4 ms·

It is ok to be ignorant, but it is odd to take the time to actively point it out. Because he wasn't talking about any of those people.

NewJazz 1y ago
I don't think I'm being ignorant. If he wasn't talking about those folks, maybe he should have specified that rather than seemingly characterizing all criticism of GNOME accessibility as some sort of anti-GNOME conspiracy. These criticisms aren't coming from nowhere. There are legitimate shortcomings.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  FWIW I did read the rest of the blog post... I have a lot of empathy for open source developers but I can't help but feel like this post is coming on strong... There's a way to address perceived flame bait from publications like theregister while acknowledging real shortcomings.
- godelski 1y ago
  > If he wasn't talking about those folks, maybe he should have specified that rather than seemingly characterizing all criticism of GNOME accessibility as some sort of anti-GNOME conspiracy. | What do virtue-signalers and privileged people without disabilities sharing content about accessibility on Linux being trash have in common? | They don’t actually really care about the group they’re defending; they just exploit these victims’ unfortunate situation to either fuel hate against groups and projects actually trying to make the world a better place. It reads to me like they're doing what you're asking. Their language separates "they" from "disabled people". Specifically with "the group they’re defending"
  - irishsultan 1y ago
    So let me get this right: It's okay for a blind person to write content about accessibility being trash, but it's not okay for a privileged person without disabilities to share that content. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a reasonable point of view. Keeping the problems nicely hidden from the larger community is not going to help anyone. Of course merely talking about a problem isn't going to solve it either, but it's more likely to lead to solutions in the long term.
    - godelski 1y ago
      I think that's a reasonable point of view to be interpreted if you read it reasonably
      - irishsultan 1y ago
        You've used reasonable twice, but haven't explained how it's reasonable.
        godelski 1y ago
        You'll need to read it reasonably to get a reasonable response. But if there's a correct response with no room for disagreement then there's no conversation to be had. That's what I was saying: you read it unreasonably
MBCook 1y ago
> What do virtue-signalers and privileged people without disabilities sharing content about accessibility on Linux being trash have in common? NewJazz is right. It is a straight up ad hominem attack. I have never seen the phrase “virtue signal[er]” used in a non-pejorative way. This post could have been written to explain people are working on it and trying hard and it’s really demoralizing and asking for more help. It wasn’t.
- godelski 1y ago
  It sounds to me like the OP is specifically calling out non-disabled people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? But it seems more like they're concerned with people that like to complain rather than critique
  - MBCook 1y ago
    They are, but it’s an odd critique. If we ignore the tone, they’re basically suggesting that it’s unfair for people without impairments (A) to boost posts from the visually impaired (B) complaining about issues, because the As don’t face the issues. Which would reduce the number and visibility posts dramatically. Effectively silencing the B users to a large degree. But I don’t that’s truly intended. This piece seems pretty clearly born out of frustration and emotion.
    - godelski 1y ago
      No they're upset that some people just want to complain. They're okay with critiques (complaint != critique) but saying that only getting complaints is demoralizing and makes it hard for people who are actually trying to get shit done. I don't know what's hard to understand about this. It's a pretty universal human experience. We've all had to listen to people just complain and experience how that makes us want to just say "fuck it" and stop doing the thing. That's it. Nothing more. Stop trying to twist this into things. You can read it as "shut up or pony up".

NewJazz 1y ago

I don't think I'm being ignorant. If he wasn't talking about those folks, maybe he should have specified that rather than seemingly characterizing all criticism of GNOME accessibility as some sort of anti-GNOME conspiracy. These criticisms aren't coming from nowhere. There are legitimate shortcomings.

NewJazz 1y ago
FWIW I did read the rest of the blog post... I have a lot of empathy for open source developers but I can't help but feel like this post is coming on strong... There's a way to address perceived flame bait from publications like theregister while acknowledging real shortcomings.
godelski 1y ago
> If he wasn't talking about those folks, maybe he should have specified that rather than seemingly characterizing all criticism of GNOME accessibility as some sort of anti-GNOME conspiracy. | What do virtue-signalers and privileged people without disabilities sharing content about accessibility on Linux being trash have in common? | They don’t actually really care about the group they’re defending; they just exploit these victims’ unfortunate situation to either fuel hate against groups and projects actually trying to make the world a better place. It reads to me like they're doing what you're asking. Their language separates "they" from "disabled people". Specifically with "the group they’re defending"
- irishsultan 1y ago
  So let me get this right: It's okay for a blind person to write content about accessibility being trash, but it's not okay for a privileged person without disabilities to share that content. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a reasonable point of view. Keeping the problems nicely hidden from the larger community is not going to help anyone. Of course merely talking about a problem isn't going to solve it either, but it's more likely to lead to solutions in the long term.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I think that's a reasonable point of view to be interpreted if you read it reasonably
    - irishsultan 1y ago
      You've used reasonable twice, but haven't explained how it's reasonable.
      - godelski 1y ago
        You'll need to read it reasonably to get a reasonable response. But if there's a correct response with no room for disagreement then there's no conversation to be had. That's what I was saying: you read it unreasonably

MBCook 1y ago

> What do virtue-signalers and privileged people without disabilities sharing content about accessibility on Linux being trash have in common? NewJazz is right. It is a straight up ad hominem attack. I have never seen the phrase “virtue signal[er]” used in a non-pejorative way. This post could have been written to explain people are working on it and trying hard and it’s really demoralizing and asking for more help. It wasn’t.

godelski 1y ago
It sounds to me like the OP is specifically calling out non-disabled people. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? But it seems more like they're concerned with people that like to complain rather than critique
- MBCook 1y ago
  They are, but it’s an odd critique. If we ignore the tone, they’re basically suggesting that it’s unfair for people without impairments (A) to boost posts from the visually impaired (B) complaining about issues, because the As don’t face the issues. Which would reduce the number and visibility posts dramatically. Effectively silencing the B users to a large degree. But I don’t that’s truly intended. This piece seems pretty clearly born out of frustration and emotion.
  - godelski 1y ago
    No they're upset that some people just want to complain. They're okay with critiques (complaint != critique) but saying that only getting complaints is demoralizing and makes it hard for people who are actually trying to get shit done. I don't know what's hard to understand about this. It's a pretty universal human experience. We've all had to listen to people just complain and experience how that makes us want to just say "fuck it" and stop doing the thing. That's it. Nothing more. Stop trying to twist this into things. You can read it as "shut up or pony up".