6 ms·

I guess it proves a strategic point about championing diversity. People often say that you hamstring a project by putting queer stuff front and center, alienati

I guess it proves a strategic point about championing diversity. People often say that you hamstring a project by putting queer stuff front and center, alienating 'normal people'. In reality, 'normal people' are pretty rare, so it's typically good strategy (as well as good ethics) to be unappologetically inclusive.

fidgewidge 4y ago
Normal people aren't rare by definition.
- pcl 4y ago
  The US military has something interesting to say about that: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
  - throwawayacc6 4y ago
    This is a non-sequitur. Normal != average.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  What definition? If you look at any one trait, you might be able to pick the "normal" variation of that trait by its frequency and yeah, in that case it would not be rare. But when you combine traits, the probabilities multiply and that quickly reduces your probability of being "normal" with regard to all traits. For example, if two independent variable "normal" traits have a 2/3 probability, for example, the probability of being normal with regards to both traits is 4/9--already below 50%.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    The definition of the word normal. The argument you're making here is merely playing with numbers, it has no intellectual merit. Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits. The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English.
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      > The definition of the word normal. I'm aware of how you're defining it, I just don't care. Don't bother with whatever appeal to authority you're about to search for: I don't care what the dictionary says, either. Dictionaries describe how people use words, and sometimes the way people use words changes faster than the dictionary can keep up. People using words are the source of information in the dictionary, and viewing the dictionary as an authority on meaning is a fundamental misunderstanding of how dictionaries work. > Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits. Normalness is defined by the common understanding of the people who use the word to communicate. Usage determines definition, not the other way around. If you understood what the person meant enough to know they're using a word in a way that you aren't used to, then communication occurred. If you really want to fight about this particular dictionary definition not being mathematical, you should really look up the history of the word, because you're very wrong about that. But that's rather silly, because usage determines what the definition is, not the other way around. > The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English. True! Which is why it's bizarre that you would insist on a different meaning when everyone, including you, understands what is being said.
      - fidgewidge 4y ago
        Yes, and in the context of pasabagi's post he's using the word normal to mean non-queer/straight people, who are in fact not rare, they're the vast majority.
        pasabagi 4y ago
        I was actually punning a bit on the word 'queer'. The point is, 'normal', as in straight, able-bodied, male, white, neurotypical, etc, is a minority - except in terms of representation, political or otherwise. This becomes a majority by creative coaltion building (white people, male people, neurotypical people, non-disabled, etc). You then turn around to the parts of the venn diagram that don't carry all of these traits, then treat them as a group who's concerns are marginal and not generally relevant.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> People often say that you hamstring a project by putting queer stuff front and center, alienating 'normal people'. I would say that it risks alienating people who are tired of finding politics injected into every corner of their life. And when you have to spell out carefully how inclusive you are, be sure you actually include everyone. That list gets pretty long.

fidgewidge 4y ago

Normal people aren't rare by definition.

pcl 4y ago
The US military has something interesting to say about that: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
- throwawayacc6 4y ago
  This is a non-sequitur. Normal != average.
kerkeslager 4y ago
What definition? If you look at any one trait, you might be able to pick the "normal" variation of that trait by its frequency and yeah, in that case it would not be rare. But when you combine traits, the probabilities multiply and that quickly reduces your probability of being "normal" with regard to all traits. For example, if two independent variable "normal" traits have a 2/3 probability, for example, the probability of being normal with regards to both traits is 4/9--already below 50%.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  The definition of the word normal. The argument you're making here is merely playing with numbers, it has no intellectual merit. Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits. The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    > The definition of the word normal. I'm aware of how you're defining it, I just don't care. Don't bother with whatever appeal to authority you're about to search for: I don't care what the dictionary says, either. Dictionaries describe how people use words, and sometimes the way people use words changes faster than the dictionary can keep up. People using words are the source of information in the dictionary, and viewing the dictionary as an authority on meaning is a fundamental misunderstanding of how dictionaries work. > Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits. Normalness is defined by the common understanding of the people who use the word to communicate. Usage determines definition, not the other way around. If you understood what the person meant enough to know they're using a word in a way that you aren't used to, then communication occurred. If you really want to fight about this particular dictionary definition not being mathematical, you should really look up the history of the word, because you're very wrong about that. But that's rather silly, because usage determines what the definition is, not the other way around. > The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English. True! Which is why it's bizarre that you would insist on a different meaning when everyone, including you, understands what is being said.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      Yes, and in the context of pasabagi's post he's using the word normal to mean non-queer/straight people, who are in fact not rare, they're the vast majority.
      - pasabagi 4y ago
        I was actually punning a bit on the word 'queer'. The point is, 'normal', as in straight, able-bodied, male, white, neurotypical, etc, is a minority - except in terms of representation, political or otherwise. This becomes a majority by creative coaltion building (white people, male people, neurotypical people, non-disabled, etc). You then turn around to the parts of the venn diagram that don't carry all of these traits, then treat them as a group who's concerns are marginal and not generally relevant.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> People often say that you hamstring a project by putting queer stuff front and center, alienating 'normal people'. I would say that it risks alienating people who are tired of finding politics injected into every corner of their life. And when you have to spell out carefully how inclusive you are, be sure you actually include everyone. That list gets pretty long.