4 ms·

If the proposed rewordings are just as good from a technical perspective, does it hurt anybody to just accept the commit?

LyndsySimon 10y ago
Yes, it does - it emboldens those who expect the rest of the world to change in order to meet their arbitrary demands.
- tangent128 10y ago
  I mean, "expecting the rest of the world to change in order to meet their arbitrary demands" is pretty much the definition of a standards body. And the majority of SJ-related requests I've seen are in effect just that; declarations that the existing society standards are suboptimal for the usecases of ethnic minorities, women, LGBTA+ people, etc., along with suggestions for revisions.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Most people I've come across that argue against this stuff have some sort of straw man SJW in mind that is offended at the drop of a hat, but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. They are (in my mind) the same people that view Native Americans being offended at the existence of the Washington Redskins as people that are making "a bit fuss over nothing."
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      > but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. It seems that we're commenting on an article where just such a person materialized, and their impact can be quantified: a well-qualified speaker was dropped from a conference. > They are (in my mind) the same people that view Native Americans being offended at the existence of the Washington Redskins as people that are making "a bit fuss over nothing." I admit I don't follow sports enough to know the details of that brouhaha so I don't know if someone (or many someones) of American Indian descent were the ones calling for the change or if it was a "disinterested" third party. Either way, the opinions and preferences of the community at large must be weighed against those of the dissenters. In my opinion we already have an extremely effective means of recourse for those who take offense - the free market, which can be impacted by direct means (boycott) or indirect means (convincing others to support your view).
      - pyre 10y ago
        My point was less about action, than the view point that the dissenters should just give in to the status quo. And that anyone complaining about the status quo is just a whiner.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Just FYI, when actual Native Americans are polled about the Washington Redskins, they are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name. That conflicts with the oppression narrative, though, which is probably why you weren't aware of it.
      - pyre 10y ago
        That's a different story than claiming that actual Native Americans that are offended by it should just "suck it up." I can give other examples. For example, this past weekend saw an air show about downtown Toronto as part of the Canadian National Exhibition. There was talk of how the thundering of the jets flying over downtown wasn't necessarily "enjoyed" by people that have been in war-zones (e.g. Syrian refugees). I don't think that there was any suggestion that the air show should be scrapped on this basis, but still there were people claiming that the refugees should "just get over it" because they are not in a war zone anymore. This is incredibly insensitive. Someone in my own family expressed the view point that after a couple of years out of the war zone that they should "get over it."
        mzw_mzw 10y ago
        So... we're expressing polite sympathy for someone stating they are offended, but we are declining to make any changes? That would be fine, except that in the case of the Redskins, we have had years of news media and (non-Native American) political activists freaking out over it and demanding that the name be changed. Some news outlets refuse to even speak the team's name on air.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    In the case of a commit to a standards body - sure, go for it. As you said, that's the whole point for a standards body. That aside, I don't see where in this comment chain we're discussing a standards body. This type of commit to individual projects should, in my opinion, be strongly discouraged.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  On the other hand, G. B. Shaw: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-adapts-himself-to-the-world-the-unreasonable http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-ad...

LyndsySimon 10y ago

Yes, it does - it emboldens those who expect the rest of the world to change in order to meet their arbitrary demands.

tangent128 10y ago
I mean, "expecting the rest of the world to change in order to meet their arbitrary demands" is pretty much the definition of a standards body. And the majority of SJ-related requests I've seen are in effect just that; declarations that the existing society standards are suboptimal for the usecases of ethnic minorities, women, LGBTA+ people, etc., along with suggestions for revisions.
- pyre 10y ago
  Most people I've come across that argue against this stuff have some sort of straw man SJW in mind that is offended at the drop of a hat, but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. They are (in my mind) the same people that view Native Americans being offended at the existence of the Washington Redskins as people that are making "a bit fuss over nothing."
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    > but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. It seems that we're commenting on an article where just such a person materialized, and their impact can be quantified: a well-qualified speaker was dropped from a conference. > They are (in my mind) the same people that view Native Americans being offended at the existence of the Washington Redskins as people that are making "a bit fuss over nothing." I admit I don't follow sports enough to know the details of that brouhaha so I don't know if someone (or many someones) of American Indian descent were the ones calling for the change or if it was a "disinterested" third party. Either way, the opinions and preferences of the community at large must be weighed against those of the dissenters. In my opinion we already have an extremely effective means of recourse for those who take offense - the free market, which can be impacted by direct means (boycott) or indirect means (convincing others to support your view).
    - pyre 10y ago
      My point was less about action, than the view point that the dissenters should just give in to the status quo. And that anyone complaining about the status quo is just a whiner.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    Just FYI, when actual Native Americans are polled about the Washington Redskins, they are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name. That conflicts with the oppression narrative, though, which is probably why you weren't aware of it.
    - pyre 10y ago
      That's a different story than claiming that actual Native Americans that are offended by it should just "suck it up." I can give other examples. For example, this past weekend saw an air show about downtown Toronto as part of the Canadian National Exhibition. There was talk of how the thundering of the jets flying over downtown wasn't necessarily "enjoyed" by people that have been in war-zones (e.g. Syrian refugees). I don't think that there was any suggestion that the air show should be scrapped on this basis, but still there were people claiming that the refugees should "just get over it" because they are not in a war zone anymore. This is incredibly insensitive. Someone in my own family expressed the view point that after a couple of years out of the war zone that they should "get over it."
      - mzw_mzw 10y ago
        So... we're expressing polite sympathy for someone stating they are offended, but we are declining to make any changes? That would be fine, except that in the case of the Redskins, we have had years of news media and (non-Native American) political activists freaking out over it and demanding that the name be changed. Some news outlets refuse to even speak the team's name on air.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  In the case of a commit to a standards body - sure, go for it. As you said, that's the whole point for a standards body. That aside, I don't see where in this comment chain we're discussing a standards body. This type of commit to individual projects should, in my opinion, be strongly discouraged.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
On the other hand, G. B. Shaw: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-adapts-himself-to-the-world-the-unreasonable http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-ad...