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.