3 ms·
How do some people end up making clearly counterproductive interpretations that ignore not only evidence in general, but clear evidence of harm to others? I re
by QuantumGood 4y ago
How do some people end up making clearly counterproductive interpretations that ignore not only evidence in general, but clear evidence of harm to others?
I remember a Google employee changed a popular font for headings. It broke the layout on a very large number of websites.
Several people discussed this with the employee, suggesting the font should be forked rather than force-updated. The employee engaged, but refused. Eventually they said that if enough users contacted them with complaints, that would be evidence they would consider. When it was pointed out that it was very difficult to know how to contact them (they were not required to engage on the forum, or anywhere else, no contact information for them was otherwise findable, etc) they barely shrugged. It was as if part of the logic function in this human was managed by a 4 year old child internally.
- bergenty 4y agoYour use of they makes this almost incomprehensible.
- QuantumGood 4y agoWriters should use the singular “they” in two main cases: (a) when referring to a generic person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context and (b) when referring to a specific, known person who uses “they” as their pronoun. – apastyle.apa.org I do not know the gender of the person under discussion, nor do I know if that person has pronoun preferences. I simply followed the "generic person whose gender is unknown" standard. I've been using "they" in this manner for 50+ years. Never had anyone comment on it before. Are you attempting some kind of meta virtue signalling, considering "pronoun preferences" is a very recently added option?
- QuantumGood 4y agoIf this is a genuine criticism some people would have, what would be the suggested rewrite for a person of unknown gender?