apotheotic (she/her) @ apotheotic @beehaw.org

![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/3fed4f13-2d41-4cd4-a120-b778377ac818.we

---

Read more

Posts

4

Comments

998

Joined

2 yr. ago

Democracy, obviously. No it doesn't change if I'm the dictator.

New subclass

Why is this so fried

So in other words you had nothing to add to what we were actually talking about and decided you wanted to talk about something else instead?

Nobody said there shouldn't be consequences, but they have been labeled as terrorists, which is not a fair or correct response.

Nothing they did makes them terrorists, no matter what you think of the action they took

I have to assume that there's some kind of wilful ignorance going on because these kinds of products exist at the high and low end of the market

Though I agree with your ETA.

Noteworthy that it is not the presence of rgb that makes these fit the bill, though it is usually present. Its the hyper angular, edgy, kitschy nonsense

Why is almost everyone in this thread just talking about rgb? The OP directly says that this isn't about rgb

I hate the gamer aesthetic, and I won't buy a product that adheres to it (unless its an internal component for my PC because i have an opaque case anyway). Rgb lighting can be nice in moderation, as long as it is truly customisable.

It really is hard to rewire when you've been brought up in a world that didn't care - and like, honestly good on you for even reflecting in this way. Thanks for learning things and having empathy and compassion ;P

So like, its not necessarily about offense. Some folks who have suffered abuse and aggression because of their minority status have visceral, trauma responses to certain things. When I hear the t-slur used, for example, it invokes a deep anxiety and panic. That doesn't mean that I think that anyone who says it is a transphobe (like the car guy in your example might be talking about his transmission or some silly thing like that) and I'm not going to rage and scream at him. But I'm not weird or wrong for asking him not to say it because it triggers me. This isn't a discussion about how we should cancel people for using words, its a discussion about how we can accommodate our fellow people.

The OP shows some folks making a change that is so minor we shouldn't even be talking about it, so that they can be just a touch more likely not to affect someone negatively. Even if its performative, who cares, they did it and it affects nobody negatively.

More concerning, I think, is the people jumping in this thread acting like this is woke cancel culture gone wild and we can't use normal words anymore.

I have realised, upon reflection, what I take issue with with your argument.

It places the onus on the intention, as opposed to the result.

If the result of me doing something particularly mundane, that I could do another way with zero extra effort, is that some people are offended or othered or hurt, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that the action to take is to change what I'm doing. Theres nuance in the wider discussion but you can't judge intentions, since nobody can know what someone else's intentions are. You can judge actions and outcomes.

The action in this case is mundane, and I don't place any blame or hate toward the people who took the action (made the Tycoon joke). The outcome is potentially negative, and I would argue demonstrably negative since people felt compelled to comment about it. It still doesn't mean that the folks who wrote the joke are massive racists or fascists or whatever, but the outcome related to their action is negative. Hence they chose to change the action to change the outcome.

Seems pretty cut and dry that this was a wholly positive thing, no?

Doesn't seem like anyone was calling them out in that. They're pointing out that it might be a good idea to change it, but I digress, I'll stand corrected here.

Sure, but unless you're talking about a Maine coon then its not really an apples to apples comparison is it? All the words you've mentioned have very commonplace uses but this does not, and it is not being used in a context that is "usual" for it.

This discussion is meaningless anyway because nobody was like, calling them out for it, or at least I haven't seen evidence for that being the case. They decided they felt uncomfortable and changed it.

Most places I'm aware of will mention if AI is used in the creation of some product, whether it is directly displayed in the end result or not

A massive reach of it being literally the same word? Like obviously they didn't mean it in a racist way but clearly they decided that having a racial slur in the docs there was not something they felt good about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon

Death of the author, baby

I think its less about precisely where you draw the line, because that would assume you will be able to perfectly practice your ethics.

More important is that you are imperfectly practising your ethics, rather than not at all. Do you consider nestle evil enough to boycott but you haven't found a suitable replacement for 1 product? That's fine, boycott the rest of the products you would have got from them.

The harder you try to define the line, the harder it gets to actually implement in practice, which is the most important part.

Where I draw my line is a gut feeling more than anything. I won't support meta or amazon or any of Musk's ventures, I try to avoid nestle but they own half the food industry so if a product isn't from nestle or one of the subsidiaries that I've memorised, I'll consider it fair game most of the time. I'd probably look for a job elsewhere if my company started being evil but I wouldn't leave until I had a job lined up.

I hate this racist terf island