5 ms·

I wonder why I see the take "I don't use this thing/see the value, therefore it is bad and shouldn't exist." so much more on HN than anywhere else? It's such a

by Latty 5y ago

I wonder why I see the take "I don't use this thing/see the value, therefore it is bad and shouldn't exist." so much more on HN than anywhere else? It's such a weird view.

username90 5y ago
I didn't read his statement like that at all. Sounds like just your biased take about opinions you don't like, and that you don't find opinions you don't like much outside HN.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  The statement "Introducing skin tone provided no advantage" is pretty ignorant and unaware, especially when skin tone variants are widely used so they objectively hold some utility. At best it's an uninformed and lazy take, at worst it's someone showing their lack of empathy and distain for people who don't look like them.
  - hombre_fatal 5y ago
    Huh? What if they just don’t think it’s something worth having in unicode? This does just seem like disdain for opinions you don’t hold. I think it would also be unnecessary to add modifiers to unicode that let me, say, represent a glyph of a man in a dress, or a modifier that lets you use those family emojis while clarifying that one of the parents is an amputee. Just because you can find someone who can write a twitter thread on why those additions are absolutely necessary doesn’t mean I’m lazy or disdainful or, let’s say, transphobic/ableist.
    - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
      What is it to you what is put in Unicode? Seriously, how does it affect you in anyway what is put into Unicode? We should be making things _more_ accessible and if that means adding all of the necessary variations of emoji to represent humanity, as it is, than I'm all for that and so should everyone else because it costs us literally zero to do. Any argument to the contrary really needs to examine from what angle they're making their argument because they are not based on empathy but something of the opposite.
      - hombre_fatal 5y ago
        I don’t like encumbering our communications with the crowd madness of the age. You could make your same argument for “latinx”. Who cares if people on NPR say it? It’s harmless and inclusive! Well, that’s where we disagree. Once again, attacking arguments that you disagree with by asserting they come from a place of bad character isn’t a discussion. It also seems like you risk giving yourself too much credit by seeing your views as some sort of paragon of virtues like empathy, thus anyone who disagrees must be against your self-appointed virtues.
        halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
        People making argument against their inclusion (futilitously) are doing so in bad faith under various reductionist arguments like not wanting to make a complex language more complex when there are aspects to our language that _should_ be changed. The arguments against are not based on any logical or rational footing (because adding them is trivial and people want them to be added) so the assumption is that they are making arguments on emotion. Why would someone argue against inclusion based emotion? Because they don't want to be inclusive. You don't have to arrive at this conclusion because you believe you have some moral superiority, you can arrive on it based on common sense.
        nitrogen 5y ago
        The arguments against are not based on any logical or rational footing How convenient it must be to believe oneself to be in exclusive possession of logic and reason. This is not the way to charitably interpret an argument. The biggest reason these features should never have been added in the first place: the more opportunities everyone has to notice and be reminded of everyone's differences, the longer those differences will remain divisive. The saying used to be, "On the Internet nobody knows you are a dog." We were all brought together by the common language of text. I became friends with people of many nations, colors, and sexual backgrounds. Now, every single interaction has to be labeled with your "identity," as if a single color code point could remotely capture that, and it drives us all apart. This is amplifying exclusivity in the name of inclusivity.
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      I don't use kubernetes, but I'm not going to post on every HN article about it that i don't think it should exist.
542458 5y ago
In my opinion it’s part of the famous hackernews shallow/middlebrow dismissal that PG described almost a decade ago. “This isn’t my use case, and is therefore worthless” is also very similar to the famous “This is silly, anybody could build this” top comment on the Dropbox launch post. It’s not limited to HN either - see the Reddit comments on any movie not targeted at the 20-30 male demographic, or hackaday comments on anything looking to improve usability.

by Latty 5y ago

I wonder why I see the take "I don't use this thing/see the value, therefore it is bad and shouldn't exist." so much more on HN than anywhere else? It's such a weird view.

username90 5y ago

I didn't read his statement like that at all. Sounds like just your biased take about opinions you don't like, and that you don't find opinions you don't like much outside HN.

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
The statement "Introducing skin tone provided no advantage" is pretty ignorant and unaware, especially when skin tone variants are widely used so they objectively hold some utility. At best it's an uninformed and lazy take, at worst it's someone showing their lack of empathy and distain for people who don't look like them.
- hombre_fatal 5y ago
  Huh? What if they just don’t think it’s something worth having in unicode? This does just seem like disdain for opinions you don’t hold. I think it would also be unnecessary to add modifiers to unicode that let me, say, represent a glyph of a man in a dress, or a modifier that lets you use those family emojis while clarifying that one of the parents is an amputee. Just because you can find someone who can write a twitter thread on why those additions are absolutely necessary doesn’t mean I’m lazy or disdainful or, let’s say, transphobic/ableist.
  - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    What is it to you what is put in Unicode? Seriously, how does it affect you in anyway what is put into Unicode? We should be making things _more_ accessible and if that means adding all of the necessary variations of emoji to represent humanity, as it is, than I'm all for that and so should everyone else because it costs us literally zero to do. Any argument to the contrary really needs to examine from what angle they're making their argument because they are not based on empathy but something of the opposite.
    - hombre_fatal 5y ago
      I don’t like encumbering our communications with the crowd madness of the age. You could make your same argument for “latinx”. Who cares if people on NPR say it? It’s harmless and inclusive! Well, that’s where we disagree. Once again, attacking arguments that you disagree with by asserting they come from a place of bad character isn’t a discussion. It also seems like you risk giving yourself too much credit by seeing your views as some sort of paragon of virtues like empathy, thus anyone who disagrees must be against your self-appointed virtues.
      - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
        People making argument against their inclusion (futilitously) are doing so in bad faith under various reductionist arguments like not wanting to make a complex language more complex when there are aspects to our language that _should_ be changed. The arguments against are not based on any logical or rational footing (because adding them is trivial and people want them to be added) so the assumption is that they are making arguments on emotion. Why would someone argue against inclusion based emotion? Because they don't want to be inclusive. You don't have to arrive at this conclusion because you believe you have some moral superiority, you can arrive on it based on common sense.
        nitrogen 5y ago
        The arguments against are not based on any logical or rational footing How convenient it must be to believe oneself to be in exclusive possession of logic and reason. This is not the way to charitably interpret an argument. The biggest reason these features should never have been added in the first place: the more opportunities everyone has to notice and be reminded of everyone's differences, the longer those differences will remain divisive. The saying used to be, "On the Internet nobody knows you are a dog." We were all brought together by the common language of text. I became friends with people of many nations, colors, and sexual backgrounds. Now, every single interaction has to be labeled with your "identity," as if a single color code point could remotely capture that, and it drives us all apart. This is amplifying exclusivity in the name of inclusivity.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    I don't use kubernetes, but I'm not going to post on every HN article about it that i don't think it should exist.

542458 5y ago

In my opinion it’s part of the famous hackernews shallow/middlebrow dismissal that PG described almost a decade ago. “This isn’t my use case, and is therefore worthless” is also very similar to the famous “This is silly, anybody could build this” top comment on the Dropbox launch post. It’s not limited to HN either - see the Reddit comments on any movie not targeted at the 20-30 male demographic, or hackaday comments on anything looking to improve usability.