8 ms·

The author didn’t bother to state which political statements they were upset about; neither did they bother to say something like “all of them,” which would hav

The author didn’t bother to state which political statements they were upset about; neither did they bother to say something like “all of them,” which would have been trivial. So we are left to guess which political activism they find annoying. Given the timing, there’s a very good chance that it’s related to Pride month here in the US. It seems even more probable when you consider the context: very few companies change their logos for Juneteenth (the other contender), but many companies slap a rainbow on it for Pride. So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices. I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”

_-david-_ 4y ago
There is a few issues. Nobody (at least in the West) are denying LGBT people exist. Companies who put the flag up are just virtue signalling. If the app icon was changed for a single day for Juneteenth would you sympathize with the OP? The OP was not complaining about the actual political issue. He was complaining about changing the app icon to push their politics. The OP just wants to be able to easily find the app: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it" and doesn't want the app author's politics on his home screen: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line. My device screen is not an appropriate place for your political statements. So cut that shit out" Let me ask you a question. Would you still be making the same points if the political activism was putting a Russian flag as the app icon? Maybe they feel like there is a dehumanizing effort against Russians since Russians are being called orcs by Ukrainians. Based on your logic that would not be political since a vauge assertion that Russians exist is not political.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >They’ve moved on from denial, nowadays they say far more hateful things. [1] All I was getting at is not having a rainbow or supporting a company who changes their logo or whatever doesn't mean somebody is denying the existence of LGBT. >No, but it’s not for the kind of reasons you’re trying to get at with this kind of questioning. Fundamentally, I don’t much care about people changing their app icons for causes I support. And for causes I don’t support, I will simply uninstall their app if it bothers me at all. I feel no need to make noise about app icons in this way. I'm not a fan of app icon changes. I don't care if it is for political or just a permanent changing of their logo. I have uninstalled apps which changed icons because it bothered me. I highly sympathize with the OP for those reasons. Changing for political reasons is worse since it is a temporary change and will go back to its original icon later, meaning there will be 2 icon changes in a short time period. I think complaining about something seems reasonable. Look at various posts that make it to the front page on HN. Huge numbers of them are complaints about things many people don't care about. Maybe you don't think it is a big deal, but many of us do. >I disagree with this assertion, but it isn’t possible to know. What the author did was say things like “I _might_ even agree…” (emphasis mine), which leaves plausible deniability either way. Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic. >But one thing that is certain is this: app icons change frequently, for non-political reasons. It would be trivial to even _mention_ that in the article, but the author did not I think he was complaining about all icon changes in general and political changes in specific: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it. To that end, I am happy to have on my device your logo or a picture that hints at what the app does." >So while neither of us can prove it one way or the other, it certainly sounds like the real problem is the political messaging. Context is one of the most important parts of communication. Unless his point was he doesn't like temporary app icon changes in which case complaining about a specific change would lead to proponents of that political view attacking him.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays. I don’t really disagree on that point, I just didn’t make that argument in the first place. :) > Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic. For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it. That said, I found a few transphobic comments in the authors HN history with no real effort, so I feel pretty comfortable with the assumption. I would encourage you to learn to recognize this kind of dog-whistle. The explicit omission of what political group motivated a rant centered on politics is a common rhetorical technique.
lamontcg 4y ago
I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle. I think I do as well, I don't really want all the icons on my phone changing colors and shapes every other day since that is just bad UX when I'm hunting for the right button. And when it comes to politics I don't want anyone else's politics pushed into my personal life when I don't expect to encounter it, even if I agree with it. It is particularly difficult these days to donate to any worthy cause because you know that it is interpreted as an invitation to harassment and you'll get put onto lists that get sold and get bombarded with mail, e-mail and door-to-door solicitation. I've practically had to throw people off my property -- for causes that I agree with and donate to similar organizations -- because they're just being rude about my personal space. If you show up on my porch waving a pride flag I'm going to be very irritated and ask you to leave. And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. There are those of us who are non-neurotypical who find all the demands on our attention by society, in total, just fucking exhausting, and you might want to keep in mind concepts like consent and privacy.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle. It isn’t clear whatsoever. It would have been trivial to mention the other, far more common reasons why app icons change and make a fairly politically-neutral argument. However, they did not choose to do so. In fact, they never even go so far as to say “and these political statements hinder my ability to recognize things visually.” But politics, well - they brought up the concept no less than 4 times in the brief post. What they did was leave it open for you to read your own perspectives into it. > And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. I have taken great pains to avoid this very assertion. What I did assert was this: “it’s likely related to Pride month, and the author considers LGBTQ identities political.” If you believe that “considering LGBTQ identities to be political” is a synonym for “homophobia”, you are welcome to that connection. It’s not unreasonable. But again: my point is that my existence is indeed political. Whether the author supports my community or not isn’t the point I’m making, at all.
onionisafruit 4y ago
It could also be Ukraine. There have been a lot of blue and yellow logos lately.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  This is definitely true. I considered that it could be Ukraine, but ultimately it seemed less likely. Most of the Ukraine-related logo changes I personally saw were done earlier on in the war, and most of what I see right now is Pride-related. I probably could have mentioned this possibility in the comment, as well. That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess.
  - bathtiles 4y ago
    > That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess. We don't need to guess. The post was agnostic to the political cause.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      Not mentioning a cause is not the same thing as being agnostic.
      - gumby 4y ago
        The post itself was, though, as the gp post wrote.
        drewbug01 4y ago
        To me, it actually sounds like a dog-whistle. As I said in my original comment, making it an actually agnostic argument would have been trivial.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    why not both? In fact, the post implies it’s all.
cato_the_elder 4y ago
> So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices. Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Someone here literally threatened that they "actively" won't hire me for commenting on this post :-) > Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support. > is what some folks consider “political.” Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. > It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support. I disagree, completely. The most “charitable” interpretation is that it’s a vague, non-committal statement of support. The interpretation you mention is far more specific and - when phrased the way you did - antagonistic interpretation of things. > Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous. Of course it is. We agree on that point. What we likely do not agree on is why: it is only political to me because other people choose to make it so. If folks just … let LGBTQ people exist, with full equality, there would be precious little political about it at all.
  - rajin444 4y ago
    > Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Your in group is in power so you’re able to speak power to truth, but it isn’t a principled or healthy stance. Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
tonymet 4y ago
It could have just been a coincidence. every month has a movement of the month nowadays. Also, you can have too much of a good thing. Doesn't mean said thing is bad.
porknubbins 4y ago
The OP may well be opposed to the rainbow flag or not. The fact that they are not allowed to make a facially neutral “no politics on my home screen” statement without HN speculating about some political leaning seems to me to be a pretty clear example of how some progressive movements are encroaching on what used to be neutral space.
- adamedw 4y ago
  - lom888 4y ago
    In the USSR it wasn't enough to have art that was apolitical, it was seen as vital that art acted to actively support the creation of a socialist society, and those seeking to create art in a neutral space were viewed as being reactionary. Defining apolitical spaces out of existence denies people the space to come to their own conclusions
- drewbug01 4y ago
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > “No politics” is itself a political statement. Yes, but it's often the one that the silent majority supports. And I think in many cases, it is in fact an objectively better and wiser strategy.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
wdb 4y ago
I thought it was related to the War in Ukraine
UkrainianJew 4y ago
>I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.” There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified. Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month, emphasizing the importance of teaching your boys self-reliance, emotional control, delayed gratification. Or housewives' month, praising women that sacrifice careers and spend countless time teaching their kids important skills that will help them achieve independence and success in life. But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important, but one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday, we instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. Because, you know, having common goals brings people together. And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.
- avocadvocate 4y ago
  Hmm, I don't think any governments are actively legislating to make it illegal to be (or acknowledge the existence of) fathers or housewives.
  - UkrainianJew 4y ago
    So? If the SMART goal [0] is to discourage these governments from passing such legislation, how does the pride publicity in the countries that DO NOT have that problem help? No multinational company is putting rainbows on its stores in Turkey or Pakistan, but there are plenty in North America. I personally only see the downsides of the current approach: 1. It attracts people that enjoying making others uncomfortable, and all kids of trolls/attention seekers. 2. The former group keeps pushing the limits, demanding more and more unrealistic things, slowly pushing the public opinion against the minority in question. 3. This is used as an excuse for more restrictions of freedom (like the hate speech laws), that are further abused, igniting more and more tensions between people of opposing views. [0] https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-smart-goals https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-sma...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
spencerchubb 4y ago
Why are you assuming it's about a specific issue? The author made it pretty clear it's about the principle and not a specific issue. From the author: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line."
- drewbug01 4y ago
  Honestly? I’ve lived long enough and heard this rhetoric so many, many times before. It would have been utterly trivial to make clear that it wasn’t about a specific issue. Instead, it was only implied.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    “I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line.” seems pretty clear it’s not a specific issue
    - drewbug01 4y ago
Serenacula 4y ago
Okay, but aesthetic design is important. I am very much a part of pride, but I hate having my phone's homescreen totally redesigned at the whim of some dev somewhere. It highlights an already uncomfortable lack of control. People have the right to make aesthetic choices about the things in their life. I would be pissed if someone came into my house and painted my walls without my permission. Even if I agree with the cause, it's my choice to make.
ankushnarula 4y ago
The fact that you’re speculating about what the author may or may not believe rather than contemplating what he is saying IS the problem.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  There is more to communication than the words said. Context matters - including place and time. What isn’t said is also important, and “editing” is arguably the hardest part of writing. “Negative space” in art is a powerful tool that one can wield, and I think it’s just as applicable to writing as it is to visual media.
  - ankushnarula 4y ago
    Sure. Context matters. But what you’re doing is projecting a context that fits an existing narrative which is entangled with your beliefs/preferences while entirely dismissing the stated principle. In essence, you got defensive. And you may not believe it, but most people in non-totalitarian cultures don’t want social/cultural/political symbols planted like a flag in their personal cognitive or physical territory. It’s bad enough that corporations brand the shit out of every physical surface. Now we have intrusions by political movements and social causes. This is spam and it shouldn’t have to be tolerated.

_-david-_ 4y ago

There is a few issues. Nobody (at least in the West) are denying LGBT people exist. Companies who put the flag up are just virtue signalling. If the app icon was changed for a single day for Juneteenth would you sympathize with the OP? The OP was not complaining about the actual political issue. He was complaining about changing the app icon to push their politics. The OP just wants to be able to easily find the app: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it" and doesn't want the app author's politics on his home screen: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line. My device screen is not an appropriate place for your political statements. So cut that shit out" Let me ask you a question. Would you still be making the same points if the political activism was putting a Russian flag as the app icon? Maybe they feel like there is a dehumanizing effort against Russians since Russians are being called orcs by Ukrainians. Based on your logic that would not be political since a vauge assertion that Russians exist is not political.

drewbug01 4y ago
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >They’ve moved on from denial, nowadays they say far more hateful things. [1] All I was getting at is not having a rainbow or supporting a company who changes their logo or whatever doesn't mean somebody is denying the existence of LGBT. >No, but it’s not for the kind of reasons you’re trying to get at with this kind of questioning. Fundamentally, I don’t much care about people changing their app icons for causes I support. And for causes I don’t support, I will simply uninstall their app if it bothers me at all. I feel no need to make noise about app icons in this way. I'm not a fan of app icon changes. I don't care if it is for political or just a permanent changing of their logo. I have uninstalled apps which changed icons because it bothered me. I highly sympathize with the OP for those reasons. Changing for political reasons is worse since it is a temporary change and will go back to its original icon later, meaning there will be 2 icon changes in a short time period. I think complaining about something seems reasonable. Look at various posts that make it to the front page on HN. Huge numbers of them are complaints about things many people don't care about. Maybe you don't think it is a big deal, but many of us do. >I disagree with this assertion, but it isn’t possible to know. What the author did was say things like “I _might_ even agree…” (emphasis mine), which leaves plausible deniability either way. Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic. >But one thing that is certain is this: app icons change frequently, for non-political reasons. It would be trivial to even _mention_ that in the article, but the author did not I think he was complaining about all icon changes in general and political changes in specific: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it. To that end, I am happy to have on my device your logo or a picture that hints at what the app does." >So while neither of us can prove it one way or the other, it certainly sounds like the real problem is the political messaging. Context is one of the most important parts of communication. Unless his point was he doesn't like temporary app icon changes in which case complaining about a specific change would lead to proponents of that political view attacking him.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays. I don’t really disagree on that point, I just didn’t make that argument in the first place. :) > Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic. For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it. That said, I found a few transphobic comments in the authors HN history with no real effort, so I feel pretty comfortable with the assumption. I would encourage you to learn to recognize this kind of dog-whistle. The explicit omission of what political group motivated a rant centered on politics is a common rhetorical technique.

lamontcg 4y ago

I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle. I think I do as well, I don't really want all the icons on my phone changing colors and shapes every other day since that is just bad UX when I'm hunting for the right button. And when it comes to politics I don't want anyone else's politics pushed into my personal life when I don't expect to encounter it, even if I agree with it. It is particularly difficult these days to donate to any worthy cause because you know that it is interpreted as an invitation to harassment and you'll get put onto lists that get sold and get bombarded with mail, e-mail and door-to-door solicitation. I've practically had to throw people off my property -- for causes that I agree with and donate to similar organizations -- because they're just being rude about my personal space. If you show up on my porch waving a pride flag I'm going to be very irritated and ask you to leave. And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. There are those of us who are non-neurotypical who find all the demands on our attention by society, in total, just fucking exhausting, and you might want to keep in mind concepts like consent and privacy.

drewbug01 4y ago
> I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle. It isn’t clear whatsoever. It would have been trivial to mention the other, far more common reasons why app icons change and make a fairly politically-neutral argument. However, they did not choose to do so. In fact, they never even go so far as to say “and these political statements hinder my ability to recognize things visually.” But politics, well - they brought up the concept no less than 4 times in the brief post. What they did was leave it open for you to read your own perspectives into it. > And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. I have taken great pains to avoid this very assertion. What I did assert was this: “it’s likely related to Pride month, and the author considers LGBTQ identities political.” If you believe that “considering LGBTQ identities to be political” is a synonym for “homophobia”, you are welcome to that connection. It’s not unreasonable. But again: my point is that my existence is indeed political. Whether the author supports my community or not isn’t the point I’m making, at all.

onionisafruit 4y ago

It could also be Ukraine. There have been a lot of blue and yellow logos lately.

drewbug01 4y ago
This is definitely true. I considered that it could be Ukraine, but ultimately it seemed less likely. Most of the Ukraine-related logo changes I personally saw were done earlier on in the war, and most of what I see right now is Pride-related. I probably could have mentioned this possibility in the comment, as well. That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess.
- bathtiles 4y ago
  > That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess. We don't need to guess. The post was agnostic to the political cause.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    Not mentioning a cause is not the same thing as being agnostic.
    - gumby 4y ago
      The post itself was, though, as the gp post wrote.
      - drewbug01 4y ago
        To me, it actually sounds like a dog-whistle. As I said in my original comment, making it an actually agnostic argument would have been trivial.
- randyrand 4y ago
  why not both? In fact, the post implies it’s all.

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices. Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Someone here literally threatened that they "actively" won't hire me for commenting on this post :-) > Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support. > is what some folks consider “political.” Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.

drewbug01 4y ago
> Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. > It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support. I disagree, completely. The most “charitable” interpretation is that it’s a vague, non-committal statement of support. The interpretation you mention is far more specific and - when phrased the way you did - antagonistic interpretation of things. > Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous. Of course it is. We agree on that point. What we likely do not agree on is why: it is only political to me because other people choose to make it so. If folks just … let LGBTQ people exist, with full equality, there would be precious little political about it at all.
- rajin444 4y ago
  > Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Your in group is in power so you’re able to speak power to truth, but it isn’t a principled or healthy stance. Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.

tonymet 4y ago

It could have just been a coincidence. every month has a movement of the month nowadays. Also, you can have too much of a good thing. Doesn't mean said thing is bad.

porknubbins 4y ago

The OP may well be opposed to the rainbow flag or not. The fact that they are not allowed to make a facially neutral “no politics on my home screen” statement without HN speculating about some political leaning seems to me to be a pretty clear example of how some progressive movements are encroaching on what used to be neutral space.

adamedw 4y ago
- lom888 4y ago
  In the USSR it wasn't enough to have art that was apolitical, it was seen as vital that art acted to actively support the creation of a socialist society, and those seeking to create art in a neutral space were viewed as being reactionary. Defining apolitical spaces out of existence denies people the space to come to their own conclusions
drewbug01 4y ago
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > “No politics” is itself a political statement. Yes, but it's often the one that the silent majority supports. And I think in many cases, it is in fact an objectively better and wiser strategy.
  - drewbug01 4y ago

wdb 4y ago

I thought it was related to the War in Ukraine

UkrainianJew 4y ago

>I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.” There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified. Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month, emphasizing the importance of teaching your boys self-reliance, emotional control, delayed gratification. Or housewives' month, praising women that sacrifice careers and spend countless time teaching their kids important skills that will help them achieve independence and success in life. But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important, but one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday, we instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. Because, you know, having common goals brings people together. And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

avocadvocate 4y ago
Hmm, I don't think any governments are actively legislating to make it illegal to be (or acknowledge the existence of) fathers or housewives.
- UkrainianJew 4y ago
  So? If the SMART goal [0] is to discourage these governments from passing such legislation, how does the pride publicity in the countries that DO NOT have that problem help? No multinational company is putting rainbows on its stores in Turkey or Pakistan, but there are plenty in North America. I personally only see the downsides of the current approach: 1. It attracts people that enjoying making others uncomfortable, and all kids of trolls/attention seekers. 2. The former group keeps pushing the limits, demanding more and more unrealistic things, slowly pushing the public opinion against the minority in question. 3. This is used as an excuse for more restrictions of freedom (like the hate speech laws), that are further abused, igniting more and more tensions between people of opposing views. [0] https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-smart-goals https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-sma...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

spencerchubb 4y ago

Why are you assuming it's about a specific issue? The author made it pretty clear it's about the principle and not a specific issue. From the author: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line."

drewbug01 4y ago
Honestly? I’ve lived long enough and heard this rhetoric so many, many times before. It would have been utterly trivial to make clear that it wasn’t about a specific issue. Instead, it was only implied.
- randyrand 4y ago
  “I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line.” seems pretty clear it’s not a specific issue
  - drewbug01 4y ago

Serenacula 4y ago

Okay, but aesthetic design is important. I am very much a part of pride, but I hate having my phone's homescreen totally redesigned at the whim of some dev somewhere. It highlights an already uncomfortable lack of control. People have the right to make aesthetic choices about the things in their life. I would be pissed if someone came into my house and painted my walls without my permission. Even if I agree with the cause, it's my choice to make.

ankushnarula 4y ago

The fact that you’re speculating about what the author may or may not believe rather than contemplating what he is saying IS the problem.

drewbug01 4y ago
There is more to communication than the words said. Context matters - including place and time. What isn’t said is also important, and “editing” is arguably the hardest part of writing. “Negative space” in art is a powerful tool that one can wield, and I think it’s just as applicable to writing as it is to visual media.
- ankushnarula 4y ago
  Sure. Context matters. But what you’re doing is projecting a context that fits an existing narrative which is entangled with your beliefs/preferences while entirely dismissing the stated principle. In essence, you got defensive. And you may not believe it, but most people in non-totalitarian cultures don’t want social/cultural/political symbols planted like a flag in their personal cognitive or physical territory. It’s bad enough that corporations brand the shit out of every physical surface. Now we have intrusions by political movements and social causes. This is spam and it shouldn’t have to be tolerated.