3 ms·

Well, I’m not saying that they’re not aware of the races per se. I’m saying that “black” for them means the name of the color, again, not the racial reference.

by allarm 6y ago

Well, I’m not saying that they’re not aware of the races per se. I’m saying that “black” for them means the name of the color, again, not the racial reference. That’s why renaming blacklist/whitelist things is a very american-centric thing, which looks ridiculous to the most of the world outside Americas.

watwut 6y ago
So, Americans rename things in American software or writing because of what those words mean to them in their own native language. Then people who have that language as second and dont really know wtf is going on ridicule them and complain about that being american-centric? When Americans do the same, they are rightfully labeled as arrogant. It is same arrogance when Eastern Europeans do it.
- blacklion 6y ago
  It is not so simple, as "arrogance". First, it is international software. OSS is world-wide and international, not American one. Second, people for whom English is second language, really know that it is called "censorship", no matter is intentions good or bad. This people have very recent experiences with censorship as one of main tools of dictatorship. And they are afraid, that dictatorship returns, at gut level. They could understand that intentions is good (again, they are not racists or sexists or whatever), but they hate these measures, and they don't believe that "the end justifies the means", because they remember that it was de-facto motto of dictatorships in Eastern Europe.
  - watwut 6y ago
    People in eastern Europe are way more accepting of censorship of various kinds and Americans. They also tend to be more pro-authoritarian. So I don't think this is so valid. What eastern european has more then that is utter shock over conflicts that arise when people speak their minds more. Plus, it is not like America did not had censorship of private kind in the past. It had. It did not had state one. Because really, if some place is more at risk of dictatorship coming back, it is various countries in Eastern Europe. So much for people there being scared. Some are, but what others really want is strong hand to squash whatever is perceived of breaking the peace.

by allarm 6y ago

watwut 6y ago

So, Americans rename things in American software or writing because of what those words mean to them in their own native language. Then people who have that language as second and dont really know wtf is going on ridicule them and complain about that being american-centric? When Americans do the same, they are rightfully labeled as arrogant. It is same arrogance when Eastern Europeans do it.

blacklion 6y ago
It is not so simple, as "arrogance". First, it is international software. OSS is world-wide and international, not American one. Second, people for whom English is second language, really know that it is called "censorship", no matter is intentions good or bad. This people have very recent experiences with censorship as one of main tools of dictatorship. And they are afraid, that dictatorship returns, at gut level. They could understand that intentions is good (again, they are not racists or sexists or whatever), but they hate these measures, and they don't believe that "the end justifies the means", because they remember that it was de-facto motto of dictatorships in Eastern Europe.
- watwut 6y ago
  People in eastern Europe are way more accepting of censorship of various kinds and Americans. They also tend to be more pro-authoritarian. So I don't think this is so valid. What eastern european has more then that is utter shock over conflicts that arise when people speak their minds more. Plus, it is not like America did not had censorship of private kind in the past. It had. It did not had state one. Because really, if some place is more at risk of dictatorship coming back, it is various countries in Eastern Europe. So much for people there being scared. Some are, but what others really want is strong hand to squash whatever is perceived of breaking the peace.