result of it, you'd be wrong.

@forest and do you feel that because it's hard to remember and it feels weird, for example, then do you really rank that as equal with someone's comfort?

@forest er...no? genuine question here.

these are genuine questions.

@forest "woke" is the modern leftist ideology that heavily emphasizes identity politics, intersectionality, oppression, etc.

noted, thanks

@forest one of the few times UD is helpful

@heather There are many things everyone can do to improve someone else's comfort, but for various reasons, we don't do them.

(oh god, not a utilitarian discussion... I'm a utilitarian and find 99.9% of people misunderstand it)

The thing about utilitarianism is that short-term utilitarian decisions can be long-term harmful (or even non-utilitarian).

@DavidA That's the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.

Long-term harms are taken into account by rule utilitarianism.

That's why I lean heavily towards a deontological ethical framework that gives people predictable rules.

Rule utilitarianism provides an ethical framework for consistent rules.

But it's not the "stereotypical" utilitarianism that the media and popular culture loves to hate on.

Because I know that unpredictability will undermine short-term utilitarianism.

@Rob I just finished reading the relevant part of the "legal" link. I don't think I can use the logo, alas.

That seems like the better choice.

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man That's not at all true, because allowing discrimination means that, next, you can be discriminated against. Not to mention, the benefit the "elite" get from discrimination does not exceed the harm against those being discriminated against, not even close.

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man ...i don't think i've thought enough about it/know enough about utilitarianism to actually answer that.

That is due to the law of diminishing returns, which places a bound on the "utility monster" criticism of act utilitarianism.

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man but that's not quite what i'm saying; i'm saying that people come above personal preference.

@heather @ArtOfCode whoever else: I've made it pretty clear that for me this is not a matter of mere preference or minor inconvenience but a core identity issue. I'm not going to explain it again, especially here in chat (chat didn't work so well last time). Just saying that if you're representing it as mere preference, you're not understanding. If someone treats everyone the same way, not preferring one group to another, it should not be a problem under any sane rules.

What Monica says is the crux of the argument. While for me, it's a minor issue (at least when it comes to "he/she"), I know that many people find it very distressful. I find it that way if I would use "its".

I understand that some people seek external validation. That doesn't create an obligation to provide it. We should of course be nice and respectful, which includes not dissing it.

Well a lot of the flaws of intersectionality are due to its attempts to reduce numerous dimensions of "oppression" down to a scalar value so that people can be stack-ranked. I consider it pointless.

But ultimately we each own our identities and feelings of self-worth.

I naturally write in a way to avoid unnecessary gendering. That should not be taken as an insult to anybody.

In some countries being seen to support the beliefs which are not popular can be dangerous.

@MonicaCellio I'd go as far as to say that's commendable.

@heather "For most" in your specific culture. Like I said, I would risk being physically assaulted where I live if I referred to someone as "it", possibly even if they told everyone they asked me to.

@forest that's reasonable, i suppose.

@heather might be, might not be -- I can't judge others, just myself. But I object to having my very real issues lumped into a "mere preference" bucket just because some people see it that way.

@forest I agree. It's part of my training. Heck, even the UN has guidelines saying that! (Who knew the UN had guidelines about writing? I was surprised to learn this a week or two ago.)

@MonicaCellio i'm trying my best to not lump you into a bucket. i apologize if i'm not doing a good enough job; i'll try to make distinctions.

@heather thank you; I appreciate it.

As I said earlier, there are cis-binary people who simply don't want to disclose their genders (perhaps just to keep things professional).

@DavidA I am one of those. Though Journey is dead-set on calling me male. :P

I guess it could be described as having a non-binary online persona.

@ArtOfCode That's unkind. It's frequently useful; just always vulgar

Or a persona where gender simply doesn't matter.

UD is the only way I ever know what the kids are saying anymore. And by "kids" I mean "35 & under"

Oh finally the chat refreshed and synced with my profile.

That took a while.

Had to look up "on blast" the other day. Did not mean quite what I had assumed.

Many UD entries are fake/joking, or trying to start a new term which isn't actually used.

So, like any dictionary then?

I don't really use UD. I use ED, which is far more offensive, but a lot more funny.

And occasionally more accurate, if you know how to read between the lines.

Some wait, and entries are voted in

@Shog9 Ah good to know ;p

@FélixGagnon-Grenier Yeah, I am currently focused on research into accents and multi-language processing of audio signals but my original research was into context free text analysis so it still fascinates me

I agree in full. What matters is that people assume good faith and are not asses to each other.

aka "Be Nice" (the succinct and wonderful policy that was sadly retired)

Or, in the immortal words of Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other."

@Rob OED has rather a lot of words that aren't English and are explicitly defined as not used by English speakers - at some point you realize they're just sort of making work for job security.

With UD someone can write: This is 'a new word which means ...' and then for the example write 'person at my school is such a X' - then at school point out That it's in the UD, so it must be true.

hah

@Shog9 huh...I'm a bit above 35 and that one was pretty known to me (though I do notice its used a lot more in a gaming context by the young'uns whereas I knew it from having bad managers)

@TheforestofReinstateMonica I am fortunate to not have an entry in ED, although I have known people who do.

@LinkBerest Jerk

It's not that bad having an entry there, depending on what it is.

@Shog9 just young (oh! I don't get to say that often) ;)

I used to hang around people who would regularly put in entries or have entries of their own. It was a very... toxic crowd. Fun, but a bad influence.

@MonicaCellio yup. I... can't say I agree with your position on this, as you probably figured. That said, I know you're perfectly capable of writing naturally without excluding folks, and I feel strongly that doing so should be allowed.

When I'm supposed to be a fine and upstanding infosec professional, that kinda stuff is seen as a liability.

Join the dark side. We don't mind that stuff nearly as much here. :D

Also, grey and black are cooler colors than white.

@ArtOfCode thank you. I know many people don't agree with me, but I think people should be respected enough to be allowed to have their own voices, at least until they demonstrate that they're not up to the task. If I were to actually run afoul of that rule than I'd expect someone to have words with me, but acting because people think I can't do it is insulting.

@Shog9 Sounds like one of those newfangled things. And not involving fun and tannerite.

"I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

@TheforestofReinstateMonica maybe to the pain. or slight bodily harm, or a pepercut.

@MonicaCellio We disagree on the subject matter, but I think we're in agreement on how it should be dealt with... (i.e. very not how SE did...)

And often it doesn't even come to that.

@JourneymanGeek You'd be surprised at the kind of risks I've taken in the name of free speech. It's something I feel about more strongly than any particular politics.

@TheforestofReinstateMonica Absolutely this.

@TheforestofReinstateMonica You pick your hill. I'll pick mine. We're all gonna die eventually anyway.

@JourneymanGeek eesh. To the pain is almost worse...

@JourneymanGeek It's a worthy hill to die on, in my view.

@Shog9 If it makes you feel better - I was totally off what "woke" meant :)

I don't use the term "free speech absolutist" lightly.

Sometimes people know they're wrong and know what the right action is, but don't know how to get there from where they're standing if it involves walking through a minefield.

@LinkBerest That is an americanism

yeah, college students really like using it too

Whatever that means.

@ArtOfCode right. If there had been an actual CoC violation, they should have sent a warning. If they were just concerned about a possible future violation, they should have waited and watched. No matter what, they should have kept their mouths shut instead of spreading defamatory claims across the Internet.

Never did figure out what the special urgency was...

I've been wondering that too. My best guess is that they thought I somehow caused Aza's resignation, even though Aza was clear that that wasn't the case. Mind, the alleged reasons for firing me have also mutated, so I think there's some retconning going on.

if we're all going to die on some hill; why don't we just avoid all the hills and live forever?

Wow, browser spellcheck didn't have a problem with "retconning".

@ArtOfCode I heard some pretty interesting conspiracy theories.

@MonicaCellio Seems SE is very good at mutating their reasoning for punishments. :P

I can't count how many different stories I've heard for getting suspended for a month, recently.

Of course, that pales in comparison to being fired as a mod, but still.

@TheforestofReinstateMonica .... this isn't about you. And I'm pretty sure you deserved everything you got.

Then I assumed there was some corporate event like an acquisition slated for the beginning of the quarter, but if that happened it wasn't public.

@MonicaCellio the official story is still an eventual IPO

to be fair I hate the "die on a hill" term cause it just makes me start thinking of strategies to be used against enemies instead of mutual debate and discussion (yes, I know I am a special case here)

ooh. Let me grab you on discord. I actually have a bit of a theory I don't want to share here.

@JourneymanGeek eventual yes; I had wondered if the timing were because they were aiming for Oct 1. But no.

@JourneymanGeek This is exactly what I was talking about. And no, me and plenty of others saw it was wrong. Nice strawman with your insinuation that I'm trying to make it about me, though.

@LinkBerest I'm not fond of it either.

@JourneymanGeek see you there.

too adversarial

@MonicaCellio right. One moment while I figure it out

I don't use discord much

@LinkBerest I dislike it because it's a thought-stopping cliché, intended to shut down discussion.

also in my case, I literally think "better to find two hills next to each other and force your enemies through the valley then rain down fire"

@JourneymanGeek ...you could kick me from the conversation discord and use that

or whatever variant

....but there's also a reason I have a high score on warfare and tactics on Worldbuilding

On a different note, I'm going to laugh if discord becomes the unofficial "chat" of SE (if it isn't already)

I doubt it, given how often new blood comes in (well, maybe not to MSE, but elsewhere).

@House-'ReinstateMonica'-man heh, yeah. there's a reason I don't play competitive games very often (love cooperative multiplayer games though)

@heather we've got it.

@LinkBerest So is everyone else

@Shog9 that's actually really interesting.

thank you for linking; it did not go where i thought it was going to go.

@heather It explains, in only a few thousand words, something I've repeatedly failed to explain in a few hundred.

...I may have to just admit that it is a hard topic

Honestly I fail to see how it's a hard topic in any way.

It's pretty cut and dry to me, and a lot of other people.

@TheforestofReinstateMonica really?

yes

I live in a place that's heavily populated by conservatives. Conservatives who mostly vote Democrat.

Note that I didn't type "Conservatives". I mean people who just like things to not change very quickly, and when they do change, they want them to change based on their preferences.

Colorado is great for that, although becoming less so.

That's not conservative, though that is a common Conservative value. That's traditionalism, so they'd be traditionalist democrats, not conservative democrats.

So I'm surrounded by people who are pretty much OK with whatever, as long it doesn't get in their way.

...And that makes it REALLY hard to relate to folks in NYC or LA.

Because the Coastal value is, you can't just be "ok" with something. You have to be either GUNG HO 100% IN FAVOR OF IT ALL THE TIME... Or you have to consider it PURE EVIL.

That's the value I see online most of the time.

There's no, "I don't like X, but if my neighbor likes X then my neighbor can have X and I can have not-X"

Sounds like typical US identity politics.

If I say, "I don't like X", to a Coastal that means I'm against anyone liking X; maybe I'm even against the very existence of anyone who likes X.

Which really makes it hard to get along.

As someone who is neither traditional left nor traditional right, it's hard for me as well.

And that's why, as Colorado becomes increasingly flooded with Californians and Texans, I'm researching property in Idaho.

I'm a left libertarian, so I'm pro-choice and simultaneously against gun control.

So everyone hates me.

I'm fine with gun regulations, as long as the folks around me are fine with those gun regulations.

Oh sure if everyone is happy with it, I have no issue.

I think training should be mandatory, sure, but not much else.

Again, if the folks in your district are in favor of mandatory training, you should have it.

If everyone agrees, sure.

Heck... You should be able to strip folks of their weapons on entry if they don't have it.

> by ur mom

heh

And this is the problem with throwing around terms like "American" or "US Culture": I can drive an hour or so south - to a town that was also staunchly Democrat until a few years ago when the D's made it clear they didn't care about poor folks, a town that's also very small-c conservative... And the culture is entirely different.

The only culture they have in common is that they think America is the only country that exists.

The principles are different. The priorities are different. Heck, the food is different - they actually know how to make green chili, and wouldn't be caught dead using dry pepper from Hatch in anything.

Half the folks are 1-2 generation immigrants. They're not myopic. They just want a government that takes their needs into account. And they're having a devil of a time getting it, because even the local politicians are too distracted by national memes to pay attention to what their constituents need.

It's a clusterfuck entirely.

But isn't this how politics works nowadays? I live in Canada, and sometimes what you just said describes our reality too. I bet most of the places [with democracy] has the same problem.

With and without democracy. It's the norm in the Western world in general.

And for what it's worth, the US is not a democracy, despite popular misconceptions.

Neither is Canada.

Not on a national level. It can be locally.

But folks get seduced.

It has democratic aspects to it, sure.

You say that because governments get elected with 33% of votes?