I could not agree with you more. The CoC seems to allow for freedom of expression as long as it agrees with a narrow viewpoint of the world. There's too much emphasis on the feeling of the reader. Nobody heard of "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"?
If you are hurt or feel unsafe because someone said something on the Internet, you need to look in the mirror and tell yourself to grow up. And catering to those people brings your discussions to the lowest common denominator.
There can be no change without controversial speech and the CoC seems fine with controversial speech that follows one line of thinking but not okay with any disagreeing speech.
I once got my post removed from a tag meant for new developers because of the "tone". The post is simply that you need to be hungry to self study and continue learning or get out of the field because it isn't for you. Ouch. If that triggers you, you're going to have a hard time making it in the real world.
I'm old enough to remember when people had discussions with others who disagreed with them, on purpose, so they could learn and empathize. I'm old enough to remember when tolerance and inclusion was supposed to be about letting everyone be who they are. Now it's tolerance and inclusion if you agree with a single narrow viewpoint.
A Freelance DevOps doing container stuff and automating unhealthy amounts of software.
Need something automated or containerized? Feel free to hit me up :)
Thank you for your input Jeremy!
I greatly appreciate your point of view, sometimes it feels very strange to be "the one" that gets the boot, especially if you don't get notified in any way or have a process to appeal such decisions.
If you are hurt or feel unsafe because someone said something on the Internet, you need to look in the mirror and tell yourself to grow up. And catering to those people brings your discussions to the lowest common denominator.
I have to agree. I grew up having to stand my ground in discussions all the time, so I can pretty much sign your statement.
On the other hand, I can understand people getting hurt by words, so there should be some kind of instance that makes sure it doesn't escalate too much. If you have to insult someone, you loose the argument. But if the discussion is civil, I see no real reason for people to feel attacked. No idea how that would be policed in any way, someone is always going to be offended.
I'm old enough to remember when people had discussions with others who disagreed with them, on purpose, so they could learn and empathize.
That's exactly what I remember. The typical "debates" where you get an opponent that will attack you on purpose in any way possible, just to prepare you for "the real deal". I don't see that happening on the internet anymore. Either it's a fully fledged flamewar, where noone really wins, or it's going toward the echo-chambers/fanfare-circles.
Do you see any way to improve on social media platforms to encourage more "classic" debates?
I'm seriously at a loss, I have no idea what could be done to improve on the current trend, but I do like my debates a lot.
I think the main problem is the philosophy that it is the platform's responsibility to "protect" the user. This leads to issues like overly-limiting codes of conduct or prior restraint, which is the enemy of freedom of speech and open discourse.
Personally I don't need any platform or person to protect me from hurtful people or discussions. On most platforms I can handle those situations myself through the use of the block feature. If I don't like someone's posts or comments, I can simply block them and I never have to interact with them again. I don't feel the need to ban them from a platform or stifle their freedom of speech because it doesn't align with my view of the world or I'm afraid it might hurt or offend others. I expect those other people to be adults and have the ability to click the block button for themselves.
I think if we want to improve the situation, we need social platforms to push back against the groups demanding prior restraint and tell them to simply block people they don't like. Get rid of the codes of conduct that try to prohibit any speech someone finds offensive because the fact is that's an impossibility. I find it utterly offensive that I can't say what I think because it might offend someone else. How do you protect against that? You simply cannot.
The elements who are driving these new methods of thought policing are socially immature and cannot handle ideas antithetical to their own beliefs. I know our moms told us we were special, but they didn't mean we're more special than everyone else. It's an arrogant disposition to believe you should be able to censor speech you disagree with and never have to hear opposing ideas or offensive language.
If you find yourself commonly starting sentences with "you shouldn't be able to..." then you don't understand the basic idea of liberty and the ideals that gave you the right to say that. The whole idea of 1984 was that the change of the language and the inability to express ideas is what enabled Big Brother and the party to take and keep power. It was about political correctness and stifling speech. If you cannot speak against the prevailing wind, it will never change direction.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I could not agree with you more. The CoC seems to allow for freedom of expression as long as it agrees with a narrow viewpoint of the world. There's too much emphasis on the feeling of the reader. Nobody heard of "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"?
If you are hurt or feel unsafe because someone said something on the Internet, you need to look in the mirror and tell yourself to grow up. And catering to those people brings your discussions to the lowest common denominator.
There can be no change without controversial speech and the CoC seems fine with controversial speech that follows one line of thinking but not okay with any disagreeing speech.
I once got my post removed from a tag meant for new developers because of the "tone". The post is simply that you need to be hungry to self study and continue learning or get out of the field because it isn't for you. Ouch. If that triggers you, you're going to have a hard time making it in the real world.
I'm old enough to remember when people had discussions with others who disagreed with them, on purpose, so they could learn and empathize. I'm old enough to remember when tolerance and inclusion was supposed to be about letting everyone be who they are. Now it's tolerance and inclusion if you agree with a single narrow viewpoint.
Thank you for your input Jeremy!
I greatly appreciate your point of view, sometimes it feels very strange to be "the one" that gets the boot, especially if you don't get notified in any way or have a process to appeal such decisions.
I have to agree. I grew up having to stand my ground in discussions all the time, so I can pretty much sign your statement.
On the other hand, I can understand people getting hurt by words, so there should be some kind of instance that makes sure it doesn't escalate too much. If you have to insult someone, you loose the argument. But if the discussion is civil, I see no real reason for people to feel attacked. No idea how that would be policed in any way, someone is always going to be offended.
That's exactly what I remember. The typical "debates" where you get an opponent that will attack you on purpose in any way possible, just to prepare you for "the real deal". I don't see that happening on the internet anymore. Either it's a fully fledged flamewar, where noone really wins, or it's going toward the echo-chambers/fanfare-circles.
Do you see any way to improve on social media platforms to encourage more "classic" debates?
I'm seriously at a loss, I have no idea what could be done to improve on the current trend, but I do like my debates a lot.
I think the main problem is the philosophy that it is the platform's responsibility to "protect" the user. This leads to issues like overly-limiting codes of conduct or prior restraint, which is the enemy of freedom of speech and open discourse.
Personally I don't need any platform or person to protect me from hurtful people or discussions. On most platforms I can handle those situations myself through the use of the block feature. If I don't like someone's posts or comments, I can simply block them and I never have to interact with them again. I don't feel the need to ban them from a platform or stifle their freedom of speech because it doesn't align with my view of the world or I'm afraid it might hurt or offend others. I expect those other people to be adults and have the ability to click the block button for themselves.
I think if we want to improve the situation, we need social platforms to push back against the groups demanding prior restraint and tell them to simply block people they don't like. Get rid of the codes of conduct that try to prohibit any speech someone finds offensive because the fact is that's an impossibility. I find it utterly offensive that I can't say what I think because it might offend someone else. How do you protect against that? You simply cannot.
The elements who are driving these new methods of thought policing are socially immature and cannot handle ideas antithetical to their own beliefs. I know our moms told us we were special, but they didn't mean we're more special than everyone else. It's an arrogant disposition to believe you should be able to censor speech you disagree with and never have to hear opposing ideas or offensive language.
If you find yourself commonly starting sentences with "you shouldn't be able to..." then you don't understand the basic idea of liberty and the ideals that gave you the right to say that. The whole idea of 1984 was that the change of the language and the inability to express ideas is what enabled Big Brother and the party to take and keep power. It was about political correctness and stifling speech. If you cannot speak against the prevailing wind, it will never change direction.