-14
\$\begingroup\$

So, I posted an answer to this question, which has now been closed, and when I logged on today, I saw that my answer was, for some reason, deleted. Users with the required rep can see the language.

The comment left by was "This doesn't provide useful, practical guidance, but rather propagates an unhealthy attitude towards others (see V2's comment)." I strongly disagree.

V2Blast also left this comment:

The issue isn't necessarily that society sees these things as bad/reasons to look down on someone. Rather, the issue is that your answer is implying those things are bad/reasons for the querent to look down on someone. That is to say, you're not commenting on/criticizing society unfairly portraying them as such; you're essentially saying "don't care what they think now, because they might end up as a single mother or a janitor [which is a bad thing]". I'd suggest editing your answer to avoid such an implication if that's not your intent.

I believe that my answer contains very useful, practical guidance, and that it promotes a much more healthy attitude towards others than the OP's current, overly attached attitude, even if it's sort of cynical. I've edited my post to make my point about investment someone more apparent, so can my post please be undeleted?

\$\endgroup\$
9
\$\begingroup\$

Your personal views seem to be at odds with the site's code of conduct

The site's code of conduct states

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. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.

While your views do not concern religion or any other of the domains specifically cited, the cited passage is clear on the fact that these are only examples and that the rules extend to opinions which people might reasonably find offensive for other reasons.

And while I am not a single mother or a janitor, I do see that I might be offended by your views if I were.

The reaction to your answer shows that other people share my perspective - they even told you so and kindly asked you to review your answer.

The basic idea of your answer seems helpful

Saying that highschool friendships are usually temporary or that overreliance on others' opinions can be unhealthy seems to be useful advice.

However, we don't know who of the students from OP's school will become janitors later and saying that they shouldn't befriend those people if we did, is an opinion which is not endorsed on this site which the code of conduct clearly states.

Note, that these two points can be regarded separately. I, for example, agree on the first one but strongly disagree on the second one. So, separating these two views and basing an answer on the first one would be helpful and probably cause much less disagreement, because it is in line with the fundamental principles of the site.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "However, we don't know who of the students from OP's school will become janitors later and saying that they shouldn't befriend those people if we did," That uncertainty is why I recommended that they make minimal relationship investments in other students. \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Dec 23 '20 at 13:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, I'm not saying it to hurt them; I'm just stating facts that anyone on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum is already aware of - and I'm saying that as someone on government "job seeker" benefits. \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Dec 23 '20 at 13:30
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ The fact that high school friendships are often temporary doesn't render the advice useful. We are mortal. All friendships are temporary. It's very tempting and easy to look back at friendships of past, say "oh it's over, I guess it didn't really matter after all". But it mattered back then. And the querent is living in the situation when it does matter. You can't fix their situation by trying to push your perspective on what is and isn't important on them. \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri Dec 23 '20 at 17:19
7
\$\begingroup\$

No.

Your answer and question violate the Stack Exchange Code of Conduct.

First, the introduction to the Code of Conduct says:

Whether you’ve come to ask questions or to generously share what you know, join us in building a community where all people feel welcome and can participate, regardless of expertise or identity.

We commit to enforcing and improving the Code of Conduct. It applies to everyone using Role-playing Games Stack Exchange and the Stack Exchange network, including our team, moderators, and anyone posting to Q&A sites or chat rooms.

Your description and opinion of single moms, janitors, and overweight persons runs contrary to the stated purpose of the Code of Conduct, that is, to make all people feel welcomed here on the stack.

Now, the details:

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. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.

Denigrating the worth of people is not only likely to offend or alienate them, it is intended to do just that.

Undeleting your answer would be a violation of the Code of Conduct. Our hands are tied, sorry.

Your attitude is disgusting.

The way you describe people as only something to be used for a profit is absolutely vile. It is the very same attitude maintained by slave owners throughout history - that a persons worth is based only on what they can do for me. It isn't welcome here, and if you don't change it, neither are you (as explained in the Code of Conduct).

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is stating objective facts against the Code of Conduct now? It's not denigrating them; it's just true. That all of those groups are low-status is just true. Do you want me to dig up scientific studies about correlations between socioeconomic status and obesity and/or single motherhood? Janitors serve a purpose, but it's one that is low-status and low-paid. Do you want me to dig up labor statistics to prove that? \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Dec 23 '20 at 13:04
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ @nick012000 doubling down isn't going to help you here. You can be better than this. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Dec 23 '20 at 13:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "The way you describe people as only something to be used for a profit is absolutely vile. It is the very same attitude maintained by slave owners throughout history" It is also the dominant opinion held by users on the Workplace SE. The fact of the matter is that relationships between adults are primarily determined by cost and benefit, outside of your immediate family. \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Dec 23 '20 at 13:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, my personal experience is that adult friendships tend to be strictly delineated along shared interests and activities, and that outside of those contexts, the bonds of friendship tend to be minimal at most - further demonstrating the transactional cost/benefit nature of most adult relationships. About the only exception might be literal life-or-death contexts like the military, which can create stronger relationships between fellow soldiers. \$\endgroup\$ – nick012000 Dec 23 '20 at 13:25
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @nick012000 Any sociological or historical facts aren't the issue here. The issue is the attitudes propagated and endorsed by employment. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Mod Dec 23 '20 at 23:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I can absolutely see the depiction of single mothers, obesity or low paid manual labor as a problem, but the jump to "your attitude is that of a slave owner" is way out of line and problematic in terms of the CoC as well. \$\endgroup\$ – nvoigt Dec 29 '20 at 22:32
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @nick012000 you might want to consider that your transactional attitude towards human relationships might be the cause of them being "minimal at most". \$\endgroup\$ – Dale M Jan 2 at 5:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .