2 ms·
> "not if some people consider it offensive. that alone is a sufficient reason to support this change, even if you don't think it's necessary." I looked at art
by ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "not if some people consider it offensive. that alone is a sufficient reason to support this change, even if you don't think it's necessary."
I looked at article and taking offense at some of the words for which changes have been proposed by Twitter is really far-fetched. Some examples:
- Grandfathered -> legacy status
- Sanity check -> quick check, confidence check, coherence check
- Dummy value -> placeholder value, sample value
Is there really a plausible case for somebody to be offended by the phrase "sanity check"?
- 3saryHg6LP2e 6y agoI hadn't seen that "sanity check" and "dummy value" were being replaced too until I see this comment. I am _dumbfounded_. But I suppose we will have to replace that word too. Jfc.
- bredren 6y agoThis is probably because of the huge social stigma around mental illness. By describing someone as insane, or “crazy” rather than trying to understand what is truly going on for them, it is a dismissal of their actual needs. Whether you want to deal with that level of detail has a lot to do with your relationship with that person. But this matters a lot when it comes to the police who are called to handle people having mental health emergencies. These suggestions all make some sense to me. The outrage at just dealing with the changes does not.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWhen there are too many changes, being asked to "just deal" becomes exclusionary itself. I know of communities like that, where most people are unwelcome because they don't know the huge set of rules on how they're supposed to talk, and I don't want programming to become one of them.