I have seen this question and I believe it leads to hatred towards both sides without need. People have their views and opinions but this just spirals into hate and swearing which is ruining the site for users (me included).

This being said, shouldn't such questions resort to Q&A only and comments be kept civil about the question and not calling other people names.

Also the answer is quite obvious in such cases, this being resignation from the job and finding another that tolerates your person / views / etc.

As such I believe that questions related to hatred / racism / real-world-politics should be closely watched and managed by objective persons.

| |
  • I wonder where the other side you reference is? If it's a divide between people supporting OPs bosses and not, then the former is probably unwelcome on the site anyways. – mag Apr 12 '17 at 10:53
  • 1
    Saying someone's boss is wrong or not is a debatable thing based on the opinion of the asker, that is OK with me, no matter the reason. But people in comments calling a group of nationalists "racist bigots" for their opinion is no different than calling liberals "n***** loving animals" . It is not OK on a civil forum. Everyone should be equal on this forum, no matter the sex, opinion or nationality. @Magisch – Schneejäger Apr 12 '17 at 11:02
  • 3
    I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The entire Stack Exchange network is intended to be Q&A only with comments meant for civil requests for clarification on the question only. Yes, usually discussion happens in the comments, but that is not the purpose and they are often deleted if they're not directly relevant. When hot-button topics like this come up, there are usually lots of flags and the moderators do closely watch and manage what is being said. – David K Apr 12 '17 at 11:56
  • 1
    "As such I believe that questions related to hatred / racism / real-world-politics should be closely watched and managed by objective persons." - I'm sure the moderators look at these questions. – Joe Strazzere Apr 12 '17 at 12:56
  • And yet there are hate-speeches in the comments. Or is it just me? – Schneejäger Apr 12 '17 at 13:05
  • 7
    If you see hate-speech, flag it for attention and it should be removed shortly after. We can't really prevent people from posting junk, but we can clean it up. – Erik Apr 12 '17 at 13:13
  • 1
    For what it's worth, I went through all the comments and I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary right now. – Erik Apr 12 '17 at 13:15
  • I don't know maybe I am overreacting. Could be for all I know. – Schneejäger Apr 12 '17 at 14:49
  • 3
    @wickerman mods aren't bots, and they have a life too, so it can take 5mn or some hours, but generally such comments won't last 24h. – Walfrat Apr 14 '17 at 8:42
  • 1
    ALL TOPICS HERE should be just Q&A the comment conversations should be ended with extreme prejudice. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Apr 18 '17 at 16:03

This question seems to fit the on-topic rules for the site. Specifically (emphasis mine):

Maintaining employment (promotions, pay increases, harassment, bullying, poor working conditions, communication problems, etc.)

this just spirals into hate and swearing which is ruining the site for users (me included).

No, it won't. Stack Exchange sites aren't reddit or YouTube comments, where simple questions devolve in terrible racial slurs. Comments are quick to be removed, and the tolerance for "rude and offensive content" is low. Very low. Probably lower than any other site you've used in the past.

Simply flag any comments or posts that you consider to be rude and a moderator will take a look.

Should people persist in the "hate and swearing" then they will end up with a suspension very fast, which will solve the problem.

the answer is quite obvious

It's not always obvious what is obvious, and it obviously wasn't obvious to the person posting the question :-)

that questions related to hatred / racism / real-world-politics should be closely watched and managed by objective persons.

I agree, and that's exactly what the moderators are doing (and, as mentioned, the community at large can help too by flagging).

| |
  • 1
    I wish this was true. Our mods seems to have taken a more liberal approach to what is offensive or non constructive with the err to the side of leaving posts that discretion would dictate getting rid of just to be safe. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Apr 18 '17 at 16:02
  • @IDrinkandIKnowThings Though that devolves into a discussion of "who watches the watchers". At some point we have to put trust in the trusted and take the lumps (and I like that about as much as anyone does...). It's like juries in real world trials. We might not like the decision, but we should remember that it was made using the system we chose to accept as a culture, and make sure to follow the procedure. Whether or not that system is justifiable is, again, "who is watching the watchers". – SliderBlackrose Apr 19 '17 at 17:20
  • 1
    If you have a concrete problem with the moderation on this point you should make a new meta post about it btw. – Martin Tournoij Apr 19 '17 at 17:23
  • 1
    They get dismissed. I and others have. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Apr 19 '17 at 17:28
  • Is that screenshot entirely necessary? I'm sure we can all agree that Youtube comments are their own special slice of hell without linking that kind of vitriol on this site. – Lilienthal May 15 '17 at 18:01
  • Dunno @Lilienthal, on one hand it's a good example of the other extreme, on the other hand you're correct in that it's very strong. Feel free to edit it out if you want. – Martin Tournoij May 15 '17 at 18:03

I think it's more the specificity that folks are having issues with here. Mention of "conspiracy theories" and "talking bad about ...." makes it more touchy of a situation. Maybe a more general "At my job there are "hot-button" topics that they discuss which make me uncomfortable."

That falls to the OP to write up, and we as users to help clarify and reword, imnsho. It is an on-topic and site-worthy question that could be better served by thoughtful analysis after the question is asked in order to take the OP out of the middle of the situation into a more objective viewpoint, which should even help the situation itself by giving them a higher-level view of the situation in order to make a better decision.

| |

Nothing wrong with questions like this, it's a very real workplace issue with simple solutions.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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