3 ms·

> This is true, but I'm uncomfortable referring to non-techs as "muggles." Some of the least-computer-tech-savvy people I know, are doctors, lawyers, and scient

by Mezzie 5y ago

> This is true, but I'm uncomfortable referring to non-techs as "muggles." Some of the least-computer-tech-savvy people I know, are doctors, lawyers, and scientists (and I actually know quite a few). Agreed. As a tech educator, STOP. I've been teaching people to use technology for decades, and, like with math, a huge stumbling block is "I'm not smart enough for this; only 'tech people' can understand this." And no, not everybody wants to develop algorithms or web pages (or fully wire their house), but most people can learn basics of how things work and look for ways to improve their experience. Also that analogy doesn't work: most people don't want to wire their own house, but being able to do basic problem-solving on your electricity saves the homeowner time and money AND lets electricians spend their time on bigger problems. Same with taxes, as somebody who isn't an accountant but does do my own taxes: Not everybody will do that, but most people could definitely learn how things like tax brackets work. This guy is a computer nerd. That's fine, but it doesn't make you INHERENTLY BETTER than people who are color theory nerds or whatever.

Izkata 5y ago
> > but I'm uncomfortable referring to non-techs as "muggles." Some of the least-computer-tech-savvy people I know, are doctors, lawyers, and scientists (and I actually know quite a few). > That's fine, but it doesn't make you INHERENTLY BETTER than people who are color theory nerds or whatever. Consider that this meaning of the word is only used by the antagonists in Harry Potter. Everyone else uses it in a neutral way, and Arthur Weasley even admires muggle ingenuity.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  Oh man, a pedantic HP correction. That takes me back! Unfortunately, that it isn't the term's colloquial usage, and as a descriptivist, I fall on the side of how language is used by its native speakers. Rather like (staying in the realm of YA fiction) the Hunger Games as an actual big screen spectacle was rather...uncomfortable from an actually thematic standpoint.
  - Izkata 5y ago
    I'm not so sure it is. I generally don't see it used like that, and apparently neither does the author: > This used to say “muggles” but several people pointed out that this has negative connotations. One of these days I should actually read Harry Potter

by Mezzie 5y ago

Izkata 5y ago

> > but I'm uncomfortable referring to non-techs as "muggles." Some of the least-computer-tech-savvy people I know, are doctors, lawyers, and scientists (and I actually know quite a few). > That's fine, but it doesn't make you INHERENTLY BETTER than people who are color theory nerds or whatever. Consider that this meaning of the word is only used by the antagonists in Harry Potter. Everyone else uses it in a neutral way, and Arthur Weasley even admires muggle ingenuity.

Mezzie 5y ago
Oh man, a pedantic HP correction. That takes me back! Unfortunately, that it isn't the term's colloquial usage, and as a descriptivist, I fall on the side of how language is used by its native speakers. Rather like (staying in the realm of YA fiction) the Hunger Games as an actual big screen spectacle was rather...uncomfortable from an actually thematic standpoint.
- Izkata 5y ago
  I'm not so sure it is. I generally don't see it used like that, and apparently neither does the author: > This used to say “muggles” but several people pointed out that this has negative connotations. One of these days I should actually read Harry Potter