Skip to main content
Cross Validated

Timeline for Reinstate Monica

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

34 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 29, 2019 at 16:00 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER Allright, i thought it was for a holistic cause and not just monica. Offcourse she is not at disadvantage at all.
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:53 comment added gung - Reinstate Monica Mod I don't understand your question. The lawyers for the 2 sides negotiated & came to some agreement. Part of the agreement was the rule that they don't discuss it. We don't know exactly what the agreement entails, but there's no question Monica was at a disadvantage. My guess is her lawyers advised her that the agreement was the best she was likely to get. That's pretty typical of this sort of thing. Whose cause is just has nothing to do with it.
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:45 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @gung-ReinstateMonica, Ok, can you then explain me that if the "cause" was legit, how come we didnt get to the the outcome? Instead, what we got was a confidential deal has been reached and this case is now settled. So much for the all the campaign and stuff.
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:30 comment added gung - Reinstate Monica Mod The company's decisions don't make sense from a hard-nosed business perspective. They have alienated many more people than are actually trans users on the site. They have lost some of their most prolific and highest rep contributors. Those are the people who generate value for the company.
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:28 comment added gung - Reinstate Monica Mod @GENIVI-LEARNER, you've repeatedly referred to people advocating for Monica as 'social justice warriors'. Your analogy is flawed. To the extent either party is analogous to SJWs, it would be the company, which fired Monica in order to create a more welcoming environment for trans people. (Note that they failed badly on this goal.) Personally, I support a welcoming environment for everyone, but it is obvious that some of the people complaining the most are transphobes & trolls who don't really care as much about Monica. The company is explicitly following a SJW-type policy. They have said so.
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:28 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica so i guess you got me wrong. What i meant was that you guys raised funds, so that you can see the "physical outcome" of the process or policy change, but instead what happend was out of court settlement in secret. Usually, individuals do "out of court" settlement to profit from the situation, not because of the "cause" itself. If the "cause" was the priority then she should have fought in the court so everything would have been public and your donations would be fruitful as the "cause" was being upheld, not a "compromise"
Dec 29, 2019 at 15:12 comment added Sycorax Mod Anyway, your argument from legality finds itself in a hard spot. Either you're assuming that all of today's laws are just, so you are implicitly making a moral argument, or you don't care if today's laws are unjust, in which case you'll tolerate any atrocity that the legal code permits. This is it is dangerous to blindly follow the law just because it's final, instead of seriously engaging with moral philosophy. Your legalist argument also can't answer "Should we write a new law? What should it say?" because it has no basis to reason about what a good or bad law is.
Dec 29, 2019 at 14:55 comment added Sycorax Mod I'm not sure what your point is. The fundraising campaign raised money to hire attorneys who negotiated the settlement, whatever that entails (it's secret). Why are your expectations an relevant to this conversation?
Dec 29, 2019 at 12:09 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica, looks like she has settled on agreement with SE, despite all that fundraising campaign. She wont speak about the settlement amount or deal. This is exactly what I expected.
Dec 28, 2019 at 22:55 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica I am speaking purely on the logical bases. Logically there is no right or wrong here, morally there might be opinions, but living in a world where different people have different morals and opinions, we can at-least rely on that fact that logical grounds and legal ground separates us from those personal biases.
Dec 28, 2019 at 22:50 comment added Sycorax Mod Again, you're making a legal claim, but my arguments hinge on the distinguishing between legal and moral arguments. Until you acknowledge that moral arguments have value, we will be at an impasse.
Dec 28, 2019 at 22:35 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica I doubt your statement that depending upon circumstances you might be wrong. We are not even questioning the reasoning. Its your property, its your will.
Dec 28, 2019 at 22:33 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica, exactly thats my whole point, your friends can claim "Sycorax is a jerk! They made me get a cab home" but that "doesnt make you wrong!", did you understand now? ...in this analogy just replace "your friends" with "all the people in this page who are making an issue" and replace "yourself" with "SE".
Dec 28, 2019 at 22:33 comment added Sycorax Mod Depending on the circumstances, I might be wrong. For example, I'd be wrong if I refused to let my friends stay for bad or dumb reasons, and they would be correct to criticize me. If you agree that my friends can criticize me if I made a bad or dumb decision, then you agree that we can criticize SO for demoting Monica and disparaging her. It seems you've got the argument backwards again.
Dec 28, 2019 at 21:08 comment added Sycorax Mod I've let my friends sleep in my house when they're not able to make it home safely. But I wasn't legally required to do this. If I'd refused, my friends could say "Sycorax is a jerk! They made me get a cab home," and perhaps they'd be right (depending on the circumstances). My argument is that you can criticize people who do dumb and bad things. Your hypothetical doesn't disprove that claim. Another flaw with your hypothetical is that it confuses legal rights and moral stances. This is a flaw with every one of your arguments so far. Another flaw is that it places power above reproach.
Dec 28, 2019 at 20:59 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER If your answer to above is "yes" then by that logic, yes, whatever happened with monica was not good.
Dec 28, 2019 at 20:58 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica Are you suggesting that if I come to your property to sleep in for one night because I am so tired and cant drive, you have no right to deny me entrance? I mean offcouse, it will be nice of you to let me in and let me sleep because "by your logic" a house is meant to be for people to sleep in and inviting me in is "morally right thing to do".
Dec 28, 2019 at 20:44 comment added Sycorax Mod Are you really suggesting that just because someone has power, it is right use that power to do anything that is not explicitly illegal? Because there's a wide gap between what's right and what's illegal. People who do bad and dumb things can be criticized. That's my argument. Criticism won't necessarily change it, but that does nothing to invalidate the moral basis of the criticism. Our orientation to power is the most important political stance we can take, and your orientation towards power suggests an entirely authoritarian view: might makes right. As to that, sic sepmer tyrannis
Dec 28, 2019 at 20:37 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica your arguments will work well in communist setting, where public jointly holds the rights to an entity.
Dec 28, 2019 at 20:32 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica What i am saying it is neither good or bad to demote, (not fire) Monica, it is just what owner wants, whether you like it or not. If Mark Zuckerberg doesnt want me to open up Facebook account, I wont be able to. Now I can start SJW forum to discuss this all day long and even start GoFundMe to fight back that Mark Zuckerberg doesnt want me to be on Facebook, it wont mean a thing. Thats not how corporate world works. If my friend excludes me and invites other to his house, I will not go crazy over social media no matter how insulting it could be.
Dec 28, 2019 at 19:49 comment added Sycorax Mod Ultimately, if you think that logic and morality are mutually exclusive, either you’re subscribing to bad logic or you’re subscribing to bad morals. I’ll let you sort out which is which. But I really hope you take a moment and rigorously think through why you think it’s true that it’s impossible to be both logical and moral.
Dec 28, 2019 at 19:14 comment added Sycorax Mod Which of your statements should be read as arguments and which are merely unrelated anecdotes? We’re not talking about an abstract situation involving football, we’re talking about what happened to Monica. Given the strange leaps of logic and selection of weird, unrelated examples to justify your position (what position? Why was it good to fire and disparage Monica?), it seems out you have neither logic nor morality on your side. Anyway, logic and morality aren’t exclusive positions. An entire field of philosophy dedicated to reasoning about what is right and just.
Dec 28, 2019 at 18:50 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER Anyways I dont think i can add anything to this to change your mind, it is one of those political discussions where one discusses logic and other discusses morals.
Dec 28, 2019 at 18:49 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica for your first comments, I am not using my example to justify anything. Thats how world works. Coming to the case of Monica, she was a moderator on volunteering basis, so she was not actually fired or her account was blocked. Her privileges were removed but she still could access her account, so i dont see much of an issue here. When the management decides to change the team captain of say football, should the captain start crying? No one forced her to become moderator in the first place nor the company swore any obligation to keep her as moderator indefinitely.
Dec 28, 2019 at 15:08 comment added Sycorax Mod If your point is that corporations are cruel and the American economy gives workers little recourse, then of course I agree with you. If you're somehow trying to use this as an example of why unions or social reforms are bad, or to show that the so-called "free market" is good, then I'm afraid you've gotten your argument backwards again.
Dec 28, 2019 at 15:03 comment added Sycorax Mod I'm sorry that you were laid off. That must have been a very trying time for you and your colleague. Your claim appears to be that because you were laid off, anyone anywhere can be laid off for any reason. But I don't understand why your firm laying you off justifies SO firing Monica and smearing her. This is an apples and bananas comparison.
Dec 28, 2019 at 12:19 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica I understand your point, me and my collegue have suffered even worse, we were laid off from a tech firm due to their yearly loss, the management decided to lay us off because we were among senior member who were paid high and entitled to benefits (Not because of our performance), hence, we accepted it because we "signed a contract" before joining that the company is entitled to fire the staff without any reason. This clause in the contract mentioned "at will" and thats it. Now should we decide to be SJW and create a union, the free market wont be free anymore.
Dec 27, 2019 at 23:10 comment added Sycorax Mod Anyway, my point about BP, Boeing and Arthur Anderson is that I can criticize them. It seems that you've confused criticism and legal liability. These two things are different. Even if there's no underlying legal wrongdoing, I can still have an opinion and express that opinion.
Dec 27, 2019 at 22:47 comment added Sycorax Mod Even if we restrict the consideration to employment, (1) I'm still entitled to express an opinion about firing Monica; (2) firing Monica, besmirching her character, and disparaging her to the press is wrong; (3) and possibly illegal. If the crux of your argument is that I have no power over SO, then you're correct, but completely missing the point: people who do dumb or bad stuff should be criticized; that criticism has moral value; any legal characterization is at most one-third of the issue. Perhaps you believe SO wasn't wrong to fire Monica, but no one is above reproach.
Dec 27, 2019 at 22:21 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER @SycoraxsaysReinstateMonica, You comment is the classical example of misdirection. You are equating apples to bananas. There are protocols in place by the government and other parties in the form of conformity that is unlawful to neglect. Violations of those conformities by the company makes the company accountable by law. However, "the general policy" of the company to decide if they should have a printer in all the offices or only one or should the pantry be equipped with expresso machine or not or monica be fired or not, is the matter of the company only. Its not that hard to understand.
Dec 27, 2019 at 20:25 comment added Sycorax Mod I think you've got the reasoning backwards. I can make a criticism of anyone or anything for any reason -- but they're under no obligation to do anything about it. Following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you're suggesting that no one should be allowed to criticize BP for poisoning the Gulf of Mexico, or Boeing for killing hundreds with the 737MAX, or Arthur Anderson for cooking Enron's books. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer marine life to not be poisoned, aircraft to be flightworthy, and financial criminals pilloried... Of course, you're allowed to disagree.
Dec 27, 2019 at 19:50 comment added GENIVI-LEARNER As a customer, you have no right to tell the company officials how to run their company. Its simple, you dont like their service or decisions, you can seek help elsewhere, its free market. I cant go to McDonalds and tell the management, why did they fire Bob.
Dec 27, 2019 at 18:10 comment added Firebug And we have the right to be upset by it too, since we are customers of the services SE offers. Don't get your point at all.
Dec 27, 2019 at 14:33 history answered GENIVI-LEARNER CC BY-SA 4.0
toggle format