Finally, another web engine is being developed to compete with Chromium and Firefox (Gecko), and they're also working on a browser that will use it.
Finally, another web engine is being developed to compete with Chromium and Firefox (Gecko), and they're also working on a browser that will use it.
Sauce?
From last time. TL;DR real weird vibes. This is a PR where you say "oops, that makes sense", click merge, and go on living your life. Not whatever this ended up being.
It's a one-time error the maintainer made 3 years ago (at a time when much of the US-influenced west was going crazy with polarization over the use of pronouns), not a consistent behavior of intolerance as one would expect given the level of hostility towards the project seen here. I personally find it weirder to hold such a long-standing grudge for a one-off error, and over a project one is not even personally involved with.
lmao, speak for yourself. The anti-pronoun crazies have always been fringe, and their message has always been hateful and sexist.
When someone tells me who they are, I believe them. I'm seeing no evidence that anything has changed in 3 years.
IDK what you mean with "speak for yourself" (don't we always speak for ourselves? :S)
Just to clarify, i think it's better to use gender-neutral pronouns when gender is irrelevant, or unknown. And it's easy! I've been doing so writing on English online forums since more 2 decades ago.
But i don't think it's reasonable to get mad at someone, or even attack them, for using male pronouns instead of gender-neutral ones. It doesn't say anything about the person being sexist or hateful. The veeery vast majority of people who do this do it out of ignorance rather than malice. And attacking someone for something they don't even consider as a moral choice —like referring to a generic programmer a "he" instead of "they"— does nothing positive for this world, on the contrary.
Upgrading to gender neutral language is important.
Having a reflex to avoid politics, especially when you live in an environment where concepts like gender aren't discussed, is understandable. It's an attempt to do no harm that doesn't have the expected impact. It still causes harm because simple problems like gendered language are treated with an allergic response. This is what happens when conservatives hyper-sensitize well-meaning people on social topics. Considering the world we live in, you can't expect everyone to know how to flawlessly navigate these issues on the first try.
Their policy of "no politics" was misguided, but understandable. Everything is political. It was fashionable for decades to pretend otherwise. Many people grow up in an environment that ignores social topics. They need to be accepted into spaces where social topics are discussed, not immediately ostracized for not knowing the rules to a game they are new to.
I would like them to neutralize gendered assumptions in their documentation and learn from the experience, but that can only happen if they aren't ostracized from the community. I want to give them a chance to learn and improve to disrupt Google's unhealthy monopoly in the browser space.
The PR in question is also in error. It claims that the documentation assumed the gender of the user or the developer. A close reading of the requested commit reveals that the documentation instead assumes the gender of an example user named "anon" whose permissions are being altered. The documentation's use of gender is in using a male as an example user needing their privileges deescalated. Still problematic, of course: not only men need their privilege checked from time to time.
Being female is not "political".
Being female is not "political".
Being female is not "political".
Being female requires a society that preserves the freedom to be female and for each generation to define what that means for themselves.
The rights of all are political and need to be at the forefront of politics. The rights of women being threatened politicizes them. The political constitution of the united states chose to clearly define rights that ought to be upheld. We seem to be losing them, as they fall through judicial cracks. They were only ever built by jurisprudence updating interpretations of old text to modern values (e.g. the weakly inferred right to privacy that needs to be more explicit, upon which Roe was founded). Now connotations are being stripped, and it will take political action to restore our rights. The US Constitution is almost 250 years old, and still says enslaved people get 3/5 votes. The 13th amendment says only criminals can be slaves. That means felons should have 3/5 of a vote, not no vote, right? Broken document in vital need of a reassessment of values. It's fallen apart and America needs a new one. It's time for a constitutional convention and for the country to vote on some amendments, or even a new document. A document that ensures free and fair elections, with independent primaries and ranked choice voting. A document that guarantees more explicitly our rights to privacy and to seek medical care. A document that upholds labor rights and reins in greed before it can choke the country with monopolies like Google has with Chromium + solely funding Mozilla. It's time for a new deal with the American people that can survive the courts for more than 80 years because anything we put in the new constitution will be constitutional by definition.
This is a political time. We are all political actors. We define how politics proceeds and decide whose rights are considered.
Good points.
I don't quite get how you find it "understandable" to have a reflex against human rights, but otherwise I think we're in agreement.
I think it's understandable to have a few allergic reactions in a new environment until you get a grip on it. Especially if it's not someone's native language.
Not a strategy I recommend, but one I see often enough and understand to be benign and correctable and not necessarily indicative of problematic beliefs. It is indicative of someone needing an introduction to a facet of their communication, not someone needing to be shown the door.
Ousting people and projects from community spaces makes them vulnerable prey to the capitalist vultures. Desperation fuels the labor pool of the very worst parts of our society. Ostracization should only be done in extreme circumstances, if at all. Please seek abolitionist restoration, not retributive punishment.
Like i said earlier, it was changed to they later, to the lead dev, in german they/them is a neopronoun, and "he" is gender neutral is those situations, i assume he thought it was the same in english
I don't understand how a German grammar situation would elicit the response from the PR. Are gender neutral pronouns "political" in Germany? Why did the dev say "personal politics" specifically?
Yeah, (like in french) male pronouns ARE the gender neutral option, and using they/them would be like using xim/xer in english
So doesn't that still mean that they think gender-neutral pronouns are political, i.e. they don't accept them? I've also noticed the dev in question is Swedish, so I'm not sure where German language quirks came from?
Well, yeah, but in gendered languages every common noun has a gender, and gender neutral pronouns are very very new, especially 3 years ago, so even most people in those lgbtq communities use male pronouns as gender neutral.
Tldr: yeah, but its like the tiniest deal ever
Edit: wanted to add that in gendered languages using gender neutral instead of male pronouns when referring to the user in the app would be wierd
"real wierd vibes" is very far from "transphobia".
That's why I didn't say "transphobia" anywhere in my comment. Real weird vibes is what I'm personally sticking with until I see more. The 'transphobic' and 'misogynist' claims are a leap without further evidence, but there's a very strong clue about the type of person someone is when they say pronouns are "political".
Removed by mod
i don't even want to click your link because it says "unhinged dishonest activists". i have literally only ever heard the worst people with the worst opinions ever say shit like that.
That is an apt description for Lunduke.
if I were in a room with Hitler and Lunduke etc
Godwin's Law. Discussion over.
So you agree with the idea that submitting a "minor nitpick" PR suggesting that the software doesn't refer to all users as male is "personal politics" and deserves an angry response for even suggesting it?
You sure do sound like someone who would agree with Lunduke...
Being a woman or being transgender isn't "political". Vocally opposing inclusiveness is asshole behavior.
Not even mad that he's not accepting a low-effort PR. It's trivializing people's existence as "political" that makes him shitty.
Making a low effort argument against a straw man that was never stated. You sure you aren’t a conservative?
No, I disagree with the idea of digging into years of history to drag up the one thing to be mad at and bandwagon over with a loud mob with surface level care that move onto the next bandwagon in a week. Typical to Twitter behavior. Doesn’t actually help anyone, typically hurts the movements they claim to support among everyone else.
I’m about the farthest from Lunduke you can get, he’s just not wrong in this specific instance. You don’t know me, “you sure do sound” is a silly attempt at internet games. Yawn.
I guess what I'm saying here is that if you agree with Lunduke's sexist take, you're just revealing yourself to be a sexist.
https://todon.eu/@ljrk/112717109457167571