Like, I suspect some of the employees involved in this change also volunteer with organizations, they also donate money to organizations, they also make other changes in their personal life, right? Maybe not all of them. Maybe some of them wake up and think "Social justice is really important to me so I'm going to do an empty virtue signal and then nothing else, wow I'm great". Even if that were true it's not super obvious what the concern is here -- okay, so maybe someone involved in this change could be a better person and could be using their energy more effectively? And? Surely there's a better use of my energy and yours than replying to a patchnotes post on hacker news to get mad about a one word change in a changelog of an email client, and yet here we are.
About half of my post was talking about how symbolic things, while not a substitute for concrete things, are part of making changes, and how often times tackling problems with a combination of the most urgent issues and the easiest to fix issues is normal, so it's weird that the reply would be "Symbolic things just substitute for concrete things and this issue is easy, not urgent". Like, yes, I've already considered your perspective here, that's why I replied to begin with?
To be honest I'm not sure where I stand on prescriptivism as a concept. If there's a genuine organic demand (as opposed to corporate PR people playing tokenism) for it in the context of tackling racism then fair enough I can get behind that, but I don't really like the idea of language itself being used as a political cudgel to beat your opponents with. The word Orwellian is relentlessly misused these days but I think if we are going to forcefully change language it needs to be something done with great consideration and democratic oversight to avoid this tool being wielded abusively. For example, I'd love to abolish all Americanisms from British English which is exactly why I'd be grossly unfit for such a language-defining duty!
So why cling to a word that has so much cultural baggage when it doesn't even work that well in Thunderbird?
> So why cling to a word that has so much cultural baggage
> when it doesn't even work that well in Thunderbird?
Clinging? We're all just talking here and we don't have any authority over this software. Are we allowed to have differing opinions about what already took place? I think so.
Personally, my opinion is that I laugh at these people for their empty virtue signaling that really doesn't help understanding here in this case. We don't have to be clinging in order to discuss how idiotic we think things are.
The idea that we're going to use words but ignore context and intent is self-defeating. It weakens the powers of human communication. It's as if to say: "Words speak louder than action."
That's sounds like a quote for 1984.
Which is also just a lot of empty words that make you feel good about the fundamental change you're helping sweep over the world.
Except when they don't.
That's the point.
This change is completely meaningless in practical terms, which means the only value derived is in the heads of those wanting to see the change.
This is why we view it cynically.
Someone commenting cynically on the action does not 'prove' that those words have some kind of influence.
.. for you. I hope nobody ever insults you.
> How they are used literally changes the discourse.
No. People come up with ideas and thoughts, and wanting to express themselves, they seek out looking for words. Peoples ideas and thoughts make up how words are meant.
if it makes you feel good to play with words I am not sure if thats a good energy expenditure for your activism. it feels like a cheap way to value signal instead of doing something actually meaningful.