3 ms·
I agree. The intentionally prevocational logo (a Menorah) has put me off CLISP[0], I would guess many others too. [0] See the explanation at http://www.clisp.
by JesperRavn 11y ago
I agree. The intentionally prevocational logo (a Menorah) has put me off CLISP[0], I would guess many others too.
[0] See the explanation at http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-menorah-why http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-menorah-why which starts off with "it's not political" and then provides multiple links to pro-Israeli websites.
- reitanqild 11y agoI don't see a problem with pro-Israeli websites just as I don't see a problem with pro-Palestinian websites. Were they lying or something?
- JesperRavn 11y agoI thought the principle you and the other poster were arguing for, was to minimize conflict. In the case of "bro" the conflict arises from a feminist critique of the word's usage in the context of a male dominated industry. In the case of the menorah, the conflict arises from the political controversy of the state of Israel, and its relationship to the Jewish community[0]. I don't have a problem with pro-Feminist websites or anti-Feminist websites, I just think it's professional to avoid stirring up debate with terms or symbols that would likely offend people with a particular viewpoint. Perhaps you think the feminist viewpoint in this case is objectively correct and therefore deserves more consideration. In that case I would counter that the pro-Palestinian viewpoint is objectively correct. But my original argument was neutral on this issue. [0] A relationship usually asserted to exist by the supporters of Israel, as is the case here.
- reitanqild 11y agoI see your point about professionalism.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]