3 ms·
Obviously the principle is the same. I’m calling out a bias in the phrasing, which has the unintended side effect of ostracizing a group.
by rahimiali 5y ago
Obviously the principle is the same. I’m calling out a bias in the phrasing, which has the unintended side effect of ostracizing a group.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- smegcicle 5y agoWhile the phrasing may make some feel ostracized, it would appear to also make some feel selfrighteous, so maybe it evens out?
- rahimiali 5y agoI was pointing out a mistake that inadvertently causes harm. I’m doing it exactly the way I would in a code review. I’m sorry this comes across to you as self righteous, but what I did is absolutely the right thing to do in the face of mistakes like this.
- smegcicle 5y agohow is what you are doing helping? who could it possibly help? the comment you responded to was written in english- in this language, the word 'english' can be colloquially understood as meaning 'in terms you understand', as in phrases like 'could you explain that in english?', which is not even the point. claiming that it is 'absolutely the right thing' to crusade against an entirely abstract 'harm' reeks of one who is "convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; narrow-mindedly moralistic" -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-righteous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-righteous