This is such an important point and missed so often by technical types. Impressed to hear it stated so clearly here.
Since feelings can't be verified it costs little to not be truthful.
There's always going to be a very small percentage of people who don't fit in in large groups, no matter how much you try to work with them. They're also the ones who tend to speak up, and StackOverflow's userbase is massive, so this number gets inflated to something that may seem like a lot, but really isn't that many - and may well be within the error margin for "people who won't fit in".
Typically moderation would push these people away, so they don't keep complaining, but StackOverflow, despite any issues it has, is too good a resource as-is.
Men built stackoverflow. Yes, those "technical types". Men can build things like this precisely because men value what is correct. If you want somewhere where feelings have a place you should stick to the creative arts.
You're being a shithead. This isn't about men or women, and feelings are not exclusive to women. For example, I am sure it doesn't feel nice to be called a shithead.
However, it's inaccurate to assume that the problems on SO stem from how these mythological women feel. There's a disagreement and lack of clarity on the purpose of the site. That needs to be resolved.
Moreover, the site has become a big enough platform that it now it needs to answer the question whether it exists to serve the needs of the users, or primarily to serve its own assumed purpose.
I don't know why the SO blog chose to highlight women, poc etc. as the ones inconvenienced by this. Poor move on their part, as it seems to have targeted these populations as the cause of the problem.
Oh, when will the HN community step in to stop such flagrant abuses.”
See where unconditionally believing feelings gets you?
"i feel that <an opinion>" is a different use of the word (nearly synonymous with "think")
unless you're a non-native english speaker, i'm almost 100% positive that you know the difference and are being intentionally obtuse
As a good faith speaker, I agree with you. A native speaker should be self aware enough to not confuse an unsupported opinion with a "feeling", nor should we dismiss feelings.
However, frequently, feelings are used as a poor substitute for rationality. Therefore I reject the argument that feelings can't be debated or argued.
- the questioner and the answerer might have vastly different levels of experience & therefore struggle to exchange ideas in terms they both understand - people might already be frustrated when they ask a question, since they may have already invested a lot of time trying (and failing) to solve a problem - multiple answerers are competing to be the endorsed answer, and there are rewards associated with it
This has become such a common feature of every debate that the angry mobs on the internet are a greater threat than government to freedom of speech.