Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

19
  • 6
    Not going to solve anything. There already is a ban on off-topic content. You can't ban refering to someone in the third person. It's not entirely avoidable even on the driest of technical sites so there is no way around addressing this eventually. You could theoretically ban all expression of sex/gender/etc in avatars to avoid the issue, but to do that you would have to force everyone to be anonymous and that wouldn't rhyme with the desire to show off your skills which is part of the motivation to participate here. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:05
  • 35
    The clarification of the CoC isn’t about identity politics, it’s about being nice. Some people don’t understand that using the wrong pronoun for someone when you’ve been told the correct one isn’t nice, so the CoC was updated to make sure that would be clear. Don’t get me started on the FAQ, but the CoC shouldn’t cause anyone any grief. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:05
  • 2
    Could you explain what, exactly, "identity politics" is? Who've explained what is a "part" of it, but not what it is. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:06
  • 8
    @House: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:08
  • 6
    Telling people that they should just shut up about it already is not likely to be conducive to constructive discourse. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:25
  • 3
    @ColleenV But the FAQ is there and it isn't going anywhere and it is about identity politics. In most cases when people say CoC they actually mean CoC + FAQ + CM answers in the feedback post. There seems to be a lot of identity politics there. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:27
  • 5
    @ColleenV Lately, being nice is used as a euphemism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism) for identity politics. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:29
  • @Goyo You’ll get no argument from me, but Warlock should be more explicit about what “identity politics” is referring to. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:29
  • 4
    @dfhwze I wasn’t using it as a euphemism. I meant it in the sense of being respectful/not rude. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:31
  • @ColleenV Certainly the question is not very well written and clear. I guess it might be asking for something like this answer by Robert Harvey Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 19:55
  • 5
    @Goyo The author conflates “identity” with “identity politics” - who knows what they’re looking for? Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 20:00
  • @ColleenV Yeah, I find that confusing too. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 20:06
  • 8
    This question could be improved by adding some concrete examples. For instance, suppose I call Joel Spolsky a homophobic slur in chat. If he complains, he gets punished under (2); if someone calls over the mods to delete my message, they get "severely punished" under (5). If that's not what you intend to happen, you should say so in the question. Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 20:53
  • 1
    @LeopoldsaysReinstateMonica I don't see how identity politics (or identity at all) is involved in your scenario. (5) as written would apply but not (2). Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 21:52
  • 1
    @gbjbaanb The conversation starts with an explicit request for clarification. Since we don't know whether they will respond, speculating looks fine to me. We can ping only one user in comments and pinging the OP is wasteful since they are pinged automatically, we know they are being notified of every comment. And of course there is a clear implication that the OP is a human and is more than welcome to join the conversation, clarify anything we don't understand and prove our guesses wrong (or right). Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 17:59