3 ms·

> If you don't think language is an important topic, This doesn't follow from anything I've said. > it's important to argue against this kind of bot. But is

> If you don't think language is an important topic, This doesn't follow from anything I've said. > it's important to argue against this kind of bot. But is it? What's the magnitude of this problem?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The effect of the problem is that, if the inclusive language bots win (which I'm confident they will absent some kind of counterargument), I'll have to communicate in a form of English I consider awkward and stilted and I'll have to implicitly endorse a couple of political stances about the concept of gender neutrality I don't agree with. I don't know how to quantify that into a "magnitude", but I don't think that's a precondition for discussing the issues of the day.
- tomlockwood 5y ago
  > if the inclusive language bots win I've worked in SF and this is the first one I've seen. > I don't know how to quantify that into a "magnitude", but I don't think that's a precondition for discussing the issues of the day. Sure! You go ahead and prioritize your brainspace the way you want - but I'm frustrated that I keep having to see culture war crap because people dug up the one twitter user or github user with a bad take. And I'm frustrated that otherwise reasonable people turn into moralizing frenzy-bots as arbitrary and poorly conceived as a bot that changes "man page" into "person page", when they see that tiny sliver of takes.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I don't mean this as a gotcha, but you don't have to see culture war crap! It's a lesson I personally learned this lesson much later in life than I should have. If "Inclusive Coding Bot on GitHub" doesn't sound like a topic you want to talk about, it's 100% okay to not click into the comments section. (It's not even on the front page anymore - these kinds of posts tend not to last long there.) As above, if it did sound like a topic you want to talk about, I think you should reflect on why that is and why people who aren't "moralizing frenzy-bots" might nevertheless want to talk about how they don't like it. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I've seen a lot of people say "I can't believe we're arguing about this nonsense" with the strong expectation that the result shouldn't be no conversation but a conversation where everyone agrees.
    - tomlockwood 5y ago
      > I don't mean this as a gotcha, but you don't have to see culture war crap! This article was, albeit briefly, number one on hackernews. > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I've seen a lot of people say "I can't believe we're arguing about this nonsense" with the strong expectation that the result shouldn't be no conversation but a conversation where everyone agrees. Except, what you're effectively saying is you want a conversation where everyone agrees, because you don't want the people that think this is vacuous nonsense, to engage.

> If you don't think language is an important topic, This doesn't follow from anything I've said. > it's important to argue against this kind of bot. But is it? What's the magnitude of this problem?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

The effect of the problem is that, if the inclusive language bots win (which I'm confident they will absent some kind of counterargument), I'll have to communicate in a form of English I consider awkward and stilted and I'll have to implicitly endorse a couple of political stances about the concept of gender neutrality I don't agree with. I don't know how to quantify that into a "magnitude", but I don't think that's a precondition for discussing the issues of the day.

tomlockwood 5y ago
> if the inclusive language bots win I've worked in SF and this is the first one I've seen. > I don't know how to quantify that into a "magnitude", but I don't think that's a precondition for discussing the issues of the day. Sure! You go ahead and prioritize your brainspace the way you want - but I'm frustrated that I keep having to see culture war crap because people dug up the one twitter user or github user with a bad take. And I'm frustrated that otherwise reasonable people turn into moralizing frenzy-bots as arbitrary and poorly conceived as a bot that changes "man page" into "person page", when they see that tiny sliver of takes.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I don't mean this as a gotcha, but you don't have to see culture war crap! It's a lesson I personally learned this lesson much later in life than I should have. If "Inclusive Coding Bot on GitHub" doesn't sound like a topic you want to talk about, it's 100% okay to not click into the comments section. (It's not even on the front page anymore - these kinds of posts tend not to last long there.) As above, if it did sound like a topic you want to talk about, I think you should reflect on why that is and why people who aren't "moralizing frenzy-bots" might nevertheless want to talk about how they don't like it. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I've seen a lot of people say "I can't believe we're arguing about this nonsense" with the strong expectation that the result shouldn't be no conversation but a conversation where everyone agrees.
  - tomlockwood 5y ago
    > I don't mean this as a gotcha, but you don't have to see culture war crap! This article was, albeit briefly, number one on hackernews. > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I've seen a lot of people say "I can't believe we're arguing about this nonsense" with the strong expectation that the result shouldn't be no conversation but a conversation where everyone agrees. Except, what you're effectively saying is you want a conversation where everyone agrees, because you don't want the people that think this is vacuous nonsense, to engage.