Tell me if I'm wrong, but by reading only this and a short discussion in the comments, I get the feeling the central point was "why aren't we allowed to be assh* on dev.to". Well, if a nightclub can kick you out if you get angry at other patrons, why shouldn't a online community be able to do the same? It's not limiting your freedom of expression, just showing you the door. Calling them "hugbox" implies that abuse should be acceptable, and it's NOT. Let me use a very big exaggeration just to make a point: whatever excellent arguments about social statuses he might have, you don't really get philosophical with the drunk hobo on the street spitting insults in your face, do you. The arguments get lost in the heat of the moment, that's how humans work, and anger however justified is not an argument.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
I think the point of the article can actually be summed up by your own comment.
Your comment implies that either myself or the commenter that you reference (as I said nothing about "hugbox" so not sure if you meant to reply to them instead) wants to be an asshole and to allow us to behave like assholes.
That is far more offensive than the content of either of my articles.
Now if you were silenced for having that opinion, you and I can not have a conversation to actually understand each other better. In fact you would double down on your opinion that I am indeed, an asshole as I didn't want you voicing your concerns (something an asshole would do!).
Now imagine if you then wrote about my misunderstanding you (as I am sure you were not intending to call us assholes, just express your opinion) and somebody decided that they would then supress that.
That is where the problem lies.
Now in reality I can look at your comment, realise that while it is possible to take offence at what you have said, it was not actually meant to be offensive but to illustrate a point.
So how do you mediate a set of rules where you try and protect people from being offended? Anyone can take offence at anything.
Hopefully that clarifies more what the point is about.
And to then illustrate my point of view, imagine if you then wanted to try write an article on not behaving like an asshole - would you feel comfortable expressing your opinion after first being silenced and then being supressed? The essentially puts you in my shoes so I hope that clears it up.
Now couple that with the fact that my original article was actually removed "as someone disagreed with the premise"...of a scientific study and you suddenly see how I got very nervous about writing anything of meaning on this site.
I have faith in the community (people like yourself) calling out things that are wrong or they disagree with, not a team who have repeatedly silenced things that "don't fit their narrative" as that creates echo chambers (i.e. twitter 2.0) and that is dangerous!
As you also mention above that you will write more mellow posts, are you of the opinion that anger conveys better a message? Because I don't, so if you do, I'd like to understand why we differ.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
So the "angry rants" series I have been doing gets a lot more engagement and to date it has all been positive. I use the anger as humour and perhaps I should have clarified that point within my post above.
So for example I wrote a post on using a <button> instead of <a href="#" and throughout that I was calling the reader an idiot, incompetent and lazy.
Within each article I do make it clear that the anger is for fun before people start reading.
I think the anger makes people think about how simple changes in their mindset can make a big difference.
I would then be interested to see if you feel the anger does convey the message better than a mellow post as it would be an interesting perspective to discuss (I myself have a very sarcastic sense of humour so things like that amuse me...but I am aware sarcasm can get lost in the written word).
The post you quoted here (which I already knew) is ironic and sarcastic at places, but nowhere "really" angry. That's why it worked fine and actually didn't even need the disclaimer. Because sarcasm is not insults, and sarcasm is also not bullying. Schoolyard bullies are engaging as well (half the school is kinda laughing when they throw the nerd in the garbage) but they're still bullies and that laughter is still not fun, as much as the bullies would claim otherwise. To sum it up, while one hand I wouldn't worry about your "normal" articles, on the other I have no idea what the deleted one contained so it might be it overstepped that thin line you agree is existing and is drawn differently for each person.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
The article that was deleted was not angry in the slightest. It was an analysis of a study and questions about the source of the relationship.
I wish I could link to it instead of dancing around it, but essentially it was an article on the relationship between people with disabilities and being LGB (it was from 2012 so we didn't have TQIA+ then as part of common vernacular).
It showed that the prevalence of disability is significantly higher among the LGB community. That is a scary thing that affects a lot of what we as developers need to think about if we are in any way involved in hiring. algorithm creation, AI etc.
The article was deleted as it is a contentious. The reason given (and I am not joking) was:
"members find the title and premise offensive. "
How you can find a study offensive? How can you take offense at a premise and it be a strong enough reason to close a balanced article.
Anyway, I have bent your ear enough and I enjoyed the conversation on this point.
However, as you are the third person to say that my angry rants do not really risk offending I am feeling a little more safe to post.
I still need a place to discuss really contentious issues so any suggestions would be appreciated (by which I mean the sort of issues where people immediately react rather than engaging and thinking) but at least the community seems to back me up on the angry rants stuff, even if I still can't shake the feeling of "don't challenge the narrative" which just makes me uneasy.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
I tell you what, I will link to it, but let me know when you have read it so I can delete the link. I will let you see if it was offensive or not as I am happy to be corrected by the community.
It's not offensive in language. Now if it's offensive in ideas I cannot tell because I'm not in either group. But as a general rule, if somebody tells me they are offended, I pay attention exactly because I'm not them and cannot feel what they feel. Offenses happen a lot also unintentionally.
PS: it's always risky to give opinions on hot topics (especially as outsider) and this is definitely a hot topic nowadays.
PS 2: I visit dev.to as a technical community so normally I wouldn't even have clicked the title.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but by reading only this and a short discussion in the comments, I get the feeling the central point was "why aren't we allowed to be assh* on dev.to". Well, if a nightclub can kick you out if you get angry at other patrons, why shouldn't a online community be able to do the same? It's not limiting your freedom of expression, just showing you the door. Calling them "hugbox" implies that abuse should be acceptable, and it's NOT. Let me use a very big exaggeration just to make a point: whatever excellent arguments about social statuses he might have, you don't really get philosophical with the drunk hobo on the street spitting insults in your face, do you. The arguments get lost in the heat of the moment, that's how humans work, and anger however justified is not an argument.
I think the point of the article can actually be summed up by your own comment.
Your comment implies that either myself or the commenter that you reference (as I said nothing about "hugbox" so not sure if you meant to reply to them instead) wants to be an asshole and to allow us to behave like assholes.
That is far more offensive than the content of either of my articles.
Now if you were silenced for having that opinion, you and I can not have a conversation to actually understand each other better. In fact you would double down on your opinion that I am indeed, an asshole as I didn't want you voicing your concerns (something an asshole would do!).
Now imagine if you then wrote about my misunderstanding you (as I am sure you were not intending to call us assholes, just express your opinion) and somebody decided that they would then supress that.
That is where the problem lies.
Now in reality I can look at your comment, realise that while it is possible to take offence at what you have said, it was not actually meant to be offensive but to illustrate a point.
So how do you mediate a set of rules where you try and protect people from being offended? Anyone can take offence at anything.
Hopefully that clarifies more what the point is about.
And to then illustrate my point of view, imagine if you then wanted to try write an article on not behaving like an asshole - would you feel comfortable expressing your opinion after first being silenced and then being supressed? The essentially puts you in my shoes so I hope that clears it up.
Now couple that with the fact that my original article was actually removed "as someone disagreed with the premise"...of a scientific study and you suddenly see how I got very nervous about writing anything of meaning on this site.
I have faith in the community (people like yourself) calling out things that are wrong or they disagree with, not a team who have repeatedly silenced things that "don't fit their narrative" as that creates echo chambers (i.e. twitter 2.0) and that is dangerous!
As you also mention above that you will write more mellow posts, are you of the opinion that anger conveys better a message? Because I don't, so if you do, I'd like to understand why we differ.
So the "angry rants" series I have been doing gets a lot more engagement and to date it has all been positive. I use the anger as humour and perhaps I should have clarified that point within my post above.
So for example I wrote a post on using a
<button>instead of<a href="#"and throughout that I was calling the reader an idiot, incompetent and lazy.Within each article I do make it clear that the anger is for fun before people start reading.
I think the anger makes people think about how simple changes in their mindset can make a big difference.
If you have a couple of minutes just read the first couple of sections of this post, I think it illustrates what I mean about anger for humour better than I can explain in a comment.
I would then be interested to see if you feel the anger does convey the message better than a mellow post as it would be an interesting perspective to discuss (I myself have a very sarcastic sense of humour so things like that amuse me...but I am aware sarcasm can get lost in the written word).
The post you quoted here (which I already knew) is ironic and sarcastic at places, but nowhere "really" angry. That's why it worked fine and actually didn't even need the disclaimer. Because sarcasm is not insults, and sarcasm is also not bullying. Schoolyard bullies are engaging as well (half the school is kinda laughing when they throw the nerd in the garbage) but they're still bullies and that laughter is still not fun, as much as the bullies would claim otherwise. To sum it up, while one hand I wouldn't worry about your "normal" articles, on the other I have no idea what the deleted one contained so it might be it overstepped that thin line you agree is existing and is drawn differently for each person.
The article that was deleted was not angry in the slightest. It was an analysis of a study and questions about the source of the relationship.
I wish I could link to it instead of dancing around it, but essentially it was an article on the relationship between people with disabilities and being LGB (it was from 2012 so we didn't have TQIA+ then as part of common vernacular).
It showed that the prevalence of disability is significantly higher among the LGB community. That is a scary thing that affects a lot of what we as developers need to think about if we are in any way involved in hiring. algorithm creation, AI etc.
The article was deleted as it is a contentious. The reason given (and I am not joking) was:
How you can find a study offensive? How can you take offense at a premise and it be a strong enough reason to close a balanced article.
Anyway, I have bent your ear enough and I enjoyed the conversation on this point.
However, as you are the third person to say that my angry rants do not really risk offending I am feeling a little more safe to post.
I still need a place to discuss really contentious issues so any suggestions would be appreciated (by which I mean the sort of issues where people immediately react rather than engaging and thinking) but at least the community seems to back me up on the angry rants stuff, even if I still can't shake the feeling of "don't challenge the narrative" which just makes me uneasy.
Looks to me like not the "anger" was the deletion trigger, then... so there's a totally different discussion needed.
I tell you what, I will link to it, but let me know when you have read it so I can delete the link. I will let you see if it was offensive or not as I am happy to be corrected by the community.
[deleted]
It's not offensive in language. Now if it's offensive in ideas I cannot tell because I'm not in either group. But as a general rule, if somebody tells me they are offended, I pay attention exactly because I'm not them and cannot feel what they feel. Offenses happen a lot also unintentionally.
PS: it's always risky to give opinions on hot topics (especially as outsider) and this is definitely a hot topic nowadays.
PS 2: I visit dev.to as a technical community so normally I wouldn't even have clicked the title.