-134

I would like the 'Necromancer' badge to be renamed to something more neutral, please. Generally this term refers to a person practising black magic or witchcraft. I earned this badge but I don't want myself to be associated with this term.

Let the community decide what would be the new name. I imagine anyone can suggest it's own version as a separate answer (so others could vote and choose). If trying to keep with the original idea behind the badge I would propose something like: Revivalist, Resurrector, Restorer, Regenerator, etc.

This request is initially a follow-up from this question: Can I remove one of my badges?

4
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Brad Larson Mod
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 16:36
  • 4
    are the badge names not configurable per SE site? I checked christianity.stackexchange.com and found they have "enlightened", "guru", "inquisitive" and they have 415 "necromancers"; and scifi.stackexchange.com do not have "necromonger" instead of "necromancer" and IMO either is ridiculously funny in those contexts. Commented Apr 2, 2017 at 11:10
  • 2
    I must say thank you for this question. I really laughed at it and at the answers. Thanks for the sacrifice ! Commented Apr 2, 2017 at 19:56
  • For the record, @dlatikay, here is the request for the feature to have site-specific badges. It never got implemented, though I think it would be pretty cool.
    – NH.
    Commented Sep 12, 2017 at 20:44

5 Answers 5

135

Disclaimer: Yes, this answer pokes fun at this feature request. It is meant to illustrate that, if we were to change this badge, there'd be no end to people wanting badges changed for the most ridiculous of reasons. Where would we draw the line? Contrary to what's implied in the comments, this answer has nothing to do with American politics. I'm not even American. It's just some silly excuses some badges could be changed for. Don't look for meaning or thought in them. There isn't any.

That said, back to our regularly scheduled answer:


While we're at it, let's rename:

(Disclaimer: That was sarcasm ^)

Or let's not.

Let's put a little less effort into looking for things we can be "offended" by. It's just a badge. It doesn't imply you practice witchcraft or black magic.

And even if you do, whatever floats your boat.

19
  • 11
    @Two-BitAlchemist: I'm Dutch. I'm as grounded as people come. The point is that the badge has nothing to do with any of those taboos.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:08
  • 5
    I was under the impression that that "RACISM" reason was pretty clearly a sarcastic nod at the whole "OMG we must be PC" debate.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:13
  • 7
    I also stand with the point: "it's the intention which counts not the words. Words by itself are empty. They only have the meaning we give them"
    – Hayt
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:14
  • 4
    There actually was a Rename Strunk & White request, but for a slightly different reason. Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:16
  • 9
    @Two-BitAlchemist what about with Pagan groups who see it as a, rare, positive about their religion and culture? Arguing it on the point of religion always comes down to opinion and that is not a good reason to rename something which has been well established and used (especially if the votes are any indicator of the minority of this opinion - admittedly they may not be but its a pretty large margin) Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:37
  • 4
    @Two-BitAlchemist I will when I'm less emotional about it (served with a few Pagan Marines and not everyone came home so people who degrade them and their "black magic" kinda hits me a bit hard) Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 14:54
  • 18
    @user568458: This post has nothing to do with american politics. I'm not even American. What I meant to illustrate is that, if we were to change this badge, there'd be no end to people wanting badges changed.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:19
  • 20
    i.sstatic.net/JSrNW.png - I'm just going to leave this here...
    – yannis
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 16:47
  • 10
    This is less what I would expect from a StackOverflow post @Two-BitAlchemist This is actually pretty typical for Meta post about whether something is offensive. There's nothing more offensive to people here than saying that you're offended.
    – BSMP
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 17:07
  • 2
    In the words of the great Scroobious Pip - "I find this interesting 'cause in the end they are just words, You give them power when you cower, man, it's so absurd" Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 15:09
  • 7
    @Two-BitAlchemist: "You have not considered even for a moment that someone might actually have grounds to not want to be associated with necromancy" I have considered it over the weekend, the statement isn't based on anything. No-one is being associated with necromancy, just like users that got the "Archaeologist" badge aren't actually archaeologists. Honestly, replace all mention of "Necromancer" in this feature request with "Archaeologist", it's absurd.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 12, 2016 at 12:03
  • 1
    @Cerbrus - this last "Archaeologist" comment needs to be an answer.
    – user177800
    Commented Sep 15, 2016 at 15:15
  • @JarrodRoberson: Feel free :-)
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 15, 2016 at 15:16
  • 2
    no no no, "reversal" doesn't mean you have to give the badge to someone. It simply means that instead of you getting the badge, the badge gets you. Commented May 16, 2017 at 8:39
  • 1
    @JanDvorak: In soviet Russia, ...
    – Cerbrus
    Commented May 16, 2017 at 8:44
43

Opening up the debate on changing a badge simply because one person out of X number of users (how many people use SO daily?) takes the term literally is a really bad idea. I'm sure almost everyone here can find something they're offended by, and this would have SO admins working 24/7 non-stop to make changes. Once you open that can of worms, you have to appease everyone.

I would suggest you change your view of what "Necromancer" means. Don't take it seriously or literally, I would bet my house that none of the developers here want to associate you with black magic or anything you're uncomfortable with. Just as Cerbrus pointed out, there are many other badge names that can be seen as offensive to some, if they really dig into it. Posts don't "die", there's no actual necromancy (or, if you really want to watch people go hardcore PC, the term is also called "nigromancy"), it's just a word.

3
  • 3
    their whole argument is based on a religious definition, are you seriously trying to change someone's religious belief system which is apparently extremely fundamentalist? Good luck getting them to apply logic and reason to religious beliefs much less fundamentalist ones.
    – user177800
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:04
  • 13
    @JarrodRoberson - Well... Actually, it's a literal definition. The OP's fear of being associated with it may be religious in nature, but a Necromancer is someone who communicates with the dead. That could make anyone skittish, religious or not. Unless the OP specifically stated that his opposition was based on religious beliefs and I missed it? I'd be careful of labeling someone "extremely fundamentalist" without their confirmation. Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:13
  • 9
    Generally this term refers to a person practicing black magic or witchcraft. I earned this badge but I don't want myself to be associated with this term. this says, this is about some other religious beliefs activities that my religious beliefs conflict with. Pretty clear and cut, change the site because of my religious beliefs feature request.
    – user177800
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:19
21

The Word itself in context is positive:

The word is already absolutely neutral and is actually positive in the context it is used. There is nothing wrong with it in an empirical sense; you still have not explained other than you don't like it, how it can not be considered neutral, when it is a about something that is fantasy and paranormal. If you really feel this strongly, you have been given an equally personal workaround, delete your account and start over and don't earn it next time.

We live in an age of logic and reason:

It is not the dark ages any more, at least not on a global scale.

If someone takes the term necromancer as used in this context to mean that people literally communicate and raise the dead in 2016 (or ever), that is their personal problem. Especially some offense that is based on some religious belief that they hold, it is definitely their personal problem, the anonymous Internet population is not going to be attending sensitivity training classes anytime soon.

Reason exists in 2016, and it is unreasonable to think that this has anything to do with literally raising the dead in today's world.

Personal offense is just that personal:

There is a kind of tone deafness hubris in this request asking for a name to be changed to something without a second thought that the proposed acceptable words not would inflame another even larger religious group, not that their offense would be any more valid. Resurrector I mean really, if you think the resurrection semantic is more neutral you are pretty myoptic of others' belief systems. That word is not more neutral; it is anything but more neutral; it is more acceptable to my beliefs.

Logical Fallacies:

The logical fallacies used as arguments to justify the request to change this name are piling up too high to keep track of. Every fallacy that is called out is never addressed and a new one is just promoted to take its place.

There is no need to propose any new name as there is absolutely nothing wrong, offensive, insulting or insensitive with the existing name. If you feel so strongly about it, delete your account and don't earn it again. The main logical fallacy is you don't even use your real name; you use a screen name - why do you care about being associated with a word not even used in the context you personally object to? There is no logic or reason to this request.

3
  • 10
    Also personally If someone cares so much about what a stackoverflow badge says and is treating you badly or thinking about you badly because they associate it that way. You should stay away from those people.
    – Hayt
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:03
  • 1
    I agree there's lack of logic above. Thousands use screennames. Does that mean they can't be associated with something? Using a screen name doesn't mean you keep it in secret. Did you know people chat here from same office? Cross-link to other less anonymous platforms? If there's no need in a new name then was there any logic in your attempts to discuss one of them with me? None.
    – hypers
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 17:10
  • 8
    While I generally agree with this answer, do you think perhaps you could cut down a bit on your use of bold text? IMO it's a bit distracting.
    – Ajedi32
    Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 14:56
14

I think this sums it up better than any other answer and is important enough to be promoted from a comment to an answer:

No-one is being associated with necromancy, just like users that got the "Archaeologist" badge aren't actually archaeologists. Honestly, replace all mention of "Necromancer" in this feature request with "Archaeologist", it's absurd. – Cerbrus

(He told me I could post this quote of his from the comments above.)

5
  • 3
    Naturally, +1 :D
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 15, 2016 at 15:38
  • 7
    Is it bad that I really want to edit the question and do this just to confuse everyone? Commented Sep 26, 2016 at 8:45
  • note that if let's say, a "Pedophile" badge existed (like :"upvoted x posts from new users") this argument wouldn't work, at least for me. But in this case, maybe more people would have had complained in the first place. Much more people offended by this than by black magic, or archeology, I guess.
    – Pac0
    Commented Apr 9, 2017 at 17:05
  • @Pac0 - equivalence fallacy much?
    – user177800
    Commented Apr 10, 2017 at 5:04
  • @JarrodRoberson Indeed!
    – Pac0
    Commented Apr 10, 2017 at 5:36
9

<sarcasm>
Why not simply assign a GUID to each badge, then allow each user to choose the name for that badge that they want to use and to be displayed when people look at their profile? If they don't choose one then just leave the GUID as the default.

Keep everyone happy then

We could assign the molester badge to people who have bothered to rename all their badges </sarcasm>

10
  • 1
    Or as an alternative, make a user script that does s/Necromancer/<whatever>/g
    – matsjoyce
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:35
  • 5
    maybe I should have made the <sarcasm> tags visible...
    – Sam Holder
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:36
  • 4
    Meanwhile, I don't like that votes are called "votes". I want those to be configurable. And comments aren't comments, they're "messages"! Let's not go down this rabbit hole, indeed.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:36
  • 3
    Much better with the visible tags ;) Hard to tell what is joke and what's not in this particular meta thread!
    – ken2k
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:37
  • 3
    To be fair, giving the asker a link to something like greasemonkey that they can use to change the word on their computer only would actually solve their problem without affecting anyone else... that is, assuming they don't object to the idea of greasy monkeys ;-) Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:39
  • 2
    @user568458: The whole problem is how other users perceive him. A userscript won't change that.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 15:42
  • 2
    @Cerbrus: there may be badges that I have that offend other users that I'm not even aware of offending. Isn't it up to the offended to then use a userscript to avoid that offence? Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 16:25
  • I'm very unhappy when deadbeef-dead-beef-dead-beef00000075 turns out to be a badge GUID ...
    – rene
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 16:34
  • 6
    cafebabe-cafe-babe-babe-cafebabe-cafebabecafebabe0666 is the most sexist and satanic UUID at the same time.
    – user177800
    Commented Sep 8, 2016 at 16:46
  • 1
    @rene & Jarrod: don't worry - those UUIDs are not valid according to RFC 4122.
    – Glorfindel
    Commented Sep 15, 2016 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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