Matt Blaze@paintedsky @BioTurboNick how is that rude? I can see how someone might disagree with my assessment, but how is it rude to state a strong opinion?
Heath Borders@mattblaze people infer when you say "obviously broken" that you're saying that their use cases are invalid. If you affirmed the validity of other use cases, when voicing a strong opinion like this (as you did later in the thread with nuz) I think people wouldn't see it as rude.
@mattblaze Unfortunately, middle-aged-and-older white guys are the cause of a lot of suffering for underrepresented minorities because many powerful white guys don't consider URM perspectives. So part of our baggage in this world is expressing our opinions in ways that demonstrate that we do consider URM perspectives.
I know it's not fair that we alter our behavior bc some white guys are assholes. It's also not fair that white guys get lots of advantages in life. 🤷🏻♂️
@heathborders In what way am I failing to consider unrepresented people? My thread was about making DMs safer and with clearer semantics, in large part to help protect the vulnerable.
https://federate.social/@mattblaze/110312502718395257
You said
> why this obviously broken behavior is "correct"
When you say "obviously broken", people infer that the behavior couldn't possibly be correct for anyone, yet it is correct for many on Mastodon, and many of the people for whom the behavior is correct are URMs.
Matt Blaze (@[email protected])
Because this is Mastodon, I'm now getting people lecturing me on why this obviously broken behavior is "correct".
@mattblaze if your proposal improves safety for URMs, include that rationale in your thread, preferably with a mention at the top. Since middle aged white guys generally face fewer safety issues than URMs, if we're discussing safety, we should center a URM perspective if we want URMs to take us seriously because so many middle-aged white guys don't take URMs seriously.
@mattblaze you did acknowledge in your thread with nuz that the behavior they wanted could also be correct:
> I'm not saying you shouldn't have that feature if you want it.. I'm saying that's not the feature I want. There can be both.
I think if you included this statement prominently in your thread, it would help convince people that you value other perspectives and use cases.
Matt Blaze (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] I'm not saying you shouldn't have that feature if you want it.. I'm saying that's not the feature I want. There can be both. And the semantics of the current feature don't match the description.
@mattblaze I do see that you said something like this in your thread, but it was "below the fold", and people are probably forming opinions from earlier toots in the thread.
Matt Blaze (@[email protected])
Just to be clear, in case it isn't obvious: If I say "I don't want this feature to work this way", I don't mean YOU shouldn't want it. But please don't tell me that because you like it, I should too.
@mattblaze anyways, I don't mind your tone, and I agree that if people don't like your tone, they can block you.
I'm only responding to your question about rudeness because you seem to genuinely want a response. If you're being rhetorical, I apologize for misreading your intentions, and I'll stay out of your mentions in the future.
@heathborders I think you’re asking me to write in an unreasonably defensive, absurdly cumbersome, manner.
@mattblaze If you want to reach an audience that cares about a URM perspective, I think you should change your communication style. Even better than taking my advice, perhaps you should talk to some URMs and ask for their perspective (and simply say "thank you" if they take time to give it).
I inferred that you cared because you keep asking people why your responses were rude.
Ben ✌️@mattblaze @heathborders I read the thread and I interpreted it as a lot of cross talk. Nobody said anything particularly offensive. Even if something was offensive, that doesn’t mean it needs censoring, or punishment. I got pile-on vibes from it tbh & people not liking the tone, rather than there being anything substantively wrong that needed calling out.
Norman Wilson@mattblaze @heathborders Perhaps you're just being told you should smile more.
@heathborders so, you’re inferring from THAT that I’m disregarding the needs of the underrepresented? Seriously??
@mattblaze yes. I think as middle-aged white guys, much of the world is built for our needs, so we don't know what it's like to be regularly disregarded. I suspect that a URM that experiences regular disregard from middle-aged white men is probably extra sensitive to disregard and might infer it even when it doesn't exist.
This is why we have to go out of our way to center a URM perspective if we want to appear caring.
NKT@heathborders @mattblaze sorry, what? This is the worst "whataboutery" I ever heard.
If there's a feature that, on it's face doesn't do what it says it does, then there's easy room for improvement, and no one is saying that the new feature need not be added and the other radically changed. So some people like the existing feature, and others want a new feature. They're not mutually exclusive in software.
If there's a feature that, on it's face doesn't do what it says it does, then there's easy room for improvement, and no one is saying that the new feature need not be added and the other radically changed. So some people like the existing feature, and others want a new feature. They're not mutually exclusive in software.
FacetiousPenguin@mattblaze this person is obviously up themselves. You cannot assume good intent upon their actions or words. Block early, block often. Block domains if needed.