3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoI think that's a reasonable point of view to be interpreted if you read it reasonably
- irishsultan 1y agoYou've used reasonable twice, but haven't explained how it's reasonable.
- godelski 1y agoYou'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