If they want to maintain a civil environment that's able to call out subtle -isms, then they should simply accept "no, it wasn't" just as freely as "oops, sorry".
I may tell someone to "man up and crank through the work". I didn't intend on being sexist, but someone points it out. And then I proceed to get into an irrelevant shouting match about how, in German, "mensch" is gender neutral.
If you didn't intend on being sexist or whatever, then maybe there's a better way of phrasing what you said. Or, you can find faculty later, in private, and try to come to an understanding about the situation. Anyways, I would just say "sorry" on the spot and save the debate for later.
Is it really so hard to believe that I did not say something offensive? Is it impossible to think that the person doing the call-out can be in the wrong, that they might be imagining or even willfully manufacturing an emotional distress?
Are we all now to be beholden to the whims and fancies of those that continually reshape the landscape of political correctness in an effort to exercise a modicum of control or power over their peers?
My proposed solution is simple: if someone tries the call-out method and they are in the wrong, you reply in a manner that is just as direct and non-confrontational. "No, it wasn't."
Would you?
Let's test it.
Your whole comment is a subtle -ism because I say so.
Apologize for it and retract it immediately.
I'm certainly not going to attend HS, so do what you want, I suppose. I probably won't be hiring anyone who comes out of the program, either. I can't imagine interacting with a product of this environment. So conditioned to avoid not just confrontation but plain discourse.
This is a social lobotomy.
I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity.
I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.
That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification, concrete examples, how it has a negative effect.
> if someone told me I am being sexist or homophobic when I am not then I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.
It has not thing with being or having intent to be homophobic, sexist, etc. It is about some phrases being much more likely to have such intent and meaning in society in general.
It is unrealistic to expect a N random someones hearing a subtl-ism to understand the speaker's internal meaning of a phrase or word. While those N random people should endeavor to not jump to conclusions about the speakers internal meaning, for the most part all they can go off of is how society uses the word/phrase.
>That does not mean you would not be able to ask for clarification....
Only if such is not going to interfere with the current discussion, instruction, or other activity, which presumably represents what you are all there for, at that time.
Which might be the reason for banning debates: "Take it offline."
Should we let everyone's internalized emotional damage be projected onto society at large? Certainly not.
If we're going to let everyone interpret our words however they wish, then the entire concept of language becomes meaningless.
The reply might be "oops, sorry", or it might be "no, it wasn't." Thats the argument here. If further debate or discussion were necessary following that exchange, I would welcome it, but "oops, sorry" cannot and should not be the default because it assumes that whomever takes the defensive first is always in the right, and that is its own "bubble" worth worrying about.
The one time I was accused of being subtly-sexist, I disagreed with the commenter and I told her so (privately). She stuck to her point, and by the end I didn't 100% agree with her and I thought she was being a little sensitive; _however_ I'll still be more careful in the future. Whether or not I agree that she should have been offended is irrelevant: I said something that offended her, she seems like a nice enough person, and making that tiny switch in my language was a small-enough sacrifice that I was happy to err on the side of caution.
Accusations of sexism in technology need to be taken extremely seriously, as just the accusation alone can be all it takes for someone to be publicly vilified[1] or even fired[2].
In today's technology culture, the accusation of sexism can be even more damaging than the sexism itself.
That's a key reason for all this debate taking place. HS is promoting this culture in a way that encourages other companies and communities to adopt it, and the potential for abuse and misuse is far too high. It's very easy to imagine a culture developing as a result where someone is accused of sexism where there is none, and they either accept it and offer up an empty apology or they deny it and are crucified.
[1] http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun
[2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-...
Here's my example, and if the person in question is reading this, he/she can feel free to chime in. I posted in our internal forums about how I was planning my wedding (to another man) which "was getting very expensive, even without a bride." Someone called me out on sexist language, saying that not all women needed elaborate weddings/dresses/whatnot, and so on and so forth. We debated (privately) for a while. In the end? Honestly? I appreciated her viewpoint a little more, but I still think she was being a little over-sensitive. HOWEVER, I went back and edited my post to remove the offending remark. It was a minor change for me to make (and she wasn't totally wrong), and if it made someone feel a little more comfortable and promoted harmony, great. It ended there. It also would have ended had I _not_ gone back and edited my post. But if I made a giant stink about it, involved other people, treated her poorly thereafter, and otherwise was a giant unpleasant jerk to work with, well then yeah--I'd expect some consequences. Does she hate me now? I don't think so. Am I a terrible misogynist? I hope not. But I got reminded that people with different viewpoints and backgrounds will think differently from me, and I should respect that, and that's a very good thing.
This is exactly the kind of self-censorship through mobbing that we're trying to counteract.
It's unconscionable and it's unacceptable.
It's good that you can recognize that you are being offensive and honest enough not to let embarrassment prevent you from reacting appropriately when you are.
[Yes, I rather expected this to be down-voted.]