3 ms·

I mean, sure, but check that thread linked in the OP. No one there complained about “sjws”, the dev in the OP has no history of ragebait posts, and the whole di

I mean, sure, but check that thread linked in the OP. No one there complained about “sjws”, the dev in the OP has no history of ragebait posts, and the whole discussion about it has been more than respectful (e.g., with some people suggesting things like not putting technical terms in patchnotes, which i disagree with personally, but that’s beside the point). With zero evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to believe this is real. Especially given how cordial everyone in that thread on mastodon was behaving, in the face of such a ridiculous reason for a negative review.

moritzwarhier 3y ago
You may very well be right, but I was not talking about rage baiting by the dev, but by the author of the review. I thought that this would be clear from my initial comment, it seems that it isn't. > Especially given how cordial everyone in that thread on mastodon was behaving, in the face of such a ridiculous reason for a negative review. Yeah, negative reviews with troll content are a thing though
- Tommstein 3y ago
  Whether the review was trolling or a genuine display of being a moron (and in a world where people whined to change "master"/"whitelist"/"blacklist"/etc. for invented bullshit racial reasons, I can easily believe it was actually the latter), whoever posted it should have their reviews banned for demonstrably being worse than useless.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    Yeah that reviewer should be banned if possible. Look, I'm not bothered by the names "master" (branch) or "whitelisting" very much, although in the latter case I think allow/deny is a lot more clear. And in the former case, a rational reaction would be to say: I don't care, I won't put effort into renaming branches in existing repositories, but I can recognize that branch in other repositories regardless if it's called "main" or "master". So do what you like. IIRC, that was also the reaction of many reputable OSS maintainers. That being said: it seems that the review was successful in instilling rage in you. It explicitly references all these controversies and says "if we do that, shouldn't we also ban the word 'race'"? Doesn't that sound like parody? And even if not, why not just answer rationally and get on with it? This is about using words with multiple meanings to incite hate. I haven't spent any time researching who wrote this original review (which would be a useless way to spend my time), but I'd seriously suggest taking a step back before getting so emotional about it. This is typical rage-farming troll content. Enganging with it reinforces its message. And its message, in my view, is not something like "anti-racism". Its message is hate against a strawman. Same as Russia did in the US elections, paying for rage-inciting ads covering all sides (BLM, Trump, Sanders, who cares) to weaken objective discourse. Not to mention other, similar manipulations of public opinion that "play both sides". The right way to respond to this would be to answer with the fact that the word "race" is amibigous and flag the review. Fin.

moritzwarhier 3y ago

You may very well be right, but I was not talking about rage baiting by the dev, but by the author of the review. I thought that this would be clear from my initial comment, it seems that it isn't. > Especially given how cordial everyone in that thread on mastodon was behaving, in the face of such a ridiculous reason for a negative review. Yeah, negative reviews with troll content are a thing though

Tommstein 3y ago
Whether the review was trolling or a genuine display of being a moron (and in a world where people whined to change "master"/"whitelist"/"blacklist"/etc. for invented bullshit racial reasons, I can easily believe it was actually the latter), whoever posted it should have their reviews banned for demonstrably being worse than useless.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  Yeah that reviewer should be banned if possible. Look, I'm not bothered by the names "master" (branch) or "whitelisting" very much, although in the latter case I think allow/deny is a lot more clear. And in the former case, a rational reaction would be to say: I don't care, I won't put effort into renaming branches in existing repositories, but I can recognize that branch in other repositories regardless if it's called "main" or "master". So do what you like. IIRC, that was also the reaction of many reputable OSS maintainers. That being said: it seems that the review was successful in instilling rage in you. It explicitly references all these controversies and says "if we do that, shouldn't we also ban the word 'race'"? Doesn't that sound like parody? And even if not, why not just answer rationally and get on with it? This is about using words with multiple meanings to incite hate. I haven't spent any time researching who wrote this original review (which would be a useless way to spend my time), but I'd seriously suggest taking a step back before getting so emotional about it. This is typical rage-farming troll content. Enganging with it reinforces its message. And its message, in my view, is not something like "anti-racism". Its message is hate against a strawman. Same as Russia did in the US elections, paying for rage-inciting ads covering all sides (BLM, Trump, Sanders, who cares) to weaken objective discourse. Not to mention other, similar manipulations of public opinion that "play both sides". The right way to respond to this would be to answer with the fact that the word "race" is amibigous and flag the review. Fin.