I'll read that article properly some other day, but from reading the first two paragraphs and glancing over the rest of it, my observations are: This is mostly about cultural sensibilities of the USA, which I find about as unsurprising as the attitude that the rest of the world should somehow care; I also didn't yet spot any explanation for what the problem with black and white list is, so at best that's not what the article is mainly about, in which case, why post it at all?
EDIT: Never mind, I just read this paragraph
Apple argues that each person has a unique perspective, but that perspective is built on the intersectionality of human characteristics and experiences that relate to age, gender and gender identity, race and ethnicity, sexuality, physical attributes, cognitive attributes, permanent, temporary, and situational disabilities, language and culture, religion, education, political or philosophical opinions and social and economic context.
and don't think an article that wastes that many words to say "people have personalities" respects the readers time. There doesn't seem to be anything other than unsubstantiated claims anyway.
I have indeed, several times, in fact. If you'd like to point out which part of it you mean specifically, I'll most likely be able to explain how that's not relevant here; but until then I'll assume you're referring to where it says:
Using welcoming and inclusive language
I don't know if I need to point this out, but that applies only to dev.to, not to the workplace of any dev.to user. But please correct me if you were referring to something else.
You argue that the article has to many words which are also used in dev.tos Code Of Conduct (which is a super good one). It's normal to name all the different background when it comes to inlcusion and diversity.
On top of it you argue that it's "US" focused, surprise - most terms in software development are comming from the US. You are not seeing the fact that it has nothing to do where you live if People Of Color see that black and white list are connected to bad and good (as explained in the article).
Beside that you started with just trolling around with "if a bot tells me not to use the word "blacklist", I will start looking for another job" is not critic at all, it's just trolling about something you seem to not understand. That's not inclusive behaviour at all.
Not at all; my point is that all of these things are trivial. Any of the named characteristics are understood by pretty much everyone to be factors in a persons perspective. Listing them all id simply disproportionate to the size of the article and the point it's trying to make.
It's normal to name all the different background when it comes to inlcusion [sic] and diversity.
Many things are common, that doesn't necessarily mean they are meaningful. In a longer article, maybe one of a more formal nature, yes, it would make sense to explicitly name all of these characteristics, but that's not what that article is.
most terms in software development are coming from the US
Many terms in mathematics come from German*; that doesn't mean German cultural norms should be dictated to the whole field of mathematics. But that wasn't even my point. Why would I, living and working outside the USA, not see it as a red flag if language rules were being implemented at my workplace to address political and social sensibilities of the USA?
black and white list are connected to bad and good
This has nothing to do with skin colour. Colours get used in all types of context and there's also many more ways to relate them to the human body. Green means good and nobody would think of connecting this to green eye colour. Red on the other hand means bad yet red-haired people aren't complaining about this.
The fact that black and white specifically are being singled out as bad makes it clear that this isn't an inherent problem with the fact that these colours can be related to people's visual traits, but that this problem only results from a very specific cultural context specific to one geographic area.
Trying to force this on the rest of the world seems arrogant at best, unless there was an equal amount of effort put into the sensibilities of any other culture that might ever interact with a product or service; but that's not even close to being the case, from what I've seen so far.
it's just trolling about something you seem to not understand.
You seem to have a very skewed idea of what "trolling" is.
To clarify: Hyperbole is not trolling. I would indeed be very much opposed to anything like this being implemented at my workplace and it would definitely be a factor if I was ever considering switching workplaces.
On top of that, assuming disagreement to automatically be the result of lack of understanding says a lot on its own. I could just as well be accusing you of not having thought things through simply because your opinion doesn't align with mine. That would lead us nowhere.
* Many of which have also made their way into IT. Ever wondered why null pointers are called that and not zero pointers?
@darkwiiplayer
I see your point and appreciate the effort you put in explaining your point of view.
In an ideal world, no word would be harmful.
In the world we live, we have to consider social implications, cultural background, current context and impact of our behaviour.
Saying "blackboard" doesn't make you racist and it's clear that has nothing to do with human beings or skin color.
However, saying "whiteboard" makes your language more inclusive and it's a clear statement about your social and political views about some crucial topics.
You say: "Green means good and nobody would think of connecting this to green eye colour.".
True, because as far as I know nobody has been discriminated, persecuted or harmed just for having green eyes.
True, because as far as I know nobody has been discriminated, persecuted or harmed just for having green eyes.
Fair point, but for one that doesn't apply to red haired people; but it also underlines that this is (as you have also said) highly dependent on cultural background.
To underline some more why I think this is so relevant: I'm from Germany and, while it was definitely a thing here too, racism based on skin colour isn't really as big of a cultural issue here; but instead anything related to the holocaust is probably very comparable to the skin-colour issue in the USA (take the word gas for example) and yet I don't see any attempt to impose this on the rest of the world.
And of course I'm not criticising anybody who does decide to change their language or suggest it to others; my problem is strictly with cases where this "suggestion" turns into grandstanding, like using a bot that actively nags people about their choice of words in a chat.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'll read that article properly some other day, but from reading the first two paragraphs and glancing over the rest of it, my observations are: This is mostly about cultural sensibilities of the USA, which I find about as unsurprising as the attitude that the rest of the world should somehow care; I also didn't yet spot any explanation for what the problem with black and white list is, so at best that's not what the article is mainly about, in which case, why post it at all?
EDIT: Never mind, I just read this paragraph
and don't think an article that wastes that many words to say "people have personalities" respects the readers time. There doesn't seem to be anything other than unsubstantiated claims anyway.
Just a question, did you read the code of conduct of dev.to? If not you should, ASAP.
I have indeed, several times, in fact. If you'd like to point out which part of it you mean specifically, I'll most likely be able to explain how that's not relevant here; but until then I'll assume you're referring to where it says:
I don't know if I need to point this out, but that applies only to dev.to, not to the workplace of any dev.to user. But please correct me if you were referring to something else.
You argue that the article has to many words which are also used in dev.tos Code Of Conduct (which is a super good one). It's normal to name all the different background when it comes to inlcusion and diversity.
On top of it you argue that it's "US" focused, surprise - most terms in software development are comming from the US. You are not seeing the fact that it has nothing to do where you live if People Of Color see that black and white list are connected to bad and good (as explained in the article).
Beside that you started with just trolling around with "if a bot tells me not to use the word "blacklist", I will start looking for another job" is not critic at all, it's just trolling about something you seem to not understand. That's not inclusive behaviour at all.
Not at all; my point is that all of these things are trivial. Any of the named characteristics are understood by pretty much everyone to be factors in a persons perspective. Listing them all id simply disproportionate to the size of the article and the point it's trying to make.
Many things are common, that doesn't necessarily mean they are meaningful. In a longer article, maybe one of a more formal nature, yes, it would make sense to explicitly name all of these characteristics, but that's not what that article is.
Many terms in mathematics come from German*; that doesn't mean German cultural norms should be dictated to the whole field of mathematics. But that wasn't even my point. Why would I, living and working outside the USA, not see it as a red flag if language rules were being implemented at my workplace to address political and social sensibilities of the USA?
This has nothing to do with skin colour. Colours get used in all types of context and there's also many more ways to relate them to the human body. Green means good and nobody would think of connecting this to green eye colour. Red on the other hand means bad yet red-haired people aren't complaining about this.
The fact that black and white specifically are being singled out as bad makes it clear that this isn't an inherent problem with the fact that these colours can be related to people's visual traits, but that this problem only results from a very specific cultural context specific to one geographic area.
Trying to force this on the rest of the world seems arrogant at best, unless there was an equal amount of effort put into the sensibilities of any other culture that might ever interact with a product or service; but that's not even close to being the case, from what I've seen so far.
You seem to have a very skewed idea of what "trolling" is.
To clarify: Hyperbole is not trolling. I would indeed be very much opposed to anything like this being implemented at my workplace and it would definitely be a factor if I was ever considering switching workplaces.
On top of that, assuming disagreement to automatically be the result of lack of understanding says a lot on its own. I could just as well be accusing you of not having thought things through simply because your opinion doesn't align with mine. That would lead us nowhere.
* Many of which have also made their way into IT. Ever wondered why null pointers are called that and not zero pointers?
@darkwiiplayer I see your point and appreciate the effort you put in explaining your point of view.
In an ideal world, no word would be harmful.
In the world we live, we have to consider social implications, cultural background, current context and impact of our behaviour.
Saying "blackboard" doesn't make you racist and it's clear that has nothing to do with human beings or skin color.
However, saying "whiteboard" makes your language more inclusive and it's a clear statement about your social and political views about some crucial topics.
You say: "Green means good and nobody would think of connecting this to green eye colour.".
True, because as far as I know nobody has been discriminated, persecuted or harmed just for having green eyes.
Fair point, but for one that doesn't apply to red haired people; but it also underlines that this is (as you have also said) highly dependent on cultural background.
To underline some more why I think this is so relevant: I'm from Germany and, while it was definitely a thing here too, racism based on skin colour isn't really as big of a cultural issue here; but instead anything related to the holocaust is probably very comparable to the skin-colour issue in the USA (take the word gas for example) and yet I don't see any attempt to impose this on the rest of the world.
And of course I'm not criticising anybody who does decide to change their language or suggest it to others; my problem is strictly with cases where this "suggestion" turns into grandstanding, like using a bot that actively nags people about their choice of words in a chat.