Stack Overflow Inc. Fiasco: Timeline(cellio.dreamwidth.org)
cellio.dreamwidth.org
Stack Overflow Inc. Fiasco: Timeline
https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fiasco-timeline.html
486 comments
This is getting quite ridiculous.
I don't want to know your gender. I don't care. It's your thing. It's non of my business, and it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
If I do want to know your gender, then things between us are starting to become intimate.
To sum things up: I would say it's rude if someone shares his gender identity with me without being asked. On the same level as if someone shares his/her dick size without being asked.
I don't want to know your gender. I don't care. It's your thing. It's non of my business, and it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
If I do want to know your gender, then things between us are starting to become intimate.
To sum things up: I would say it's rude if someone shares his gender identity with me without being asked. On the same level as if someone shares his/her dick size without being asked.
I'm appalled that moderators edit posts over pronouns. And not sure why the gender or sexual orientation of people matters on a site where you can basically be anonymous. I guess because I only read Stack Overflow questions from Google searches there's a whole dimension of Stack Exchange that eludes me.
On Twitter I know not to engage with people that specify their pronouns on their bio, it's just a waste of time even for trolling. I guess it's something that I can extend to SE and elsewhere.
And to be clear I've no problem with trans people and calling them what they want, but sometimes it's just difficult to remind it all (and confusing over different languages).
About CoCs: who would have thought? Well ...
On Twitter I know not to engage with people that specify their pronouns on their bio, it's just a waste of time even for trolling. I guess it's something that I can extend to SE and elsewhere.
And to be clear I've no problem with trans people and calling them what they want, but sometimes it's just difficult to remind it all (and confusing over different languages).
About CoCs: who would have thought? Well ...
>The employee did not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours later to tell me "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment".
The core issue as I see it isn't CoC or gender pronouns. Stack Overflow is punishing people if their perceived internal views (ie: "values") are not the same as a set of unwritten allowed views. So basically thought crime mixed with McCarthyism. Except without any specific clarify on what the allowed thoughts are.
The core issue as I see it isn't CoC or gender pronouns. Stack Overflow is punishing people if their perceived internal views (ie: "values") are not the same as a set of unwritten allowed views. So basically thought crime mixed with McCarthyism. Except without any specific clarify on what the allowed thoughts are.
I'm mildly embarrassed to have written off critiques of the Great Awokening via CoCs a few years ago – after a few more years dealing with adult life, it's pretty clear that two constants are A) people, universally, can be in a dark cloud where unrelated actions by unrelated people are a personal attack on their existence B) authority _hates_ dealing with issues, especially the more distant they are from you in the hierarchy, and will always choose the option that keeps the largest crowd aware of the situation the quietest.
Stack Overflow hired a highly political, sanctimonious Community Manager and this is the result.
E.g. he suggested users who didn't like the rules require therapy https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389935/why-was-the-... http://archive.li/UGUNK
E.g. he suggested users who didn't like the rules require therapy https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389935/why-was-the-... http://archive.li/UGUNK
I was ready to be on Monica's side until I found and read the leaked Teacher's Lounge transcript. I'm now significantly more conflicted.
In the chat, Monica was asked many times, by many other moderators, to please use "singular they" for people who she actively knew preferred that pronoun. Monica flat out refused, saying it was confusing and grammatically incorrect. She said she'd be happy to use literally any other word, including "new" pronouns like "Xe". She also suggested that she could avoid using pronouns altogether, either just for people who preferred singular they, or universally for everyone. (Other moderators said this last option likely would have been fine had Monica not made known her reason for doing so.)
Now, on a purely personal level, I also find singular they to be super confusing in conversation, at least when the subject is unambiguous. But the extent to which Monica refused to budge, even after being told that she was making colleagues uncomfortable, struck me as behavior that would need to be disciplined in any formal workplace.
In the chat, Monica was asked many times, by many other moderators, to please use "singular they" for people who she actively knew preferred that pronoun. Monica flat out refused, saying it was confusing and grammatically incorrect. She said she'd be happy to use literally any other word, including "new" pronouns like "Xe". She also suggested that she could avoid using pronouns altogether, either just for people who preferred singular they, or universally for everyone. (Other moderators said this last option likely would have been fine had Monica not made known her reason for doing so.)
Now, on a purely personal level, I also find singular they to be super confusing in conversation, at least when the subject is unambiguous. But the extent to which Monica refused to budge, even after being told that she was making colleagues uncomfortable, struck me as behavior that would need to be disciplined in any formal workplace.
One of the many reasons I'd never work at a big company.
I just want to build software. I don't go to work to talk politics or have to keep track of every person's political radicalism for fear of being fired.
I'd also prefer not to add even more social anxiety because I don't keep up with the latest stuff on Twitter.
I just want to build software. I don't go to work to talk politics or have to keep track of every person's political radicalism for fear of being fired.
I'd also prefer not to add even more social anxiety because I don't keep up with the latest stuff on Twitter.
I'd like to learn how to force cultural change on people who don't want it and don't care about it. It's just a really cool society hacking technique.
So how does a bill become a law with regards to this pronoun stuff? Who were the people who initiated this policy? What motivated them to do it? Who influenced them? Who influenced them? Who funded the whole movement?
4chan has been doing research into this by doing enough trolling that they got the ok hand sign classified as a hate symbol. It seems, based on following the timeline on that phenomenon that a lot of what is considered forbidden in our culture is generated by certain 3 and 4 letter non-profits who feed that information to Google, Facebook, and others. That's just the negative part of it all though: how behavior becomes forbidden.
I want to know how behavior, like the pronoun stuff, becomes prescribed. I want to use that machinery to get society to do strange stuff as civilization level performance art.
So how does a bill become a law with regards to this pronoun stuff? Who were the people who initiated this policy? What motivated them to do it? Who influenced them? Who influenced them? Who funded the whole movement?
4chan has been doing research into this by doing enough trolling that they got the ok hand sign classified as a hate symbol. It seems, based on following the timeline on that phenomenon that a lot of what is considered forbidden in our culture is generated by certain 3 and 4 letter non-profits who feed that information to Google, Facebook, and others. That's just the negative part of it all though: how behavior becomes forbidden.
I want to know how behavior, like the pronoun stuff, becomes prescribed. I want to use that machinery to get society to do strange stuff as civilization level performance art.
Not directly related, but I'm a bit afraid that as someone who is not a native speaker of English, it becomes more and more difficult not to inadvertantly cause a shit storm on American websites. People seem to become incredibly sensitive to "correct speech".
Might be a bit meta but could it be that there's a pretty widespread attitude of 'wanting to be offended' and black and white 'with me or against me' thinking in America (sorry if over-generalizing here), judging from what I get to see on Twitter?
How's a society supposed to work like this? Could it be that assuming good faith more often might be a starting point for a solution to a lot of problems, this one included?
How's a society supposed to work like this? Could it be that assuming good faith more often might be a starting point for a solution to a lot of problems, this one included?
This person seems to think using 'they' as a singular is somehow wrong in English.
That's not correct. It's been used since the 1500s and it was only when the wave of idiot Victoria grammar prescriptivists started throwing weight around that there was any dispute at all.
That's not correct. It's been used since the 1500s and it was only when the wave of idiot Victoria grammar prescriptivists started throwing weight around that there was any dispute at all.
This is a side question, but in regards to the actual gendered pronoun discussion that seems to be at the center of the policy debate, what even is the specific set of criteria being used?
It seems like someone is lobbying that moderators must refer to others with pronouns that the other person chooses. Doesn’t this obviously have unsolvable problems, in principle?
- most of the time, responses on a Stack Overflow site are content-specific (“clinical”) and should not necessarily make reference to another human at all (and probably should make efforts to avoid such references as often as possible, for writing clarity).
- when referencing another comment or answer or something, dry scientific writing that does so without attributable language attaching it to a person would be less controversial, more clear, and less likely to bring subjective opinions into a matter of reference.
- you could always make all references revert to a chosen username and restructure language to have no concept of gender, which for clinical writing is a huge positive aspect, and is in no way connected to the preferences of those being referred to (by matter of it being clinical, not by any matter of status of gender identity)
- even if you assume you did need to refer by pronoun, how could Person A know what pronoun Person B wishes to be referred by, unless explicitly stated somewhere?
- how could you prove negative intent when choosing not to use certain pronouns, as opposed to a mistake, or pronoun identity that was not publicly known, etc.?
I’m just curious how such a thing could ever conceivably be part of a policy that restricts or controls clinical writing style in the moderation of a forum. Regardless of all the moderator drama, it just appears to me like a type of policy that functionally cannot exist, regardless of whether a corporate entity declares it a policy or not.
It seems like someone is lobbying that moderators must refer to others with pronouns that the other person chooses. Doesn’t this obviously have unsolvable problems, in principle?
- most of the time, responses on a Stack Overflow site are content-specific (“clinical”) and should not necessarily make reference to another human at all (and probably should make efforts to avoid such references as often as possible, for writing clarity).
- when referencing another comment or answer or something, dry scientific writing that does so without attributable language attaching it to a person would be less controversial, more clear, and less likely to bring subjective opinions into a matter of reference.
- you could always make all references revert to a chosen username and restructure language to have no concept of gender, which for clinical writing is a huge positive aspect, and is in no way connected to the preferences of those being referred to (by matter of it being clinical, not by any matter of status of gender identity)
- even if you assume you did need to refer by pronoun, how could Person A know what pronoun Person B wishes to be referred by, unless explicitly stated somewhere?
- how could you prove negative intent when choosing not to use certain pronouns, as opposed to a mistake, or pronoun identity that was not publicly known, etc.?
I’m just curious how such a thing could ever conceivably be part of a policy that restricts or controls clinical writing style in the moderation of a forum. Regardless of all the moderator drama, it just appears to me like a type of policy that functionally cannot exist, regardless of whether a corporate entity declares it a policy or not.
> An employee with a "director" title posted and pinned a message saying the company is changing the CoC to require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden. I asked questions, most importantly: would it now be a violation of this new policy to write in the gender-neutral way that I already use? And how are you judging "avoiding", which requires knowledge of intent? Other people had questions and issues too. One moderator pointed out a problem with something I was proposing to do and I agreed after it was explained and said I wouldn't do that. The employee did not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours later to tell me "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment".
In what world is this type of action supposed to be praised?
In what world is this type of action supposed to be praised?
I am left leaning and have actively supported the LGBT community, campaigned for marriage equality and helped raise someone who is LGBT and who suffered from brutal bullying in school.
I have moved away from actively supporting the LGBT community but I still support my friends and family. I did this because the toxicity and witch hunting has gotten out of hand. We all used to fight the good fight. But the community has transitioned into a culture that is creating an increasing number of rules and tribes in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of society and in order to 'trap' outsiders into making a faux pas and then elevate themselves by pointing out the mistake. My sense is that this is a vocal minority in the LGBT community, but also highly influential, and that influence comes through fear of being called out.
If you'd like to see examples of some of the toxicity inside the LGBT community itself, just do a search on TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=TERF
The LGBT community is managing to alienate those who used to vocally support them. I think all of us hoped that we would some day be one people. Instead there is a persecution underway of anyone who is not LGBT - and merely pointing this out will see me accused of engaging in hate speech.
As a side note: The comment thread here is a bloodbath, in case you hadn't noticed. Massive swings up upvoted and downvoted posts. The LGBT community will no doubt explain this away as haters and extremists who waded in and downvoted anything supportive. In fact many of us are supporters of human equality. We just don't support persecution, witch hunts and people who need to bring others down to elevate themselves.
I have moved away from actively supporting the LGBT community but I still support my friends and family. I did this because the toxicity and witch hunting has gotten out of hand. We all used to fight the good fight. But the community has transitioned into a culture that is creating an increasing number of rules and tribes in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of society and in order to 'trap' outsiders into making a faux pas and then elevate themselves by pointing out the mistake. My sense is that this is a vocal minority in the LGBT community, but also highly influential, and that influence comes through fear of being called out.
If you'd like to see examples of some of the toxicity inside the LGBT community itself, just do a search on TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=TERF
The LGBT community is managing to alienate those who used to vocally support them. I think all of us hoped that we would some day be one people. Instead there is a persecution underway of anyone who is not LGBT - and merely pointing this out will see me accused of engaging in hate speech.
As a side note: The comment thread here is a bloodbath, in case you hadn't noticed. Massive swings up upvoted and downvoted posts. The LGBT community will no doubt explain this away as haters and extremists who waded in and downvoted anything supportive. In fact many of us are supporters of human equality. We just don't support persecution, witch hunts and people who need to bring others down to elevate themselves.
This is a case in which a Code of Conduct actually creates confusion instead of dispelling it. The more I think about it the sadder it is. It's tragic when there should be a rule but when you reach for it you find instead there is an empty space surrounded by razor wire where a rule should be.
I don't find it to be unreasonable. If a trans person clearly states that her pronouns are "she/her" and you twist your sentences around to avoid using pronouns at all, that could certainly give the impression that you don't recognize her identity as valid. I am not saying OP did this or did this intentionally but it's not an unreasonable policy. It sounds to me (without being intimately familiar with the situation) that OP has esoteric stylistic preferences that are not transphobic but happen to be consistent with the language that transphobic people will use.
Pronoun use is pretty straightforward. If someone says their pronouns, you use their pronouns to refer to them, just like you would anyone else. It may feel a little disorienting if you don't talk to many trans people and, for example, they use singular "they" or have a pronoun that seems different than the one that you would naturally assign to them based on their appearance, but it's not difficult and you can get used to it pretty quickly.
The reason that people are so sensitive and strict about this is because the stakes for trans people are very high -- some people don't believe trans people exist, should exist, or should have the same rights as cis people. Refusing to use the right pronouns reveals either a benign misunderstanding about trans people or a willful hostility towards their existence. The latter is extremely common and can be both hurtful and often scary, as trans people, especially trans people of color, are often subject to violence because of their identities.
Pronoun use is pretty straightforward. If someone says their pronouns, you use their pronouns to refer to them, just like you would anyone else. It may feel a little disorienting if you don't talk to many trans people and, for example, they use singular "they" or have a pronoun that seems different than the one that you would naturally assign to them based on their appearance, but it's not difficult and you can get used to it pretty quickly.
The reason that people are so sensitive and strict about this is because the stakes for trans people are very high -- some people don't believe trans people exist, should exist, or should have the same rights as cis people. Refusing to use the right pronouns reveals either a benign misunderstanding about trans people or a willful hostility towards their existence. The latter is extremely common and can be both hurtful and often scary, as trans people, especially trans people of color, are often subject to violence because of their identities.
In short ...
too many people take themselves too seriously.
too many people reading the intent to malign from internet postings made by people intending to help.
It seems all sites that rely on free labor for moderation end up with similar sorts of problems. Moderation is time consuming, tedious, and thankless work when done well. Who wants to spend hours doing this each day without any financial incentive? You end up getting folks attracted to having some degree of power over people, or ability to enforce or espouse their own views/values/ideologies, and so on. But all of these motivations are completely antithetical to what the position 'ought' be about - which is essentially a digital janitor.
Pay moderators and the problem goes away since you now attract a pretty normal pool of people whose motivations might be earning a buck, or career advancement. I think we can see that clearly enough here where it's self evident that the moderators are paid. The problem of course is imagine a larger site wants 100 moderators. OK, you can get 100 people who are going to do a mixed job at best, but for free. Or you can pay $3,000,000 a year for the same team. Most companies? Easy decision. That's a $3 million executive bonus right there!
Pay moderators and the problem goes away since you now attract a pretty normal pool of people whose motivations might be earning a buck, or career advancement. I think we can see that clearly enough here where it's self evident that the moderators are paid. The problem of course is imagine a larger site wants 100 moderators. OK, you can get 100 people who are going to do a mixed job at best, but for free. Or you can pay $3,000,000 a year for the same team. Most companies? Easy decision. That's a $3 million executive bonus right there!
This was touched on briefly in the article, but maybe someone else here can shed some light on this here.
Is it not super confusing for gender neutral to use the 'they' pronoun? It's already in use in the English language. Every time I've heard people try to use it in conversation it's sounded like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Is it not super confusing for gender neutral to use the 'they' pronoun? It's already in use in the English language. Every time I've heard people try to use it in conversation it's sounded like an Abbott and Costello routine.
I know this isn't what is at issue here, but I can't help but feel it's connected:
Gendered language runs deep, especially in languages like Spanish. Essentially anything ending in 'a' is considered feminine, and anything ending in 'o' is considered masculine. How could one hope to bring equality or neutrality to such language? It almost seems like a new language altogether would be easier than fighting to modify thousand-year histories and trillions of written words.
I'm all for healthy dialog that leads to ending oppressive norms, building compassion and inclusion. This situation feels like its own form of oppression, and as such ought to be questioned, if not resisted.
I honestly think everybody at the table here is trying to do the right thing as they see it, yet almost everyone is going to walk away hurt; there are no winners.
Gendered language runs deep, especially in languages like Spanish. Essentially anything ending in 'a' is considered feminine, and anything ending in 'o' is considered masculine. How could one hope to bring equality or neutrality to such language? It almost seems like a new language altogether would be easier than fighting to modify thousand-year histories and trillions of written words.
I'm all for healthy dialog that leads to ending oppressive norms, building compassion and inclusion. This situation feels like its own form of oppression, and as such ought to be questioned, if not resisted.
I honestly think everybody at the table here is trying to do the right thing as they see it, yet almost everyone is going to walk away hurt; there are no winners.
I don't understand why this has become such a common theme in the tech world. A small clique of non-binary/LGBTQ+ people who wield undue amounts of soft power and use that soft power to fight pseudo-political internet battles. I've yet to experience this with any other subculture I'm involved in.
There is an awefull lot of gender neutral references in the CTO’s apology, even though it obviously knows that the fired moderators preferred pronouns are the female gendered ones. Someone should edit to remove all the gender neutral references to make a point how silly such a policy is.
I've seen first-hand people whining online that someone used the initialism "LGBT" which apparently can be considered exclusionary by some people. It seems that "LGBTQIAGNC" exists and may be more expansive, however I can't rule out the existence of some person who objects to even this.
At the risk of making mistakes here, where I've come to personally, in a journey to understand myself, is that the idea of gender seems artificial in general, for the most part. I've been in a relationship with someone who felt strongly about being identified "correctly" when they had transitioned, and also with people who absolutely assume they'll be identified "correctly," when they had never particularly explored an alternative to how they were designated at birth. For me, I'm not upset when gender pronouns are applied to me, but I'd prefer to not be identified this way, even though I often feel since identification with the cultural experience of being identified as gendered.
I've had some frustration that "they" has become the "neutral" pronoun, when earlier I felt more personally identified with pronouns that still disambiguated plural and singular more clearly, but a friend pointed out that if referring to an unidentified singular person, "they" is perfectly grammatical (i.e. "did someone deliver the mail?" "Yes, they did."). I am concerned that so much of the focus is placed on the problem of the word, without acknowledging the more fundamental question of willingness to consider if gendered pronouns are necessary.
What seems problematic for me is trying to strike a balance between personal identity and "correct" speech. Most of the time, "making sure" that a gender is assigned in speech doesn't feel relevant to actually understanding general meaning. I appreciate language that better avoids pronouns rather than uses them as a means to add clarity. It feels to me that is possible to respect gender identity without requiring language to be gendered in a general way. At the same time, I've myself tried to take gender out of my speech and I fall constantly.
Fundamentally, it feels like a cultural moment where it feels like we're focusing on very black and white ideas and feeling that others are "not listening," or on the other hand, "forcing me to do something I feel uncomfortable about and lying in wait for me to make a mistake." When there's a possiblity for openness, there's also the possibility of vulnerability, whereas in a cultural context, it seems like we're moving towards walls and fortification, which makes me pretty sad and concerned that there's not space for nuance.
I've had some frustration that "they" has become the "neutral" pronoun, when earlier I felt more personally identified with pronouns that still disambiguated plural and singular more clearly, but a friend pointed out that if referring to an unidentified singular person, "they" is perfectly grammatical (i.e. "did someone deliver the mail?" "Yes, they did."). I am concerned that so much of the focus is placed on the problem of the word, without acknowledging the more fundamental question of willingness to consider if gendered pronouns are necessary.
What seems problematic for me is trying to strike a balance between personal identity and "correct" speech. Most of the time, "making sure" that a gender is assigned in speech doesn't feel relevant to actually understanding general meaning. I appreciate language that better avoids pronouns rather than uses them as a means to add clarity. It feels to me that is possible to respect gender identity without requiring language to be gendered in a general way. At the same time, I've myself tried to take gender out of my speech and I fall constantly.
Fundamentally, it feels like a cultural moment where it feels like we're focusing on very black and white ideas and feeling that others are "not listening," or on the other hand, "forcing me to do something I feel uncomfortable about and lying in wait for me to make a mistake." When there's a possiblity for openness, there's also the possibility of vulnerability, whereas in a cultural context, it seems like we're moving towards walls and fortification, which makes me pretty sad and concerned that there's not space for nuance.
> The tone of the answer was pretty combative and people downvoted for that reason (as noted in comments). OP interpreted downvotes as transphobia. There was another answer that said something like "cultural awareness / different cultures, as part of D&I" that was presented positively and got a lot of support. (I know gender != culture; I'm pointing out that another D&I answer, presented constructively, was well-received.)
Seems like an age old tale of management assessing a situations potential liability as high, and promptly responding with a zero tolerance policy and throwing someone under the bus to protect themselves.
Seems like an age old tale of management assessing a situations potential liability as high, and promptly responding with a zero tolerance policy and throwing someone under the bus to protect themselves.
What a mess of a slippery slope..
Stack Overflow has handled the communication and PR side of this about as badly as a company can, and I started - and still want to be - on the side of the moderators.
However, as near as I can tell from piecing together the different leaks, it turns out a core issue was that Monica Cellio refused to use the singular "they" construction, including when she knew that was someone's preferred pronoun.
In my view she is 1) objectively grammatically wrong and 2) just being needlessly rude. And ultimately, I can't bring myself to support this position at all. If you lost your moderator role because of a refusal to use a widely used and accepted English construction, even though you knew this refusal would hurt people, then uh, I hope you're happy with your life choices, but I have no sympathy for you.
However, as near as I can tell from piecing together the different leaks, it turns out a core issue was that Monica Cellio refused to use the singular "they" construction, including when she knew that was someone's preferred pronoun.
In my view she is 1) objectively grammatically wrong and 2) just being needlessly rude. And ultimately, I can't bring myself to support this position at all. If you lost your moderator role because of a refusal to use a widely used and accepted English construction, even though you knew this refusal would hurt people, then uh, I hope you're happy with your life choices, but I have no sympathy for you.
Isn't a mod a volunteer position? Why waste years working for free without any control?
This line of thinking is so bizarre to me, but seems to be increasingly common (or at least loud enough in the right places to be noticed). There is a segment of the population that seems intent on being able assign and punish that assumed thought crime.
Now your lack of a specific behavior is suspect!