This is how the "get off my lawn" mentality happens. Older generations don't just become cranky and cantankerous — society shifts out from under them in ways that go against the norms they're accustomed to while they hold the line on the way they perceive that things used to be.
Note I'm not saying that this is the direction things are ultimately going to shift toward. Just that this example is symptomatic of how generational culture shifts happen.
I've already noticed this in myself, and I'm just past thirty. I just don't "get" Snapchat, for example. It's perhaps just one thing right now, but culture changes aren't independent of one-another. You hop off the bandwagon but it keeps going and only ever becomes harder to hop back on.
I'm not sure this is. And if it really bothers (the collective) you that badly:
git clone && rm README.md
The relative tone of this thread and its popularity has me convinced that many are willing to change their culture to match random demands regardless of the objective merit of those demands. Hell, without even critically examining the merit of those demands.
"This language is alienating!"
Says who? And why? Why is this a statement to be taken at pure face value by someone who isn't even claiming to be offended?
I find that lack of principled objection to be horridly offensive, but that's just me.
Not everyone gets every joke after all :)
Close the tab man, it's a click away. We will enjoy the work while you can be at peace. He is not invading your safe space.
Now let us back to important things like deliver software thanks to contributors like him.
No, it's not. It's just users that take free advantage of whatever that person is offering gratis.
And perhaps some more that he'd like to work with him on this -- the rest that don't like his language can take a hike.
By what definition created by who?
- https://qz.com/797559/gender-bias-job-listings-language/
- http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/gender-inclusive-langu...
- https://mit.uloop.com/news/view.php/206562/On-Inclusive-Lang...
* That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language"
* That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme.
So far, you have done none of those things. Your links argue that sexually exclusionary language 1. exists and 2. is a problem. Nothing more.
What definition:
- language that feels unwelcoming to people (all three articles)
- language that studies show excludes people (Quartz article)
Who:
- people affected by exclusive language (MIT article)
- people who research exclusive language (Quartz article)
> * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language"
It's gendered language, which all the aforelinked sources list as exclusive
> * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme.
We don't need to prove the same case over and over for every single word. Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive + "bruh" is a gendered term = bruh is exclusive
..in certain contexts, where maximum inclusivity is the actual goal, if not the law.
Why is maximum inclusivity the goal here, again? Why must it be?
My earlier assessment appears to be correct. No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people.
This conversation is no longer interesting.
No, you just ignored the studies showing that this is excluding people.
BTW, tokenization is also discriminatory: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al...
Starting points:
- Humor
- Context
for the context I come from a background that makes it possuble for me to get offended by a lot of things.
I still choose not to care anymore and it is actually way better.
if you like the idea and not the verbiage, change it.
if you like the idea and dont mind the verbiage, no issue.
if you dont like the idea, then you dont need the tool