Poor choice of language can set up an exclusionary environment.
To you, this may be funny.
To me, your accusation of humorlessness reminds me of people who engage in sexually harassing "jokes" in the workplace, and then try to get away with it by using "humor" as an excuse.
You aren't the one who gets to decide when other people feel uncomfortable.
At least now I finally understand how they manage to still hold on to that.
As long as you redefine evil to exclude things you don't feel other people should be hurt by you're all clear!
You do realise that would sort of be making the exact point I was trying to make, right? Or am I missing some seriously self-deprecating joke here?
You say that the word "bro" is needlessly offensive. Let me ask you, where is your balance point? What is the right level of offensive? The cost of censorship is real, and teaching people to be helpless victims does more harm than any word ever could.
A portion of your potential audience giving you feedback that think that they the name is bad is 'censorship'?
The right level of offensive is the level that, given all viewpoints, does the most to benefit to society as a whole.
You're a rich straight white guy whose only discomfort over this comes down to not being able to say whatever you damn well want whenever you damn well please.
From this thread you can clearly see that there's a shit ton of people, many of whom have to re-evaluate their every word and action in our industry, for whom this triggers feelings of marginalization, ridicule and disrespect.
Insisting on maintaining your privilege over theirs and even going so far as to label their reactions as taught helplessness and defining that as evil ... well ... that pretty much sounds like the root of all evil to me.
Could you be any more offensive and dismissive? What difference does his cultural background have when discussing the name of a piece of software?
Oh, wait, everything right? Cisgendered, rich white men are the enemy!
If you want, think of 'bro' as a shortened version of 'brochure'. Is it less offensive to you now?
But yeah; the tone argument. Good to see that brought up. Going through your comment history is literally Derailment Bingo gold. I'm sure paul is happy to know that his bro's still have his back. ;)
Hope you're enjoying all that kool aid, bro. :)
I don't understand the point you are making. If your remarks were making me feel uncomfortable wouldn't you expect me to say so? Why not?
But.. you.. are?
> it's other people feeling oppressed
Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it? You are sort of correct.
The only person who gets to decide if "he/she" (notice the political correctness?) is offended is "himself/herself." Just as you cannot tell someone he/she is offended, you cannot tell anyone he/she is being offensive. The only person who can label someone as offensive is the person who is offended by the words.
Stop getting offended over pointless shit. Nothing can be offensive without offensive intent. 99% of the time, the problem lies with the person getting offended, not the person doing the offending. Nobody has an obligation to feel like they are walking on glass when he/she opens his/her mouth.
That way, we can look up and make sure this thing never happens. Then, with any luck, a strawperson (not strawman) will never feel like that for something on the internet again.
... because that's your job, I suppose?
Do you have any examples of this assertion to help understand what you are getting at and how it relates to this?