> Insisting that all actions be measured by their "importance" in relation to whatever other more important things exist at the same time is useless We'll just

> Insisting that all actions be measured by their "importance" in relation to whatever other more important things exist at the same time is useless We'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of measuring ideas based on importance. When it comes to social justice there is limited bandwidth for change, devoting attention to unimportant trivialities that have zero material impact on oppressed people hurts the effort for productive change, it's a waste of political captial and welcome fodder for racist agitators. For what? A label in some software programs that almost nobody ever thinks about. Litigating this now is worse than doing nothing. > you're gate-keeping morality I'm speaking out against something I believe is actively harmful to the movement for social justice. Characterizing that as gate-keeping is a rhetorical trick that frames my position as inherently inappropriate without actually addressing the substance of what I'm saying. > Additionally, your use of the word "hilarious" is petty mockery It is what it is. The sentiment of changing meaningless computer jargon as a response to racist police violence deserves to be mocked. The only positive thing this does is make privileged people feel good about themselves. People are quite literally being gassed and killed in the streets, the only people in the headspace to bikeshed over computer jargon in the context of racial injustice are those with considerable levels of privilege.