4 ms·

You say inclusivity isn't the real reason for the change. Then what is it?

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• andreareina 6y ago
  I didn't say that. I said that framing it that way and not providing actual points that can be discussed on their merits shuts down discussion. Someone who argues against inclusive language is just wrapped up in their invisible privilege and just wants to perpetuate the status quo and avoid their own discomfort, right? Let's apply the principle of charity and suppose that the signatories of the letter are earnest and acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that anything that follows from those good intentions is itself good. Real harm has been done to good people in the pursuit of those good intentions; see the StackExchange/Monica Cellio drama for an egregious example. Even assuming good execution, productive discussion requires looking at the putative harm being done by the status quo, the benefit that would come from the change, and the cost (reputational and otherwise). Hardly ever see that.