In the Code of Conduct, we state “We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples.” To clarify, this includes discussion questioning or debating the legitimacy of someone’s race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Further, the debate or discussion of whether or not you want to or should use a person’s pronouns is both offensive and alienating.
(From here, Oct 5, 2020)
is totally offensive and alienating to me.
Which is irrelevant, of course. Speech acts cannot be made immoral based on how someone is likely to feel as a result of those acts. They can only be rendered immoral by a narrow range of things, such as the intention to lie or deceive, or if they're outright threats that go beyond the (ethically permissible) threat of refusing to cooperate in future.
The problem with this new policy is not that I find it both offensive and alienating. The problem is that it ignores basic principles of morality, and mandates the imposition of an incredibly stupid and destructive circle of beliefs about right and wrong. SO has done a very bad thing here. By deciding to make ethically permissible speech acts (e.g. those that question gender ideology) contrary to the official rules, SO renders itself guilty of moral wrongdoing, not because droves of people object to these policies, but rather because the policies are immoral.
For me, and for many others, this is the final straw. We were already disappointed with previous attempts at forcing a very specific worldview on users. Now that the problem has gotten worse, we're leaving.
You won't see me here again. I'm not contributing to this website any longer. Goodbye.
SupporterApr 29, 2015
AutobiographerOct 16, 2020
This user hasn’t posted yet.