@DoritoStyle if you took that as me agreeing with you then we have not achieved communication. Let me try in a few more words:

I personally do not think use of "he" as a neutral pronoun is biased. It's just the way English is. I disagree with the bias assertions in the meta question.

We know that some people are nonetheless upset by use of this perfectly-fine grammatical construct, so I don't consider it wrong to try to improve posts that use it. That does not make it good to do so, and the edit still has to pass muster in other ways including not being objectionable to the author, whose name is on it. The burden is on the editor.

I disagree with you that gender should be scrubbed from the site more broadly. If a person asks a question about a coworker and uses "he" or "she" to refer to said coworker, then (a) it is proper for answers to do so as well and (b) it can be obfuscating to go in and try to neuter that question. Sometimes gender matters, after all, most especially in situations where there is any power imbalance. Leave that alone.

A question about bullying is a prime example of that. It does matter that the junior, bullied employee is a woman and the senior, bullying employee is a man. Not because women can't bully (of course they can), but because the dynamic can be different and answers need to take it into account.

That doesn't mean the bullying is gender-based and the burden is still on the underling to show that rather than just asserting that "man bullies woman" = sexism. But it could be. In that particular question I don't think it's proven. But the OP thought so and scrubbing it out of the question, instead of explaining in an answer that it's not, was wrong.

In general, the response to incorrect or questionable interpretations in questions is to write answers that address the question and present different interpretations. This is no different than a question on SO that says "I'm trying to do this, I got this error, I think it's because of this function call" where the answer is "your function call has nothing to do with it; your variable type is wrong" (or whatever). Focus on the actual problem; the OP's speculation is secondary.

I certainly didn't take it as agreeing with me, but I did think you summed up my argument nicely

I also don't support support scrubbing gender from the site, but I've seen a lot of resistance to the idea having any merit whatsoever.

@DoritoStyle In that first example I would argue you definitely should not change it. Same if the OP had used "she"

Aside from what's been beaten to death here, my principle issue with the post on Meta is that it presupposes that anyone not agreeing with the OP's opinion is inherently biased. and in the comments, it said as much. I honestly don't know how effectively saying "anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" doesn't blatantly violate the 'be nice' rule

and so as not to spam meta further...

@DoritoStyle yes, it is vandalism to go in and change someone's post for your own feels.

In a nutshell, I do not believe that assertion of one's politics into another user's post is a correct use for the edit

@RichardU it's a wrong assertion in the question that was addressed in several answers. The OP clarified that he isn't calling people biased. I don't see a "be nice" violation here. "Be nice" doesn't mean "never say anything that anybody might disagree with", after all. And I think you agree with that statement, from things you've said about PC trends and the like.

@RichardU your latest meta question obviously arises out of frustration. I'm sorry this is being so frustrating for you. But a one-liner philosophy question like that isn't likely to fare well, and I expect that that will be frustrating to you too. If the community is going to discuss it we'll need to move beyond brief statements of position to fuller discourse. Examples would help.

I'm curious about something. Why decline a flag and then delete the comment anyway?

@ChristopherEstep I sometimes do that if a comment was flagged as rude, I don't see rudeness, but things are getting too chatty or the like and I flush things. I really wish comment flags allowed a way to communicate with the flagger sometimes. (You might say "what's the difference if it gets deleted anyway?", but a history of validated rude flags draws mod attention, so we try to make sure they really are.)

@RichardU if you assume good faith (per the Be Nice policy), then accusing editors of vandalism is quite extreme.

@MonicaCellio well, the problem is that @enderland has said "not constructive" is usually better than chatty (it's in meta) and "not constructive" doesn't necessarily means rude either.

comment flags are a mess

well, apparently you two need to pow-wow or something because it's even more confusing for me. :)

I think the main problem is everything about comment flagging is subjective

@MonicaCellio I do not see how calling someone biased is not violating the "be nice" policy especially since the OP singled out a user's answer. Calling someone "biased" is an outright insult, the fact that the person asking the question framed the question in virtue signaling notwithstanding. Gold plated swill is still swill

@MonicaCellio I deleted the post on Meta

Bias is usually a criticism of the action, not of the person.

@DoritoStyle No, Bias is Mens Rea

How the HELL can something be biased without intent?

@RichardU Sorry that your meta post wasn't well received, I do think it's worth discussion.

I disagree. That's not what bias is. It's by definition unintentional.

By nature, it's malicious intent.

@ChristopherEstep oh, sorry. The lines between flag types are fuzzy and, yeah, messed up. I usually only do the "decline but delete anyway" thing for what I see as a misplaced rude flag, but it's possible that I did this elsewhere. Or another mod did. If it happened once or twice please try to chalk it up to mod imperfection; if you see a pattern please feel free to bring it up so we can dig into it more. Ok?

no, nothing in that definition infers that...

@DoritoStyle Prejudice requires intent

No, it does not. Can you explain why you think so?

One cannot judge without thought,

@MonicaCellio it's fine. It's not like declined flags affect anything. I just want to know how to flag comment threads that have gone off the rails.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that 'personal politics' should not influence posts on here when possible. But I think it's also very obvious that the current workplace climate (in the US at least), gender issues are very sensitive subjects which everyone is required to be conscious of in day to day life.

So, it's not so easy to say that people shouldn't bring that mindset to answering questions here.

@DoritoStyle I probably disagree with you on principle on everything down to what you had for breakfast, but I would NEVER want to see you censored

or anyone else

I think that was the point I was trying to articulate, but failed

Defining edits as censoring is wholly inaccurate.

"If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you."

math.stackexchange.com/help/editing

@DoritoStyle editing a post for political/speech reasons is by definition censorship

@ChristopherEstep I'll try to pow-wow with the other mods and see if there's anything better we can say on that meta post. When I'm flagging I tend to use NC when things are starting to turn aggressive/sniping/personal and TC when they're starting to ramble and go off-topic. Sometimes they do both, of course...

@RichardU except SE isn't a protected free-speech institution in the first place. How can you be censored in a creative-commons wiki style environment?

In any case, if someone's politics aren't useful or constructive (including my own), then they should be removed, and that's not censorship. It's building useful Q/A for later reference.

@DoritoStyle censorship: the act of the manners or morality of others

I think basically "not constructive" is "this is getting into not-goodness from a be nice perspective" and "too chatty" is everything else

@enderland that's how I have interpreted it.

rude/offensive is "this is definitely not be nice"

@RichardU defining a term is not helpful if it doesn't apply to the context.

The Workplace is a worldwide community. It contains people who are sensitive to gender issues, people who aren't, people who are hyper-sensitive, people who are suffering other kinds of injustices and think pronouns are ridiculously far down the list, and lots of other people. Please try to remember that your perspective -- whatever it is -- is not universal.

Indeed, nor is my own belief more right than another be default!

I don't think a discussion about "censorship" is useful here.

I agree

@MonicaCellio why not?

serious question.

Ah, the heck with this. I am getting too frustrated.

@RichardU because it's making people very frustrated.

@MonicaCellio now that made me laugh

And because it can bog down in technicalities when we should be discussing the higher-level issues.

LOL

+1 lol

Thanks

I mean, do you want to see three hours of arguing about whether edit history being preserved does or doesn't mean there was censorship? I sure don't.

@MonicaCellio thanks for breaking the tension

Great, thanks all.

SE functions a lot more like wikipedia than a blog, I guess

So if we can build on this newfound harmony: the word "bias" in that meta post has led to a lot of frustration. Can we try to agree that the OP there perceived bias, didn't ascribe motive, and could have chosen a better word with more care? I think he's saying that word choice can bias perceptions, which can happen completely accidentally. We can't know or control people's intentions, only what shows up on the site, so let's focus on posts and not feelings we can't know, ok?

(I recognize the irony of making a suboptimal word choice when talking about word choices. He's human, just like the rest of us.)

Honestly, regardless of what side you are on, I don't think gender-neutral pronouns is so big an issue that it needs to be discussed in chat for over 4 days.

I will not participate any further in that discussion. "Just let it go" is what I would say to myself.

People who still want to continue debating it might want to branch off to another room.

I agree

@MaskedMan turn away and slam the door?

Well, that's kinda why I keep harping on it. Disagreeing on usefulness is one thing, but flat out refusing to discuss it? That stings.

Of course, that's your right, and I don't mean to sound like I'm judging you for not wanting to participate

At this point, i'm honestly not very concerned with using gendered pronouns, but rather the quality of discourse that sprang from it

@MonicaCellio I agree, the word 'bias' carries a very heavy subtext in internet debate these days, to the point that I don't even begrudge inclination RichardU to take offense at it.

It seems the best way to the other side of this issue is more careful word choice

You are free to assume whatever you want. I have discussed it enough and I have better things to do than continue the pseudo-discussion.

"pseudo-discussion." now that's an insult.

I thought I was trying to meet you halfway here @MaskedMan

@enderland Uhm, yeah, Screw This, I'm Outta Here :)

@DoritoStyle You were not trying to meet me anywhere, hurling insults such as "hypothetical crazy example" and "no research whatsoever" towards me, which I ignored. Now don't go calling out other people for "insulting" you.

I was attacking your argument, and not your person. Sorry, but that's fair game.

But, maybe I'm being too infammatory

If you were offended, I apologize, and I hope we can do better about understanding each other going forward.

referring to someone's argument as "crazy" is a personal attack whether you intended that way or not.

I acknowledge that, but I've received the same treatment and taken it in turn :)

not like anyone ever called you a "troll" or anything. ;)

lol

@ChristopherEstep in all fairness, we should let him retreat to his abode under the bridge

I'm not going to assume that was directed at me, but I will say that name-calling is worse than accusing of bias

@DoritoStyle you're making a distinction without a difference.

And you're threatening to ruin our new-found peace :)

@DoritoStyle more like a cease-fire, but again, a distinction without a difference, this time on my part.

Personally, I think we all need to lighten up. Myself first and forememost.

foremost, dang it.

the fat finger strikes again.

In any case, it's lunch time!

@MaskedMan >.> was a quote from the rest of the song ;-)

knock knock knocking on heaven's door

@enderland Yeah, I have heard that one, and mine was a "quote" from an answer I wrote here sometime ago. ;-)

On a lighter note, in 8 days' time the election will finally be over!

@Kaz ... you really think that it will just "end" without more drama? you are way more optimistic than I am :P

@enderland Oh sure, some drama, but it will (probably) be in the context of an actual result that isn't going to be overturned.

(Just as a side bet: My personal prediction at this point is Trump)

I'm pretty much just going to be happy when it's all over

@enderland It really has gone on forever ^^

I mean what, 18 months now?