151–160 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is this imaginary line between “ok to be offended” and “not ok to be offended”? Who decides where that line is? If you can trivially avoid even the risk of offending someone — especially in a professional context — then why wouldn’t you?
How is making a change that impacts people globally (which includes non English speakers) to mildly please a tiny portion of loud people trivial?
I see this article is flagged. Really? Can't we even discuss this issue like adults?
Another victim of this hysteria. Will surely make a point to switch it back every time I create a repo.
There are plenty of ways to make substantive comments on both sides of this question, as other users have demonstrated. Please either do that instead, or (always a fine option) don't post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not examining every word. This article is about examining a specific word, with a specific history, within a specific context.
In a specific country, whose industry takes free open source labor from all over the world and then imposes its own cultural values. Open source people from other regions provide the majority of code and have no say in political decisions. One might be tempted to say that they are slaves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We all know exactly the kind of people driving this change. We've worked with them. We know how they function on teams and in the office. We know they aren't particularly good at what they do, barring a few exceptions. And we know what they will do to us, to our jobs, and to our companies if we don't bow to their demands.
I don't know, seems like a very weird subjective reality you're trying to push in an objective one. I am one of those people, yet I haven't had any significant problems with my work ethic. Pushing a narrative that these people are "gonna do something to us" is a weird one to push. What's gonna happen? We're gonna be kinder to one another? We would want to make people around us happy in a profoundly human way rather t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I can't speak for the people who's access is limited. However, I am Dutch and can say that these cultural sensibilities are far outside of just the "American" one. There are plenty of people that struggle with this terminology in a realistic way. Even if you can't find anecdotal evidence of someone being offended by this, you can rationally come to the conclusion that it might be worth changing it. And…
I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for at least a couple actual examples of this change helping people feel better about participating in technology. In the absence of such, it all feels very performative and, dare I say, a cheap way to score good PR for participating organizations. I don't think it really hurts anyone to an extent that it should be opposed, but neither does it really help, until proven o…
I would say you have a point with saying it's performative, and I don't have anything to counter that. However, perhaps your energy could be spent looking for someone that is actually offended by this to counter your own perspective?
Kinda Karl Popper style of disprove your own theory?
It would be nice if that was the end of it, but it feels like we're now just looking for things to be offended by. For example, I have to admit that the terms 'whitelist'/'blacklist' being labeled as not 'inclusive' caught me by surprise because my brain didn't even make that connection ... at all. I wish we, the global community, didn't all have to pay for America's internal cultural hangups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, seems like a very weird subjective reality you're trying to push in an objective one. I am one of those people, yet I haven't had any significant problems with my work ethic. Pushing a narrative that these people are "gonna do something to us" is a weird one to push. What's gonna happen? We're gonna be kinder to one another? We would want to make people around us happy in a profoundly human way rather t…
If an employer or coworker doesn’t agree to whatever is your latest demand, “you” would start a campaign to get them fired or contact their customers to try to lose them business. Happens regularly.
Also, I wouldn't do that. Emancipating an actual workforce or colleagues would be my solution, not making the company suffer under it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't be hysterical. In case you're getting angry at the downvotes, I can tell you why you're getting them. There are only two lines of content in your comment other than tribal affiliation signal. One of them is a factually obviously false statement ("Just the amount of money and work hours done… to make this… change… could feed all the starving people on the world"); one of them is a question answered in the…
why would I be angry with downvotes? They dont mean anything to me. In the meantime, I just created another repo with branch called... master.