On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in.
...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic
under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.
If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men)
So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
wait, that would *still* be biased.
Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)
I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind
someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind [...]
True.
[...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.
Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of
a term that has been historically and widely recognized as
gender-neutral is biased.
Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the
impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced
on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups
that ultimately caused us to be having it.
Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for
me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the
underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just
ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is
expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again,
ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they
vilify their opponents for using.)
Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so]
should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with
the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
