Timeline for answer to Is this comment really "not nice"? by Casey Dwayne
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2021 at 4:59 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | "And I shouldn't need to explain any of this if you were giving what we're saying any serious thought." Seriously now? I don't think citing Mr. Bean is needed if that is what people expect to be part of a normal conversation. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 20:47 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @MisterMiyagi You said, "...the problem is being rude." We're addressing the issue of what's considered rude. The entire premise of the "welcoming" push is that SO's user base is rude, that the outside perception of SO has merit. GSerg is pointing out how that perception is based on a flawed interpretation, and is furthermore pointing out that chasing the goal of eliminating all speech that can be considered "unkind" is ultimately detrimental. And I shouldn't need to explain any of this if you were giving what we're saying any serious thought. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 5:33 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | How exactly do Rowan Atkinson and someone's coworkers relate to what one can and cannot (or perhaps should/should not) do on SO? | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 5:15 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @MisterMiyagi GSerg is right. I have seen coworkers take personal offense at having their posts edited for grammar or mechanics. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 18:25 | comment | added | GSerg | @MisterMiya Because even when you are kind and sticking to the facts, someone will find your constructive criticism offensive (warning: YouTube link). Previously this was viewed as an error on the receiving side, but under the welcoming paradigm the blame is on the speaker. I will be honest in that I cannot recall this happening to me, but I have seen "hey, no need to be rude" being thrown around in response to something that was correct and did not seem remotely rude to me, and each time it made me feel that the only safe way is to not criticize anything. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 14:27 | comment | added | einpoklum | A nanny state is a very brutal place. Except that the brutality is carried out by the state, and usually behind closed doors. But +1 for what I presume you may have said had our mouths not been muzzled. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 11:56 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @GSerg Look, I have no intention of going down the rabbit hole lined with fighting words. I have no intention discussing about some decisions made on some comments on some blog. I am trying to understand how there's a contradiction between being kind, sticking to the facts, and by extension caring about the content because I am experiencing none of that in my daily use of SO. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 11:32 | comment | added | GSerg | @MisterMiyagi I'm not saying cancelling is happening here, I'm saying it has shifted the baseline. I believe the OP's comment in question is factual and neither insulting nor "not nice", much less invoking cultural flashbacks to colonialism, and yet here we are discussing it. I would also not agree with your earlier comment about voicing our opinions freely. I have had critical comments not passing pre-moderation on the SO blog, seen highly upvoted critical comments deleted "to avoid clutter", and there is an official mod tool to manually remove a hot topic from the Hot Meta Posts panel. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 10:03 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @GSerg How are the two things related? Yes, I do see content of questionable quality being upvoted. No, I don't see factual and neutral curation/commentary being canceled or called out as insulting. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 8:57 | comment | added | Clockwork | @GSerg I heard the old Stack Overflow was a nice little community where everyone was more or less getting along very well. So there was no problem about not being nice since it was a little self-sustained community. And then the bad questions came pouring. | |
| Sep 4, 2021 at 7:30 | comment | added | GSerg |
be kind. Stick to the facts on the subject - those contradict each other, I'm afraid. The cancel culture has shifted the point of origin such that not praising someone enough is already seen as an insult. Ten years ago Stack Overflow was honestly about the quality of content and nothing else, and while no one tried to offend anyone purposely, no one's "feelings" were put in front of the quality of the content. It is the opposite these days, and atrocious questions get upvoted regularly because they are from new users who must be dealt with kindly.
|
|
| Sep 3, 2021 at 13:09 | comment | added | Donald Duck is with Ukraine | "This is not me stating my opinion, this is simply me stating the fact that I could not give my opinion and be within guidelines set by the site." That's incorrect. While it's true posts on the main site are supposed to be based on facts, posts here on Meta are perfectly allowed to be opinion-based. See What is "meta"? How does it work? | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 13:08 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Run-on_sentences> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/overdo#Verb> <http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section) ].
|
| Sep 3, 2021 at 13:03 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section) ].
|
| Sep 3, 2021 at 11:34 | comment | added | Casey Dwayne | Maybe not in meta, and maybe not in comments, but certainly on questions and answers (especially on questions, though thankfully sometimes they leave it up long enough to gather decent responses). I have no issue with punitive action for violating ToS, but I have, in many cases, seen good questions closed and good answers edited. I gave up caring long ago and use this site for the resource instead of the community. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 8:49 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | There is no ban on voicing an opinion, especially not on meta. If voicing an opinion includes being rude or otherwise violating the rules, the problem isn't in voicing the opinion – the problem is being rude. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 7:59 | history | answered | Casey Dwayne | CC BY-SA 4.0 |