3 ms·

People making argument against their inclusion (futilitously) are doing so in bad faith under various reductionist arguments like not wanting to make a complex

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 6y 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.
- halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
  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. So because people are discriminatory, we shouldn't be more inclusive at the risk of enabling those who...discriminate? The only reason these issues are divisive is because those who are insecure with their personal identity make them divisive. We shouldn't appease discriminators at the cost of letting people express their true identities. Also, you cannot "remotely capture" ethnicity and culture in a single color code, even yellow. Yellow is light and implies a lighter skin. It's inherently (no matter how you want to argue it) promoting or portraying human skin as light. I'm not sure where you get to your conclusion but it seems like, based on the adoption of skin tone variants, the only ones amplifying exclusivity are those that want things to stay exclusive.
- foobiter 6y ago
  being unaware of differences between people is not the goal, it’s quite the opposite - it’s about embracing differences as equally valid this seems to be an easy mistake to make and why “I don’t see color” is not an acceptable statement… in a system where there is a dominant race, pining for sameness is oppression of difference black americans aren’t saying “all lives matter” they’re saying “black lives matter (too)” - that distinction is very important

nitrogen 6y 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.

halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
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. So because people are discriminatory, we shouldn't be more inclusive at the risk of enabling those who...discriminate? The only reason these issues are divisive is because those who are insecure with their personal identity make them divisive. We shouldn't appease discriminators at the cost of letting people express their true identities. Also, you cannot "remotely capture" ethnicity and culture in a single color code, even yellow. Yellow is light and implies a lighter skin. It's inherently (no matter how you want to argue it) promoting or portraying human skin as light. I'm not sure where you get to your conclusion but it seems like, based on the adoption of skin tone variants, the only ones amplifying exclusivity are those that want things to stay exclusive.
foobiter 6y ago
being unaware of differences between people is not the goal, it’s quite the opposite - it’s about embracing differences as equally valid this seems to be an easy mistake to make and why “I don’t see color” is not an acceptable statement… in a system where there is a dominant race, pining for sameness is oppression of difference black americans aren’t saying “all lives matter” they’re saying “black lives matter (too)” - that distinction is very important