zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
Inclusivity, because you can then lay claim any dispute of facts of an article are instead a dispute that only exists because one side is bigoted, racist, or other such nonsense, and actually only disagrees because they do not accept the person posting the disputed fact.

It is one of the main methods of cancel culture, by portraying any disagreement as based in identity differences there can be no functional discussion of the facts at hand

>>Shivet+UB
Can someone please break down that first sentence into multiple chunks. I genuinely have a hard time parsing it

>>vander+vH
The commenter above you believes that inclusivity standards will lead to a situation whereby one party could claim that certain genuinely controversial statements are actually beyond reasonable dispute, and that any such dispute could therefore only come about as a consequence of the disagreeing party not accepting the first party and/or their identity.

That was surprisingly difficult. Frankly, it's a little strange to see such an illucid response being seemingly well received by HN.

>>DC-3+8O
Perhaps your difficulties with comprehension regarding the comment are more orthogonal than you might have led yourself to believe?