3 ms·

I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular example, but it’s quite surprising to me just how many people such as yourself are proudly making variations of

by reshlo 2y ago

I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular example, but it’s quite surprising to me just how many people such as yourself are proudly making variations of an argument that boils down to “I have a right to be rude and I’m gonna use it even more now that I know it annoys you, that’ll show you”. What is the point? How does it add value to the world? Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. When you observe someone publicly doing something that they think is virtuous, why is your first assumption that they’re broadcasting it cynically, rather than that they’re simply being virtuous in a public setting? Most people don’t think that way.

kstenerud 2y ago
I think that you're assuming too much here. I have no problem with the majority of a group directly affected by a nomenclature requesting a change. Where I start to have a problem is when someone not directly affected starts championing it on behalf of some nebulous group that until then has said little on the subject. For example: git master branch. We had a HUGE kerfuffle over that, to the point where even GitHub now gives git init examples that create and rename the master branch to "main". This was a pointless exercise that served no useful purpose other than to make a bunch of social justice warriors feel important. Building special programs to lift people out of poverty is a good thing, especially for marginalized groups, but Affirmative Action was an abomination that only hurt those groups by reinforcing the stereotype that they're less capable. Same goes for what DEI mutated into over time. The backlash we see today is because they went WAYYYYYYYY too far (because the politics of these things are always "keep pushing"), and so now that it's swinging the otherway, we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Everyone loses. > When you observe someone publicly doing something that they think is virtuous, why is your first assumption that they’re broadcasting it cynically, rather than that they’re simply being virtuous in a public setting? Most people don’t think that way. Most people don't think that way CONSCIOUSLY, but people do crave status, and will subconsciously tweak their beliefs to put them on the virtuous side of whatever they're doing, even when bullying others to lift themselves up (dragon slaying). This behavior is as old as time, and must be fought against whenever it rears its ugly head.
- reshlo 2y ago
  > For example: git master branch. We had a HUGE kerfuffle over that, to the point where even GitHub now gives git init examples that create and rename the master branch to "main". This was a pointless exercise that served no useful purpose other than to make a bunch of social justice warriors feel important. Does changing my git branch naming practice harm me? No. Does it encourage me to be more thoughtful about how I use language in general, even if that particular case probably doesn’t really matter? Yes. I see that as an absolute win. By the way, Git’s release notes explicitly mention a desire to “wean ourselves off of the hardcoded ‘master’”[0]. GitHub is just following the intended use of the tool that it wraps. > people do crave status, and will subconsciously tweak their beliefs to put them on the virtuous side of whatever they're doing Why is it bad that people try to be virtuous, and why do you think that wanting to be virtuous implies a desire for status? [0] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq5za8hpir.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq5za8hpir.fsf@gitster.c.googl...
  - kstenerud 2y ago
    > Does changing my git branch naming practice harm me? No. Does it encourage me to be more thoughtful about how I use language in general, even if that particular case probably doesn’t really matter? Yes. I see that as an absolute win. And that's how it's done: by inverting the rules of evidence from "prove that it's harmful" to "prove that it's not harmful" - usually followed on with something to the effect of "It's just a small adjustment... Why are you so adamantly against it? Are you one of those bad intolerant people?" It's insidious because people are afraid of being on the wrong side of things socially, which makes them easy to manipulate in this way. But there are those of us who will stand up and say "No. The line stays where it's at until you can prove your claim with strong evidence." > Why is it bad that people try to be virtuous, and why do you think that wanting to be virtuous implies a desire for status? And there you go again putting words in my mouth, twisting things just so, in order to push me into an untenable position.
tremon 2y ago
I have a right to be rude and I'm gonna use it The rude person often is the one policing others by taking a person's figure of speech and applying a moral judgement completely outside of the speaker's intended context. Offense is taken, not given.
- reshlo 2y ago
  The fact that offense is taken doesn’t mean anyone is making a moral judgement of the speaker. Something unintentionally offensive is still offensive. If you want to maintain the moral high ground when you criticise people for policing others, don’t instruct people which emotions are valid or invalid for them to feel in response to your actions.

by reshlo 2y ago

kstenerud 2y ago

I think that you're assuming too much here. I have no problem with the majority of a group directly affected by a nomenclature requesting a change. Where I start to have a problem is when someone not directly affected starts championing it on behalf of some nebulous group that until then has said little on the subject. For example: git master branch. We had a HUGE kerfuffle over that, to the point where even GitHub now gives git init examples that create and rename the master branch to "main". This was a pointless exercise that served no useful purpose other than to make a bunch of social justice warriors feel important. Building special programs to lift people out of poverty is a good thing, especially for marginalized groups, but Affirmative Action was an abomination that only hurt those groups by reinforcing the stereotype that they're less capable. Same goes for what DEI mutated into over time. The backlash we see today is because they went WAYYYYYYYY too far (because the politics of these things are always "keep pushing"), and so now that it's swinging the otherway, we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Everyone loses. > When you observe someone publicly doing something that they think is virtuous, why is your first assumption that they’re broadcasting it cynically, rather than that they’re simply being virtuous in a public setting? Most people don’t think that way. Most people don't think that way CONSCIOUSLY, but people do crave status, and will subconsciously tweak their beliefs to put them on the virtuous side of whatever they're doing, even when bullying others to lift themselves up (dragon slaying). This behavior is as old as time, and must be fought against whenever it rears its ugly head.

reshlo 2y ago
> For example: git master branch. We had a HUGE kerfuffle over that, to the point where even GitHub now gives git init examples that create and rename the master branch to "main". This was a pointless exercise that served no useful purpose other than to make a bunch of social justice warriors feel important. Does changing my git branch naming practice harm me? No. Does it encourage me to be more thoughtful about how I use language in general, even if that particular case probably doesn’t really matter? Yes. I see that as an absolute win. By the way, Git’s release notes explicitly mention a desire to “wean ourselves off of the hardcoded ‘master’”[0]. GitHub is just following the intended use of the tool that it wraps. > people do crave status, and will subconsciously tweak their beliefs to put them on the virtuous side of whatever they're doing Why is it bad that people try to be virtuous, and why do you think that wanting to be virtuous implies a desire for status? [0] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq5za8hpir.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq5za8hpir.fsf@gitster.c.googl...
- kstenerud 2y ago
  > Does changing my git branch naming practice harm me? No. Does it encourage me to be more thoughtful about how I use language in general, even if that particular case probably doesn’t really matter? Yes. I see that as an absolute win. And that's how it's done: by inverting the rules of evidence from "prove that it's harmful" to "prove that it's not harmful" - usually followed on with something to the effect of "It's just a small adjustment... Why are you so adamantly against it? Are you one of those bad intolerant people?" It's insidious because people are afraid of being on the wrong side of things socially, which makes them easy to manipulate in this way. But there are those of us who will stand up and say "No. The line stays where it's at until you can prove your claim with strong evidence." > Why is it bad that people try to be virtuous, and why do you think that wanting to be virtuous implies a desire for status? And there you go again putting words in my mouth, twisting things just so, in order to push me into an untenable position.

tremon 2y ago

I have a right to be rude and I'm gonna use it The rude person often is the one policing others by taking a person's figure of speech and applying a moral judgement completely outside of the speaker's intended context. Offense is taken, not given.

reshlo 2y ago
The fact that offense is taken doesn’t mean anyone is making a moral judgement of the speaker. Something unintentionally offensive is still offensive. If you want to maintain the moral high ground when you criticise people for policing others, don’t instruct people which emotions are valid or invalid for them to feel in response to your actions.