32 comments

  • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

    "When you see someone being nasty, call them out LOUDLY."

    Fight nasty with nasty! If people disagree with you, no matter how respectfully, tow them back in line like a playground bully! This type of mentality IS the crux of the problem. It's short sighted hypocrisy that seeks to limit discourse and freedom of speech.

    12 points
    • Miles ReiterMiles Reiter, 1 year ago

      Loudly is not the same thing as nastily. Your summary is not what Jennifer actually said in her article. It is in fact a profound misunderstanding of her position. I hope I can help clarify it.

      "So the next time you see someone make a ridiculous comment in a forum, call them out. Don’t argue or insult them, just tell them that what they said isn’t acceptable in this community. The next time you see someone belittling someone else’s work instead of giving a constructive critique, call it out. Ask them to elaborate and give examples of how the person could improve."

      She's advocating for assertive action that helps maintain strong civil discourse. Not nasty, belittling, or otherwise bullying behavior.

      7 points
      • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

        While I absolutely agree that nasty, unconstructive behavior should be called out, those terms are being applied to a wide range of comments that don't fit that bill. It's tribalism through and through and more akin to a high school popularity contest than the discourse of a mature, healthy community that truly welcomes discourse and differing viewpoints.

        6 points
        • Miles ReiterMiles Reiter, 1 year ago

          Where are those terms being applied to a wide range of comments that don't fit the bill? I don't see that happening in Jennifer's writing, so I'm confused as to the presence of that commentary on her post.

          4 points
          • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

            First day here at DN?

            1 point
            • Miles ReiterMiles Reiter, 1 year ago

              Nope, and I believe that I'm aware of some of the discussions your comment seems to be informed from. I remain confused as to why you're projecting issues from those discussions onto this post. Your problem doesn't seem to be with anything about what Jennifer wrote, but rather experience with others doing the opposite of what Jennifer is advocating.

              5 points
              • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

                Pretty sure her article is a direct response to other posts written here recently, but to each their own!

                3 points
            • anthony thomasanthony thomas, 1 year ago

              First day here at DN?

              Why are you being snarky to someone who disagrees with you while preaching against that?

              The ones who accuse others of hypocrisy are the biggest hypocrites of all. Be wary of phony moralists.

              9 points
    • Todd CantleyTodd Cantley, 1 year ago

      As I’ve said many times before you’re constantly condescending. You fight ‘nasty with nasty’. Hell you fight polite with nasty. Right now you are being a short sighted hypocrite. You are the crux of the problem

      4 points
      • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

        Thank you for reading so intently, I appreciate the time and energy.

        1 point
        • Joshua HughesJoshua Hughes, 1 year ago

          Dude. I've seen some of your comments — you make valid points in many of them — but you're totally shooting yourself in the foot with this troll-style snarkiness. Just step away from the keyboard...

          2 points
          • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

            Thank you for your feedback, I'd focus on the larger topic at hand rather than one individual, you're missing the point.

            0 points
  • Interested Curious, 1 year ago

    I really hope no one cites freedom of speech in order to defend themselves here because that would be misunderstanding freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence, especially when the speech in question challenges others rights and existence,

    6 points
    • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

      The only rights that have been challenged here are those that are hypocritical in the sense that they promote the same kind of discrimination and bigotry they were intended to counter.

      6 points
      • Interested Curious, 1 year ago

        The "in a sense" i think is exactly where we might disagree a tiny bit. Discrimination on a textbook level can be used on a case by case basis. Systematic levels of them are far more concrete. Depending on how semantically accurate we get we can easily differentiate a problem vs a personal feeling.

        An all women's retreat, may (possibly) discriminate against all men joining for whatever reasons. That does discriminate against me by textbook definition, but isn't systematic, it's simply a restraint on this retreat.

        However on a systematic level, I a male, am allowed in all other spaces and traditionally have been allowed in places that women weren't. My offense is a personal feeling, and semantically accurate.

        If for example this retreat were at your company and all of your bosses were women, and historically women held power that women have only earned in the last few decades, and this was a key to your success. Then it's not only a personal level of discrimination, its also a systematic level of discrimination that would apply even if I left my job.

        There are entirely ways to have these sorts of discussions but they shouldn't infringe on each other and having the nuance to move between issues that are systematic and more endemic and understanding when these things fit, are best.

        These discussions can even be had about accessibility to things as simple as chairs on the bus with a preference for the elderly. I could have a sprained ankle and a shitty day but I'd have a really hard time dismissing their difficulties walking with my need for comfort.

        5 points
        • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

          There is nothing "maybe (possibly)" about it. And as time progresses what was just a public and lauded incident of discrimination could quickly grow to become a more systemic form.

          Two wrongs don't make a right, and reverse discrimination is just as vile as the original perceived form.

          6 points
    • Sean LesterSean Lester, 1 year ago

      Wow, I’d hate to be the straw man that crosses you.

      4 points
  • Steven CavinsSteven Cavins, 1 year ago

    Yeah so it seems the design community is as prone to the follies of tribalism as all the others, which is basically making the web insufferable.

    I barely wanted to write a comment at all, or ever, since it feels like just another CIS male with an opinion. This might be my last here. Things just feel gross.

    5 points
    • Sean LesterSean Lester, 1 year ago

      The culture war has come to DN. Wanted to learn and talk about design? Too bad, bigot, all that matters is the culture war.

      6 points
  • Jennifer Aldrich, 1 year ago

    Hi folks! Thank you so much for taking the time to check out my post. I'm heading out on a family vacation and promised my kiddo that I'd unplug. I hope that those that celebrate it have a fantastic Thanksgiving (and safe Black Friday)! I'll catch up with you all when I get back in town Nov 27th.

    4 points
  • paavo koyapaavo koya, 1 year ago

    Seems that adding a "put your opinion here" section to every possible information source is ensuring bitterness spreads quickly throughout society.

    4 points
    • David ThornDavid Thorn, 1 year ago

      It certainly amps up the entertainment value. One of my favorite parts of youtube infact.

      1 point
  • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, 1 year ago

    Don't have much to add do this except to say that I agree 100%. It's important that we don't let a few loud voices drown out the rest of the community.

    4 points
  • Ivan BjelajacIvan Bjelajac, 1 year ago

    I think that every community needs an authority in one way or another. The authority promise/proclamation on here says the following:

    The Designer News community strives for quality content, and bans users very liberally, so behave yourself:

    Be nice. Or else.

    Maybe the moderators should be more present and more vocal to set an example for the community. Just a thought.

    3 points
    • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

      Censorship is the way to salvation!

      3 points
      • Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, 1 year ago

        imagine thinking a policy of "be nice or else" will censor your posts.

        2 points
        • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

          Imagine giving advice to ostracize people for disagreeing with you.

          2 points
          • Ivan BjelajacIvan Bjelajac, 1 year ago

            Man, I actually agree with your post from earlier and wanted to add another perspective to this whole thing. Not in a censorship sense, but that moderators maybe SHOULD be more present and vocal to serve as an example of how to communicate if things get out of hand a little bit. As they obviously did earlier this week.

            I guess discussing anything over the internet and expecting a rational, thought-out, non-sarcastic response is too much to ask for. Whatever.

            3 points
            • Sean SchraederSean Schraeder, 1 year ago

              Thank you for taking the time to try and explain your point of view. Maybe I jumped to a rash conclusion thinking you were advocating for censorship but I agree sensible moderation and examples of leadership and good discourse are of course always good things. The problems and friction we are facing here are a microcosm for the issues society is facing at large right now - it's a great opportunity for us to be introspective and address these issues as a community, but that doesn't mean to shirk away from the responsibility /opportunity. Maybe I am defensive, just like so many here seem to be because it's a hot-button issue that we are facing time and time again. The right answer and path forward will be one of moderation and open-mindedness. I will strive to do better in the future as I hope we all do.

              2 points
              • Ivan BjelajacIvan Bjelajac, 1 year ago

                The right answer and path forward will be one of moderation and open-mindedness. I will strive to do better in the future as I hope we all do.

                Namaste.

                Be open-minded and speak in moderation. Or else.

                0 points
              • Marat Ryndin, 1 year ago

                Haven't been on here for a while. What actually happened? A TL;DR version or just a link would suffice to get me up to speed.

                0 points