The Water Cooler - 2017-05-15

« first day (1860 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2832 days later) »

Monica Cellio

01:16

Changing somebody else's answer because you disagree with it is not ok. Adding things like "don't do this" is especially not ok. Saying that the author can always revert it doesn't make it ok; maybe the author thinks the user doing it (particularly if he's got some rep) knows and is correctly enforcing site rules, or maybe he just doesn't want a fight, or maybe he doesn't know he can dispute it, or...

4

Editing out stuff that's clearly inappropriate (e.g. an answer is mostly ok but has one paragraph of rudeness) is different; there you're upholding the "be nice" rule and saving the answer from deletion. But that's an exception; don't change people's intent otherwise.

6 hours later…

Anon

07:13

@enderland As my question seemed to go viral for the "it's not you" aspect, that was not actually mine

i asked that question for a friend of mine who did not want to sign in here

Philip Kendall

07:43

What should we do about this question workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/90992/… My initial response is "close it, trying to persuade the OP to get psychiatric help ASAP", but open to other views.

1 hour later…

Walfrat

08:51

@MonicaCellio TL;DR this is why in the edit queue there is a reject reason for that, even if we get the edit privilege, we still have to follow that rule :)

2 hours later…

Richard U

10:42

@MonicaCellio this reminds me of the maelstrom caused by the gender crusader a few months back who was changing various answers to make them all gender neutral.

Magisch

10:56

@RichardU Do you still have the link for that?

I'd be interested in reading through it

Walfrat

11:24

4

A: What is the proper reference for gender on workplace?

In Workplace posts, would it be considered offensive, and therefore flag-able, to use gender specific pronouns? I think it would be ridiculous to flag the use of gender-specific pronouns. Take a look through the questions that exist. Read through the first page or so. Do we really want to...

@Magish workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3985/…

13

A: Are edits to answers that remove gender bias constructive?

There's no guideline to specifically support edits that only change gender. There is a guideline not to make trivial edits. That's because editing bumps a post, and -- especially for older posts that aren't already on the front page -- you should only do that when there's an actual improvement ...

4 hours later…

Richard U

15:30

@Magisch it also seems that the "offended by everything" crowd got their last hurrah in that one. It seems like a few people "rage quit" over SE's refusal to set a pronoun policy.

Magisch

@RichardU Meh

I have edited pronouns to be more neutral in the past, but only when the answer I was editing had consistently used neutral pronouns and had an inconsistency at the end

You know, when it helps clarify and removes ambiguity

Richard U

@Magisch usually, it does the opposite, especially when everything becomes "they" and "them". I literally cannot make sense of those posts.

Carpetsmoker

While the singular "they" doesn't quite fit in every situation, I do often use it.

Magisch

Singular they works when there's no ambiguity to its use

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker It's not bad if you're unclear, but sayin something like "Joe went to the beach and they bought soda" makes no sense

Magisch

15:37

and if someone uses a singular they 5 times throughout an answer, and a random "he" at the end, the "he" only serves to confuse

a lot

Richard U

@Magisch agree

Magisch

@RichardU SE sites are naturally resistant to extreme minority bullying attempts

because usually what they'll do is bully the admins into letting them enforce whatever BS they want to soapbox by then under threat of publicly calling them out

fortunately, neither SE nor the elected moderators care one iota

Carpetsmoker

Changing gendering of language is like changing American/British spelling in posts. I obviously have my own preference on doing things, but I'm not going to enforce those preferences on others. Only in cases where it actually clarifies things are such edits appropriate

Magisch

@Carpetsmoker But for people subscribing to that particular ideology having anything then perfect equality / representation of everyone regardless of their gender identity is a big societal wrong that needs to be corrected and everyone needs to be shamed / forced into correcting it

It comes from the line of thinking that anything -> offensive and offensive == harmful / degrading

Carpetsmoker

Yeah, I appreciate it's not as simple as that for some people

It always gets hugely complex when morality gets involved

Magisch

15:47

If you empathize with them, their actions make complete internal sense

(I still don't happen to agree, but their logic is at least internally consistent)

Carpetsmoker

There are lots of very bad ideas that "make internal sense" and are completely "internally consistent" ;-)

Magisch

Sure

But this particular debate is about something that couldn't be more subjective if it tried

Carpetsmoker

The problem is a lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. I happen to use gender-neutral language almost 100% of the time out of principle whenever the gender of the person/people I'm talking about isn't unambiguously clear, but I also respect that people may make other choices, even though I disagree with them

Magisch

respect for opposing viewpoints only makes sense as long as you don't consider your opponents and everyone who doesn't 100% think like you to be on your level

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker I like this quote from Aristotle "It is the sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it".

Magisch

15:52

Lots of these people don't. In their minds, whoever is in opposition is sexist, racist, misogynist and generally just a morally bankrupt person worthy only of shame and degradation

Richard U

agree^^^^^^

Magisch

And also actively harming already oppressed groups by challenging ideas of their empowerment

Richard U

@Magisch that was part of the point Orwell was making with regards to newspeak.

Magisch

So in their mind it becomes a moral imperative to dox, get people fired, make death threats, try to get people to kill themselves, etc.

Richard U

@Magisch and they've been frighteningly effective at such things.

Magisch

15:54

Well yeah

liberal non tribal viewpoints are actively counter to human nature

we're very tribal and influencable people by nature

Carpetsmoker

I don't think they've been all that effective though @RichardU

It's mostly just a lot of noise, and don't really see a whole lot of real change coming from it

In fact, quite the opposite, since these tactics turn people against the viewpoints merely because of disagreements about the tactics

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker I've always advocated for the least disruptive tactics possible.

Magisch

Me for one

I'm a pretty hefty liberal

Much more liberal then for instance richard u

Richard U

@Magisch but I love hearing your viewpoints.

Magisch

But I detest these tactics as much as anyone

It kills discussion and is detrimental to liberal ideas

Richard U

15:59

@Magisch most liberals I know detest those tactics as well.

Actually, most of my friends are liberal.

Magisch

It's actually much more effective at eroding support for liberalism then right wing smears are

Carpetsmoker

@Magisch Exactly.

Feeds

1

Q: Why was my comment on this answer deleted?

I left a comment on this answer explaining that I downvoted because of the recommendation for cussing out your superior. It also contained a speculation about what a preceding comment was intending to say. My hope was that the author would revise the section, but even if not, I believe that the c...

discussion comments

Richard U

@Magisch this tends to happen to ideologies when they gain power. it goes to their head, their tactics degenerate, and then poof.

@Magisch this may surprise you, but I am VERY liberal on a number of issues.

but we don't get into arguments when we agree, lol

@Carpetsmoker I just got into an argument with a friend about no-platforming people. I said that if you do that, then the ideas cannot be refuted. An idea that cannot be heard cannot be disputed.

I've told people that I would gladly get on stage and debate a neo-Nazi. I'd welcome the opportunity to make a fool of him in public.

Carpetsmoker

The thing is that it doesn't quite work that way. Even if you are refuting certain ideas, you are giving those people a platform, too

E.g. KKK or NeoNazi dimwits.

Of course, the "no platform" tactic is being invoked far too often for far too silly things.

Example: youtube.com/watch?v=5BRDSvO_eDA

Richard U

16:08

@Carpetsmoker It does work because inherently flawed philosophies are easily subject to ridicule. I've already driven these idiots off of several online platforms by making fools out of them. Granted, there was plenty of material to work with.

@Carpetsmoker I've been very successful with dealing with these people. naturally, I use a variety of handles and rarely have the same one in two forums to avoid doxing.

Carpetsmoker

People still believe this sort of stuff in spite of wide-spread refutations and ridicule, so it's not that effective it seems

Aaron Hall

@MonicaCellio If I had it to do again I wouldn't. It was ok-er than I thought at the time.

Carpetsmoker

Also related: rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT

How often do we have to keep repeating the same over and over again?

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker people still believe in a flat earth. too, but they are hardly influential.

@Carpetsmoker "How often do we have to keep repeating the same over and over again?" Well, as Solomon wrote "there is nothing new under the sun" some 5,000 years ago, that should be an indication that it won't end soon.

Carpetsmoker

People who believe the earth is 6,000 years old are a bit more influential...

Richard U

16:13

@Carpetsmoker name three of any influence.

don't give them more importance than they have.

I know plenty of very devout Christians who think that is utter nonsense.

Carpetsmoker

Aside from the many TV preachers and such (e.g. Ray Comfort and such)?

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker We used to turn on Swaggart to laugh at him.

Carpetsmoker

Pretty sure there are at least a few US elected officials as well

I'd have to check

But it's a mainstream-ish idea

Magisch

Thing is

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker in what mainstream?

Carpetsmoker

16:15

And yes, obviously many (most) Christians reject YEC for what it is: complete nonsense

Magisch

If you're talking to people obviously and by their nature uninterested in critical enquiry

You can tell them about anything as long as you represent an authority figure for them and they'll gulp it up

Carpetsmoker

The United Stated @RichardU? And actually Europe as well. I wasn't thought Evolution in school because some parents protested (even though it was in the book)

Richard U

@Magisch at this point, with so much information out there to challenge one's beliefs, ignorance is a self-inflicted wound of the soul

@Carpetsmoker again, not common, widespread, or influential. You'll always have groups here and there, but unless they're blowing things up, staging mass executions, or intimidating people into silence, they are not a threat.

The key is not to try to change the minds of the converted, but to debate the advocates so that others are NOT converted

*

Magisch

The secular world got christianity under control largely

by various fights fought bitterly across the ages

the reformation, the renaissance, enlightenment...

Carpetsmoker

Depends on what you mean with "threat"? I think concepts such as "teach the controversy" are a threat to children's education.

Magisch

16:19

Young earth creationists are a threat

Richard U

17:14

@Carpetsmoker absolutely teach the controversy. Good ideas stand on their own merits.

can't the idea of the world being 6,000 years old be easily refuted by carbon dating?

You always teach the controversy, how else do ideas become solidified, bad ones refuted, and good ones elevated??

Carpetsmoker

YECs reject carbon dating @RichardU

And most of the rest of science

And muddling education with all sorts of outright nonsense seems like a recipe for disaster.

Should we "teach" homeopathy and bloodletting in medical school?

Richard U

@Carpetsmoker that was the very argument used as the basis to arrest, convict, and execute Socrates

@Carpetsmoker Good thing they didn't allow the radical idea of washing ones hands in medical school. We'd have far too many women in the world today if they did. Instead, we limited the female population by letting them die from post partum infections.

and there is a difference between teaching an idea, and teaching to the controversy.

Do you think that a good argument against blood letting could not be made?

Carpetsmoker

There's a difference between a controversial new position, and an age-old position that has been proven to be nonsense several times over. Bloodletting sits squarely in the second category.

Besides, education isn't the place to fight those battles

Richard U

17:34

@Carpetsmoker education is PRECISELY where to fight those battles. Besides, nobody is advocating bloodletting any more for the precise reason that new "ridiculous" ideas such as germ theory came along.

Not to mention the ludicrous idea that the world was not flat, that the earth was not the center of the universe and that god does not shoot dice.

Draken

@RichardU But it is flat and riding on the back of 4 elephants whilst riding on the back of a great sea turtle, I read it, so it must be true!

Carpetsmoker

> nobody is advocating bloodletting any more

Oh really?

archive.allayurveda.com/panch_bletting.asp

Masked Man

@Carpetsmoker ... and you know that those ideas are nonsense because of education. Take out the chapters on Holocaust from history books, and just about a century later, people will think of the Nazis as some mythical villains. That is the point (I think) Richard is trying to make.

Richard U

@MaskedMan precisely

Bad ideas cannot be refuted if they are suppressed

Case in point, ask anyone to name 5 of the 25 points of the Nazi platform and I'll doubt if you get even 2

Carpetsmoker

In principle, I don't disagree, but my point is that these ideas have been presented and refuted many times, and that including all "alternative theories" in an education only serves to muddle matters

Masked Man

17:45

Right but if kids of the future generation demand to know why those ideas are nonsense, you can't just say, "don't bother, we have known this for centuries". That is how superstitions begin to spread, and well ... here we go again.

Carpetsmoker

Sure, but there's a difference between "teaching the controversy" and "suppressing" information. No one is "suppressing" YECs, and refutations of their ideas are widely available.

And teaching the history of science and philosophy is certainly important

But that's not the same thing as "teaching" that evolution and YEC are merely two alternative theories with equal merit. They're not.

Richard U

18:38

@Carpetsmoker Socialism was directly responsible for over 100,000,000 deaths last century, yet people continue to embrace it. If people are not reminded, they make the same mistakes.

3

@Carpetsmoker teaching the controversy does not mean teaching that both points are equally valid. It means you teach to the issues raised by one to smash against the other. Simple scientific method.

@Carpetsmoker that kind of controversy serves to strengthen science, not weaken it.

One thing that the creationists have raised is the issue of irreducible complexity. I'd love to see that one answered, and I'm not a creationist.

Carpetsmoker

19:20

irreducible complexity has been answered, many times. In fact, Darwin already did in Origin of the Species

BradC

@RichardU The problem with "teach the controversy" is it gives precious time out of the school day to pure non-scientifici nonsense. YEC advocates want to get that time to "argue their case", which actually turns out to be "confusing everyone with bullshit". That is not a good use of the school's time.

Regarding how widespread YEC belief is, this article talks about surveys where the answer ranges from 20% to 40% of the US population, depending on how exactly the question is asked.

Also, it takes much less time to state a false idea than it does to carefully and properly refute it. In fact, this was a deliberate technique used by the late creationist debater Duane Gish, who used to pepper his opponent with "facts", in a flood that he knew they didn't have the time to properly refute. The method was actually named after him, the "Gish Gallop".

Regarding influential creationists, I would put several of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates into that category (although it is hard to get some of them to commit to a position).

Carpetsmoker

19:39

@BradC Re: "it takes much less time to state a false idea than it does to carefully and properly refute it", there's a Dutch saying: "one fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer"

Seems apt here :-)

BradC

Also, President Trump appointed creationist Jerry Falwell Jr. to lead his task force on higher education reform.

@Carpetsmoker I like that saying, we should adopt that in English

In fact it is arguable that Vice President Mike Pence doesn't accept evolution

Carpetsmoker

Ugh, Jerry Falwell :-/

Magisch

@BradC u wot

jerry falwell is a moron in every sense of the word

Carpetsmoker

To quote Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

Was @Magisch, he died a few years ago

This is his son

Magisch

@Carpetsmoker His son isn't any better

BradC

19:42

@Magisch (If this is any consolation, this is Falwell Jr, not his more famous televangelist father)

Our new HUD secretary (and former presidential candidate), Ben Carson believes in a literal 6-day creation, although he is unwilling to say how long ago that was.

But he's openly advocated against evolution

And has even debated creation/evolution (on the creation side)

4 hours later…

Richard U

23:31

My goodness, I didn't realize there was so much anti christian bigotry in here

« first day (1860 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2832 days later) »

Transcript for

May '1715

The Water Cooler

General chit-chat for workplace.stackexchange.com. Feel free t...

ask-your-manager use-headphones

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2025 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile