I'm disappointed with the letter in the OP, but IME Irene's posts wherever I've read them (Discourse and GitHub) have been measured, diplomatic, friendly, patient, etc. I think this is just bigotry. It's an attempt to dismiss the letter by painting her as the sole author and ridiculing her identity categories.
Pointing out mental illness in place of actually evaluating and criticizing an argument or behavior on its own terms is prejudicial, ad hominem, etc. Sometimes, it might even be bigoted.
mentally ill ≠ incapable of reason
mentally ill ≠ unworthy of consideration
mentally ill ≠ wrong
Regardless of all that, singling out one person associated with a document you don't like and pointing at their microblogging bio is a lazy, crappy way to argue. And it's likely to direct harassment at that person.
But we love laziness; it saves energy when there's too much information to process. :p That's a bad heuristic in theory but often excellent in practice.
If someone is stirring up woke drama to get smart people canceled out of a tech project, I won't listen (because it already screams "misaligned priorities and energy" -- my brain concluded this in its experience over the last 15 years of online culture war). If I learn they're a "plural system", I'll even bother declaring how it's not worth listening in the comments here.
I would bet a lot of money that my time and attention is steered well following this lazy heuristic every single time.
I'm disappointed with the letter in the OP, but IME Irene's posts wherever I've read them (Discourse and GitHub) have been measured, diplomatic, friendly, patient, etc. I think this is just bigotry. It's an attempt to dismiss the letter by painting her as the sole author and ridiculing her identity categories.
Dawg, it's a "plural system".
If pointing out blatant mental illness is "bigotry" and nothing else to you, you're brainwashed.
Pointing out mental illness in place of actually evaluating and criticizing an argument or behavior on its own terms is prejudicial, ad hominem, etc. Sometimes, it might even be bigoted.
mentally ill ≠ incapable of reason
mentally ill ≠ unworthy of consideration
mentally ill ≠ wrong
Regardless of all that, singling out one person associated with a document you don't like and pointing at their microblogging bio is a lazy, crappy way to argue. And it's likely to direct harassment at that person.
All of this is true.
But we love laziness; it saves energy when there's too much information to process. :p That's a bad heuristic in theory but often excellent in practice.
If someone is stirring up woke drama to get smart people canceled out of a tech project, I won't listen (because it already screams "misaligned priorities and energy" -- my brain concluded this in its experience over the last 15 years of online culture war). If I learn they're a "plural system", I'll even bother declaring how it's not worth listening in the comments here.
I would bet a lot of money that my time and attention is steered well following this lazy heuristic every single time.
3 replies →