4 ms·

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

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

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