3 ms·

>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

>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.
- _-david-_ 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. Then I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess that goes to show the risk we take when we try to read more into the text than what it says. >For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it The OP either posted well after an app changed their icon or an app took 20 days to change their icon (or something in between). It could be related to pride month, but I don't know that you can draw that conclusion. Juneteenth seems more likely and makes his argument more poignant since the icon is going to change back in a day. Regardleas, changing an icon for a day or a month is ridiculous and annoying. >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. Do you have examples? Also, I don't consider dead naming or using pronouns the trans person used to use but not longer to be transphobic, so if you have posts other than that I would like to see them. >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. You know what else is a rhetorical technique, calling people transphobic based on nothing more than conjecture. We are at a point where everything and nothing can be considered a dog whistle.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      The guy is literally saying he and others are falsely being accused of transphboia and somehow you think that is proof of transphobia? Amazing how I knew you wouldn't have any real posts of transphobia.
      - drewbug01 4y ago
        He redefined “transphobia” such that any accusation of transphobia against him would be laughable. In essence, he makes the argument that transphobia doesn’t exist and is a farce. And to me, that’s transphobic in and of itself: categorically denying that it exists and asserting that any accusations of it against you are baseless.

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.

_-david-_ 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. Then I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess that goes to show the risk we take when we try to read more into the text than what it says. >For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it The OP either posted well after an app changed their icon or an app took 20 days to change their icon (or something in between). It could be related to pride month, but I don't know that you can draw that conclusion. Juneteenth seems more likely and makes his argument more poignant since the icon is going to change back in a day. Regardleas, changing an icon for a day or a month is ridiculous and annoying. >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. Do you have examples? Also, I don't consider dead naming or using pronouns the trans person used to use but not longer to be transphobic, so if you have posts other than that I would like to see them. >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. You know what else is a rhetorical technique, calling people transphobic based on nothing more than conjecture. We are at a point where everything and nothing can be considered a dog whistle.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    The guy is literally saying he and others are falsely being accused of transphboia and somehow you think that is proof of transphobia? Amazing how I knew you wouldn't have any real posts of transphobia.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      He redefined “transphobia” such that any accusation of transphobia against him would be laughable. In essence, he makes the argument that transphobia doesn’t exist and is a farce. And to me, that’s transphobic in and of itself: categorically denying that it exists and asserting that any accusations of it against you are baseless.