2 ms·

Are you saying we should coddle people as an option? I wasn't arguing an either/or, we can and should look at all options - I was highlighting the shallow natur

by loceng 6y ago

Are you saying we should coddle people as an option? I wasn't arguing an either/or, we can and should look at all options - I was highlighting the shallow nature of both actions vs. actually changing systems - and arguably defunding the police is the wrong mantra, inaccurate; demilitarize the police, yes. That doesn't mean we should give into unreasonable options. Is there a net benefit of coddling unreasonable people to such a degree that we're no longer allowing words to have different meanings, and holding integrity through requiring critical thinking to understand language properly? Organizations playing into this are either pandering to the mob and/or aren't grounded in reason. Let's be strong for our brothers and sisters, even if discomfort increases temporarily due to a mob. Edit to add: it's interesting my top comment was quickly downvoted 3 times right around the time of the above reply, and then my reply here got 3 downvotes quickly too.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Again, why are you framing this as coddling? Why is your position the one of critical thinking and "understanding language properly" while the people you disagree with want "unreasonable options?" As the original article shows, what's being asked for is straightforward and simple to do. There's no mob. No one is getting canceled. We're just changing some terms we use in a software project to be more appropriate. The phrase "he doth protest too much" comes to mind every time I see comments like the above.
- loceng 6y ago
  More appropriate? Don't you think people should be able understand these words have different contexts than race related, instead you want to shelter them in case they haven't developed that capability yet? You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity. Sorry, but your framing of this as "coddling" is itself dismissive. That, combined with complaining about downvotes, might be driving the unpopularity of your comments.

by loceng 6y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Again, why are you framing this as coddling? Why is your position the one of critical thinking and "understanding language properly" while the people you disagree with want "unreasonable options?" As the original article shows, what's being asked for is straightforward and simple to do. There's no mob. No one is getting canceled. We're just changing some terms we use in a software project to be more appropriate. The phrase "he doth protest too much" comes to mind every time I see comments like the above.

loceng 6y ago
More appropriate? Don't you think people should be able understand these words have different contexts than race related, instead you want to shelter them in case they haven't developed that capability yet? You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity.
- klyrs 6y ago
  > You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity. Sorry, but your framing of this as "coddling" is itself dismissive. That, combined with complaining about downvotes, might be driving the unpopularity of your comments.