Tomb of debate

[Nick]

Originally Posted by xilman

I have often been helped by individuals whom I would regard as being rude in the manner in which they have helped me...
Perhaps I should just resign as a supermod and give up on the forum.

Now that's a ****ing bad idea!

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Nick

In mathematics research, distinguishing between people and ideas is vital.
Sharp criticism of flawed ideas saves a lot of valuable time for everyone, and is not a sign of disrespect of the person who brought up the idea.
On the contrary, good researchers welcome it.

[nomead]

Originally Posted by GP2

No. Person A and Person B each state their case, and then rational third parties do their best to figure out, without prejudice, the facts of the situation.

Your formulation doesn't even consider the possibility that Person A is blameless. That may be the way things are done in academia, or with the "codes of conduct" that are all the rage these days, but it's unacceptable.

Hear, hear. Fully agree.

I mean, Linus Torvalds was really abrasive and blunt for a long time, a dumb idea is still dumb whether you sugar coat the response or not, but now even he had to give up and surrender before the CoC folks.

[M344587487]

Originally Posted by xilman

I am becoming ever more depressed by this thread. The snowflakes seem to be winning, largely by being noisier than those who are more robust and partly by ignoring points made by those who disagree with them.
...

And so it goes. Winning by attrition is the name of the game, all you have to do is suck the will to retort out of the perceived opposition. It's not about discussion changing opinions including your own it's about putting your opinion at the top of the pile consequences be damned. The Code of Conduct nonsense is a good example of this in the wild, it works frighteningly well against those with a STEM disposition and has derailed a great deal.

In a somewhat tangential example take this programming presentation from last year ( https://youtu.be/_e6BKJPnb5o?t=2330 ). Throughout there's someone on a completely different wavelength to the stereotypical person that attends programming conventions. It culminates in the opinion that, despite the performance hit modern high level languages/frameworks have, that they should be used for critical performance sensitive applications for the sake of inclusivity, going so far as to say it's the morally right thing to do. Not only sacrifice performance where performance matters but do so so that a low-skill programmer can write the critical infrastructure we rely on. That's the type of backwards thinking that shouldn't be perpetuated, yet CoC culture does just that in the name of inclusivity. It's retarded.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by GP2

No. Person A and Person B each state their case, and then rational third parties do their best to figure out, without prejudice, the facts of the situation.

Your formulation doesn't even consider the possibility that Person A is blameless. That may be the way things are done in academia, or with the "codes of conduct" that are all the rage these days, but it's unacceptable.

This.

[Dr Sardonicus]

It isn't always a matter simply of ideas. Cranks, for example, almost invariably fail to consider work already done on the subject of their Great Revelation. Sometimes, people post, elicit a response, then change the original post. Luckily, there's a thread for cranks.

Sometimes, however, in other threads, people post unrealistic aspirations, respondents explain why they are unrealistic in excruciating thoroughness, but the aspirants try again and again to force their ideas into the same boxes, into which, it has already been explained, that they will not go.

I don't think it's right to prohibit criticism of such behaviors.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

This.

#MeToo

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

Person A says/does something that upsets Person B
Person B complains.

I Think a much more preferable sequence of events would be:

Person A reflects on the fact that they have upset someone
Person A keeps an eye out for whether or not this is a one-off or seems to have happened again
Person A learns how their actions are causing unintended harm and, being a reasonable human being and member of society, seeks to stop doing this, rather than just thinking of themselves
Person A adjusts behavior so as not to upset people in future, because this is within their capability and is what decent people do

This upsets me. You are now obligated to adjust your behavior. Fortunately, I have absolutely no obligations according to the rules.

An example, MLK Jr goes to Alabama and says "black men deserve equal rights". This upsets thousands of white men. MLK Jr is to now obliged to adjust his behavior. There goes the civil rights movement.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

This upsets me. You are now obligated to adjust your behavior. Fortunately, I have absolutely no obligations according to the rules.

An example, MLK Jr goes to Alabama and says "black men deserve equal rights". This upsets thousands of white men. MLK Jr is to now obliged to adjust his behavior. There goes the civil rights movement.

[a1call]

I think mathematicians are generally smart people. I think they will find this thread very enlightening. Not by what is being said, but rather by reading between the lines.

My 2 cents:
It has always been and will be a sign of weakness to ridicule/belittle others. It usually shows deep issues and ailments such as desperate fears and unfulfilled-needs.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by xilman

Seconded!!!