3 ms·

Not to distract from the article, but I'm pretty sure that photo of the guard tower is from Manzanar, one of the concentration camps in California that interned

Not to distract from the article, but I'm pretty sure that photo of the guard tower is from Manzanar, one of the concentration camps in California that interned Japanese Americans during WWII. Probably not in great taste to use that photo to represent the idea of "guard duty" in software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar

idiotsecant 2y ago
Eh, intent matters. They probably just googled 'guard tower' and used the first one that looked close enough.
- caseyohara 2y ago
  That’s my assumption and why I said something. I’m guessing they didn’t know.
strken 2y ago
Apart from anything else, a fire tower is a better metaphor for on-call than a guard tower, too.
abrookewood 2y ago
[flagged]
brigandish 2y ago
Who, specifically, would that picture offend or change protect?
- Xylakant 2y ago
  People that have been interned in this or one of the other camps, or their descendants. It’s one generation ago, people born and raised in camps are still alive. George Takeo for example was born in one of the segregation camps. It’s a low stakes change. Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author - I would not have recognized the picture either. But now that it’s been pointed out that it’s from a site where people were held illegally against their will, the reaction is a tell-tale. Knowing this, and insisting on keeping the images is now willfully associating with harmful behavior. Apart from that, I cannot associate with the picture either - as an on-call engineer for some widely used infrastructure, I am not a guard on duty keeping people in a camp. I am an emergency responder. I fix things when they go haywire or an accident happens. A firefighter, paramedics, civil emergency responder would IMO be a much better metaphor for what I do.
  - modo_mario 2y ago
    >Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author Then what's the issue or purpose? Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage? That kind of social dynamic appears to be what this kind of things is about most of the time as opposed to preventing mental harm or stopping such issues from (re)occurring. >Knowing this, and insisting on keeping the images is now willfully associating with harmful behavior. Do you not associate with harmfull behavior in far far more direct ways? Perhaps something that's considered ridiculous for most people to avoid like paying taxes that get spent on bombs or the like? If i want to make an article showing a prison and i pick one from google does it matter if that prison happened to be used in the past to house civil rights activists? Is the implication that that somehow normalises, advocates for or otherwise inches towards oppressing civil rights movements in any meaningfull way?
    - dxdm 2y ago
      > Then what's the issue or purpose? To not use a thing that symbolizes the indiscriminate incarceration of innocent people as some clipart for an article about oncall. It's in bad taste, and also the wrong metaphor, and it sends the wrong message, even if not done on purpose. > Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage? Morality has a subjective component and often works by seeing through other people's eyes: How would I feel if this happened to me? How will other people see me if I did this? There's no universal consensus for this, of course, thankfully. So when people disagree about morality, I've found that it can be hard for the side that doesn't see a problem to understand what the other side is making such a fuss about. I also think there can be a performative aspect to moralizing. But I don't think it's fair or warranted to jump to the conclusion that just because one doesn't see the issue, that the other person must be posturing - because that's how you can make sense of their behavior from within your own point of view. People see things that rub them wrong, they speak up, as did you. How would you know you're not just inflating your self-image by putting down their comment like this? If you aren't, maybe they aren't, either.
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      So you're essentially saying: "I don't believe people should try to be nice to each other even in places where it essentially comes for free." I get it, it's impossible to do the right thing all of the time. It's a chore. But very often, it comes for essentially free. Help carry the baby prom down the stairs if the elevator is broken. Tell people their shoelace is open. Change a picture that symbolizes hurt to people in places where the point is not talking about these places. Call people by their chosen name. It comes for almost free. It makes other peoples life better. What's the argument against it?

idiotsecant 2y ago

Eh, intent matters. They probably just googled 'guard tower' and used the first one that looked close enough.

caseyohara 2y ago
That’s my assumption and why I said something. I’m guessing they didn’t know.

strken 2y ago

Apart from anything else, a fire tower is a better metaphor for on-call than a guard tower, too.

abrookewood 2y ago

[flagged]

brigandish 2y ago

Who, specifically, would that picture offend or change protect?

Xylakant 2y ago
People that have been interned in this or one of the other camps, or their descendants. It’s one generation ago, people born and raised in camps are still alive. George Takeo for example was born in one of the segregation camps. It’s a low stakes change. Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author - I would not have recognized the picture either. But now that it’s been pointed out that it’s from a site where people were held illegally against their will, the reaction is a tell-tale. Knowing this, and insisting on keeping the images is now willfully associating with harmful behavior. Apart from that, I cannot associate with the picture either - as an on-call engineer for some widely used infrastructure, I am not a guard on duty keeping people in a camp. I am an emergency responder. I fix things when they go haywire or an accident happens. A firefighter, paramedics, civil emergency responder would IMO be a much better metaphor for what I do.
- modo_mario 2y ago
  >Nobody assumes harmful intentions from the author Then what's the issue or purpose? Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage? That kind of social dynamic appears to be what this kind of things is about most of the time as opposed to preventing mental harm or stopping such issues from (re)occurring. >Knowing this, and insisting on keeping the images is now willfully associating with harmful behavior. Do you not associate with harmfull behavior in far far more direct ways? Perhaps something that's considered ridiculous for most people to avoid like paying taxes that get spent on bombs or the like? If i want to make an article showing a prison and i pick one from google does it matter if that prison happened to be used in the past to house civil rights activists? Is the implication that that somehow normalises, advocates for or otherwise inches towards oppressing civil rights movements in any meaningfull way?
  - dxdm 2y ago
    > Then what's the issue or purpose? To not use a thing that symbolizes the indiscriminate incarceration of innocent people as some clipart for an article about oncall. It's in bad taste, and also the wrong metaphor, and it sends the wrong message, even if not done on purpose. > Other than satisfying or inflating some own moral selfimage? Morality has a subjective component and often works by seeing through other people's eyes: How would I feel if this happened to me? How will other people see me if I did this? There's no universal consensus for this, of course, thankfully. So when people disagree about morality, I've found that it can be hard for the side that doesn't see a problem to understand what the other side is making such a fuss about. I also think there can be a performative aspect to moralizing. But I don't think it's fair or warranted to jump to the conclusion that just because one doesn't see the issue, that the other person must be posturing - because that's how you can make sense of their behavior from within your own point of view. People see things that rub them wrong, they speak up, as did you. How would you know you're not just inflating your self-image by putting down their comment like this? If you aren't, maybe they aren't, either.
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    So you're essentially saying: "I don't believe people should try to be nice to each other even in places where it essentially comes for free." I get it, it's impossible to do the right thing all of the time. It's a chore. But very often, it comes for essentially free. Help carry the baby prom down the stairs if the elevator is broken. Tell people their shoelace is open. Change a picture that symbolizes hurt to people in places where the point is not talking about these places. Call people by their chosen name. It comes for almost free. It makes other peoples life better. What's the argument against it?