191–200 of 265 posts
How about no? If it's my app, I'll use my logo. I consider the logo an integral part of the application's identity and I should control its identity. I promise I'll do my best to make it easily and readily recognizable, regardless of it using national colors, a rainbow or shades of white, pink and blue. If you don't like it, it's your problem, not mine.
How about no? If it's my app, I'll use my logo. I consider the logo an integral part of the application's identity and I should control its identity. I promise I'll do my best to make it easily and readily recognizable, regardless of it using national colors, a rainbow or shades of white, pink and blue. If you don't like it, it's your problem, not mine.
Let's create a scenario where the changing of an icon which is visible on your phone to anyone around you might actually present a danger in a certain country.
What if your app changed to have a gay pride flag and one of your users lived in an extremely homophobic country where any signs of support of homosexuality could actually result in fines or even jail time?
The poor user (Who may or may not agree with your ideology) who has been using your app for months has no idea that your icon is literally going to change without their knowledge or approval.
But you didn't think of this scenario, did you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. That's not really the case, and I assume that's probably good news for you since you seem to be a liberal. The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception. It might not remain like this forever though, because they are a…
> The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception. Mixing democratic and non-democratic institutions hardly seems fair, especially since only one of those has the direct power to govern. You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly. You also left out st…
While you are correct in that the Republicans have a good chance of flipping the Senate, my claim was about non-democratic institutions.
I think it's fair to count the Senate as a democratic one. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment [1], Senators are directly elected.
> Not to mention the federal judiciary.
I'm not sure about that. According to Ballotpedia [2], 403 of the current Article III federal judges were appointed by a Democrat president, while 391 were appointed by a Republican.
> If you want to stick to soft power, we could talk more about that. But if you want to include hard power, then your argument holds no water.
That's probably the root of our disagreement. Soft power is still political power. Tocqueville had warned us about soft despotism. [3]
One test to determine who's in power is to see whose values are more dangerous to make fun of.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly? I’ve lived long enough and heard this rhetoric so many, many times before. It would have been utterly trivial to make clear that it wasn’t about a specific issue. Instead, it was only implied.
“I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line.” seems pretty clear it’s not a specific issue
The main question I have after reading this is: what 'bargain' is the author referring to? Apps change their logos all of the time, as is their right. The timing of this post is coincident with pride month, and many companies changing altering their logo to use the pride colors. I disagree with the suggestion that changing the color(s) of the logos and icons hinder the user's ability to find the app. A rainbow versio…
When someone complains about politics infiltrating a space but is unwilling to name the specific politics, suggesting it's a general principle, they very likely have a problem with the specific politics. They see social costs in voicing that opinion, so they generalize it to some principle. Hard to imagine a minor annoyance of logo design would otherwise justify a public post. Living in a pluralistic, multi-cultural…
Changing your profile picture to “support” some cause has been ridiculed for years. Starving children don’t care what color your profile picture is, and it’s hypocritical to say you're a supporter when changing your profile picture is the most you’re actually willing to do, even if you have the means to give a dollar, or 5 minutes of your time, you choose not to. It’s hypocritical, and pretty selfish imo.
Or the idea that we all need to public state our beliefs at all times and ideologically walk around with flags on our forehead of every cause we are for. App Icons are in support of the idea that we all need to public state our beliefs at all times. There’s been growing backlash against that. I think people find it annoying anti social behavior.
Anti Virtue signaling as a topic has been growing tremendously over the past 10 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays. I don’t really disagree on that point, I just didn’t make that argument in the first place. :) > Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the t…
>About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays. Then I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess that goes to show the risk we take when we try to read more into the text than what it says. >For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception. Mixing democratic and non-democratic institutions hardly seems fair, especially since only one of those has the direct power to govern. You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly. You also left out st…
> You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly. While you are correct in that the Republicans have a good chance of flipping the Senate, my claim was about non-democratic institutions. I think it's fair to count the Senate as a democratic one. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment [1], Senators are directly elected. > Not to mention the federal judiciary. I'm not sure about…
In any case: I think my broader point of “conservatives have plenty of power” is pretty reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with your implication that it’s more dangerous to make fun of liberals.
If by that you mean “I wish to make fun of liberals and their values but then still remained gainfully employed by a company that claims to adhere to those values”, then sure I guess you have a point.
But in the same fashion I highly doubt I could get a job at the Heritage Foundation, you know? Tribalism doesn’t necessarily have a direct relationship to power.
Anyone got examples? What are we talking about here? Rainbow flags? Ukrainian flags? BLM colors? The GNU logo?