Ah, women are just choosing to be unreasonably offended by the patriarchy. Got it.
Also - this wasn’t even about someone being offended. It was a quiet PR to fix a grammatical mistake, and the reason given was simple and correct: the pronoun used was needlessly non-inclusive. It’s everyone else who has an issue with this that seems to be offended, in my opinion
I mean, yes. In some cases on some issues, some people get offended at things that are frankly a waste of anger. This is a good example of that imo, as opposed to being mad about real patriarchal shit like the wage gap, being mad because a general document says “he” seems like it’s really jumping the shark.
Personally I’d probably have checked to make sure the person who submitted it didn’t pull an XZ utils or just fuck something else up by accident before I merged it, but assuming it was literally just :%s/he/they/g then I’d have merged it, simply because while I don’t think it’s really that big of an issue either way it’s easier to just do it than being brigaded and bullied.
I mean, yes. In some cases on some issues, some people get offended at things that are frankly a waste of anger.
Agreed. Though I’m not sure how this is a good example, as the PR just fixed it without any anger or offence taken.
Then, there was anger after the PR got rejected because apparently being inclusive to women is ‘political’. This is where you can see that the maintainer didn’t just make a mistake, they made a choice and are sticking with it for reasons. This is where it becomes an issue.
Eh it still seems like it isn’t that big of a deal what the words say to me at the root of the issue, as I said if it said “she” which is similarly exclusive not even to men because who cares but to nonbinary people and the like, and the maintainer refused to change it for whatever reason, I still wouldn’t feel too strongly about it even though I’m technically excluded.
Maybe if she said “men can’t use my software” or something I’d feel excluded, but if she just says “eh I’m not changing it to ‘they’ because X” I wouldn’t care.
Ah, women are just choosing to be unreasonably offended by the patriarchy. Got it.
Also - this wasn’t even about someone being offended. It was a quiet PR to fix a grammatical mistake, and the reason given was simple and correct: the pronoun used was needlessly non-inclusive. It’s everyone else who has an issue with this that seems to be offended, in my opinion
I mean, yes. In some cases on some issues, some people get offended at things that are frankly a waste of anger. This is a good example of that imo, as opposed to being mad about real patriarchal shit like the wage gap, being mad because a general document says “he” seems like it’s really jumping the shark.
Personally I’d probably have checked to make sure the person who submitted it didn’t pull an XZ utils or just fuck something else up by accident before I merged it, but assuming it was literally just :%s/he/they/g then I’d have merged it, simply because while I don’t think it’s really that big of an issue either way it’s easier to just do it than being brigaded and bullied.
Agreed. Though I’m not sure how this is a good example, as the PR just fixed it without any anger or offence taken.
Then, there was anger after the PR got rejected because apparently being inclusive to women is ‘political’. This is where you can see that the maintainer didn’t just make a mistake, they made a choice and are sticking with it for reasons. This is where it becomes an issue.
Eh it still seems like it isn’t that big of a deal what the words say to me at the root of the issue, as I said if it said “she” which is similarly exclusive not even to men because who cares but to nonbinary people and the like, and the maintainer refused to change it for whatever reason, I still wouldn’t feel too strongly about it even though I’m technically excluded.
Maybe if she said “men can’t use my software” or something I’d feel excluded, but if she just says “eh I’m not changing it to ‘they’ because X” I wouldn’t care.