The author didn’t bother to state which political statements they were upset about; neither did they bother to say something like “all of them,” which would have been trivial. So we are left to guess which political activism they find annoying.
Given the timing, there’s a very good chance that it’s related to Pride month here in the US. It seems even more probable when you consider the context: very few companies change their logos for Juneteenth (the other contender), but many companies slap a rainbow on it for Pride.
So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices.
I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”
> So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices.
Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Someone here literally threatened that they "actively" won't hire me for commenting on this post :-)
> Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist
It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support.
> is what some folks consider “political.”
Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.
> Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right?
Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling.
> It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support.
I disagree, completely. The most “charitable” interpretation is that it’s a vague, non-committal statement of support. The interpretation you mention is far more specific and - when phrased the way you did - antagonistic interpretation of things.
> Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.
Of course it is. We agree on that point. What we likely do not agree on is why: it is only political to me because other people choose to make it so. If folks just … let LGBTQ people exist, with full equality, there would be precious little political about it at all.
> Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling.
Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Your in group is in power so you’re able to speak power to truth, but it isn’t a principled or healthy stance.
Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
The juxtaposition between “Conservatives make the same argument” and “Your in group is in power” seems to imply that you think liberals are in power. I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. They are currently in power in name only, and structurally even that will be an unlikely outcome for the foreseeable future.
> Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
That you’re able to feel comfortable staying your opinions in public is evidence your group has won.
> Would you care to expand on those?
Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished.
This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. The current social environment is might makes right.
I was asking “which opinions should society learn to tolerate.” Would you care to expand on those?
> Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah.
I’m not sure how you’d square that with the idea of “freedom of association.”
> Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now.
Indeed. Your proposal would halt that process. Is that healthy? Who would that benefit, and who would that harm?
> It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished.
And the law does not punish them. I don’t think it ethical or moral to enshrine such viewpoint protection in the law. No group should be able to legally force someone to like them.
And frankly, that’s not what’s happening today. Nobody is being legally forced to accept LGBTQ people.
> This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have.
I don’t know how you’d solve that problem, short of coercion.
> I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US.
That's not really the case, and I assume that's probably good news for you since you seem to be a liberal.
The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception.
It might not remain like this forever though, because they are alienating a good chunk of the population.
> The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception.
Mixing democratic and non-democratic institutions hardly seems fair, especially since only one of those has the direct power to govern.
You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly. You also left out state governments, which are overwhelmingly controlled in totality by the Conservative party. Not to mention the federal judiciary.
The idea that conservatives aren’t in control is simply false; they are in control of vast swaths of government, and will almost certainly consolidate that power shortly. Even the nominally liberal-controlled elements of government are stymied by the conservative element, a defacto loss of control.
If you want to stick to soft power, we could talk more about that. But if you want to include hard power, then your argument holds no water.
> You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly.
While you are correct in that the Republicans have a good chance of flipping the Senate, my claim was about non-democratic institutions.
I think it's fair to count the Senate as a democratic one. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment [1], Senators are directly elected.
> Not to mention the federal judiciary.
I'm not sure about that. According to Ballotpedia [2], 403 of the current Article III federal judges were appointed by a Democrat president, while 391 were appointed by a Republican.
> If you want to stick to soft power, we could talk more about that. But if you want to include hard power, then your argument holds no water.
That's probably the root of our disagreement. Soft power is still political power. Tocqueville had warned us about soft despotism. [3]
One test to determine who's in power is to see whose values are more dangerous to make fun of.
Point well taken; I mixed up “democratic” and “governmental” in my reply.
In any case: I think my broader point of “conservatives have plenty of power” is pretty reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with your implication that it’s more dangerous to make fun of liberals.
If by that you mean “I wish to make fun of liberals and their values but then still remained gainfully employed by a company that claims to adhere to those values”, then sure I guess you have a point.
But in the same fashion I highly doubt I could get a job at the Heritage Foundation, you know? Tribalism doesn’t necessarily have a direct relationship to power.
> Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc.
Neither of those examples harms or affects another person. Preventing two people from entering into a contract because of their genders does affect others. That is the difference.
However, I do agree with the opinion that changing app icons for any non app related reason is stupid. There is no need for political signaling to affect usability, which changing an icon surely does.
> The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity
Protest? Come on. The most charitable interpretation is that the person making such a statement merely think non hetero people deserve the same rights as anyone else. Which is quite different from taking a position against something.
> Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal mode of sexual orientation. It assumes the gender binary (i.e., that there are only two distinct, opposite genders) and that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex.
The idea of promoting a "gender binary" and treating the exceptions as abnormalities is quite diagonal to displaying a Rainbow flag. So is believing that heterosexuality is "normal" in some sense.
You’ve equated the idea that “heterosexuality is normal” with “non-heterosexuality is abnormal.” That is only true in the strictest of semantic senses.
There is a very negative connotation to “abnormal,” is that what you meant to imply?
I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle.
I think I do as well, I don't really want all the icons on my phone changing colors and shapes every other day since that is just bad UX when I'm hunting for the right button.
And when it comes to politics I don't want anyone else's politics pushed into my personal life when I don't expect to encounter it, even if I agree with it. It is particularly difficult these days to donate to any worthy cause because you know that it is interpreted as an invitation to harassment and you'll get put onto lists that get sold and get bombarded with mail, e-mail and door-to-door solicitation.
I've practically had to throw people off my property -- for causes that I agree with and donate to similar organizations -- because they're just being rude about my personal space.
If you show up on my porch waving a pride flag I'm going to be very irritated and ask you to leave. And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. There are those of us who are non-neurotypical who find all the demands on our attention by society, in total, just fucking exhausting, and you might want to keep in mind concepts like consent and privacy.
> I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle.
It isn’t clear whatsoever. It would have been trivial to mention the other, far more common reasons why app icons change and make a fairly politically-neutral argument. However, they did not choose to do so.
In fact, they never even go so far as to say “and these political statements hinder my ability to recognize things visually.” But politics, well - they brought up the concept no less than 4 times in the brief post.
What they did was leave it open for you to read your own perspectives into it.
> And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic.
I have taken great pains to avoid this very assertion. What I did assert was this: “it’s likely related to Pride month, and the author considers LGBTQ identities political.”
If you believe that “considering LGBTQ identities to be political” is a synonym for “homophobia”, you are welcome to that connection. It’s not unreasonable.
But again: my point is that my existence is indeed political. Whether the author supports my community or not isn’t the point I’m making, at all.
> Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message.
If so, then that means they're trying to signal a hidden message. From what you've said, I'm assuming that you believe that they're trying to hide the fact that they don't like LGBT people or messages to them. I think that is malicious. I think the non-malicious perspective of what they wrote is that they like product logos being used for visual identification of the product.
>I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”
There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified.
Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month, emphasizing the importance of teaching your boys self-reliance, emotional control, delayed gratification. Or housewives' month, praising women that sacrifice careers and spend countless time teaching their kids important skills that will help them achieve independence and success in life.
But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important, but one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner.
So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday, we instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. Because, you know, having common goals brings people together. And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.
By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. They seem free enough to criticize to me?
> while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified
Each side mocks the other; so it seems to be a moot point to me.
> Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month
> Or housewives' month
> But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important
The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important?
> one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner.
The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference?
> So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives.
I would disagree. My experience has been that “politics-free” spaces in fact allow the dominant politics to be expressed, while silencing other groups.
> And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.
You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. It uses the gravitas of a “right” to make a point but then immediately admits that the point was false all along.
So let’s drop the nonsense about “special rights” - this is about acknowledgement, or “tokenism”.
>By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book.
That's a very specific thing. Children of certain ages would go great lengths to feel different from the previous generation, "cool", "hip". Decades of various subcultures from Punks to Emos is pretty solid evidence. Grooming is trying to use the need to feel different in order to convince them to do sex-related things before they have a solid intrinsic feeling for it. The motivation for groomers could be finding these children sexually attractive, trolling (deliberately convincing someone to do irreversible changes that will cause them long-term suffering), or compensating for the groomer's own childhood trauma by forcing others to relive it (the worst bullies are former bully victims). I think, this is a legitimate problem and it's important to distinguish it from initiatives that actually help children (e.g. preventing bullying based on looks).
>They seem free enough to criticize to me?
No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo. But there are plenty of examples where rather mild criticism is immediately branded homophobic/transphobic and actions are taken to prevent other people from considering this point of view.
>The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner.
I would be interested to hear some examples.
>You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical.
Respectfully disagree. People do have an intrinsic need for some amount of other's attention, and can feel it very well. Many social rituals are built around it: networking (periodically paying attention to each other), arts (having others pay attention to what you create), the concept of celebrities. The HR departments have figured out long ago that some amount of coworkers' attention can substitute a raise (in terms of lowering the % of resignations). Like the whole "employee of the month" posters. I call it non-monetary because it doesn't cost the employer nearly as much as a sizable pay raise. But it's something people subconsciously feel and track very well. You take a small amount of everyone's attention and you direct it towards a specific group or individual. People belonging to that group feel slightly rewarded, people outside it feel slightly demotivated. Like if your boss congratulated your coworker with their birthday, but didn't congratulate you.
> No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo
It isn’t a taboo; it’s fallacious. That’s the reason mainstream media doesn’t cover it: there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights.
I appreciate your lengthy discussion of what grooming is, and how you think it’s a real problem. However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” That isn’t what you meant, is it?
> Respectfully disagree.
Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. I said it’s rhetorical nonsense to elevate “non-monetary tokenism” to a “right,” and I don’t see where you’ve engaged with that idea.
>there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights.
In a country of 300M+ people there will be always plenty of examples of both. And a civilized society would attempt to discern the 2 different behaviors and find a reasonable way to distinguish them formally. The media is not doing that - it artificially divides people into 2 polar opposite camps and forces you to take side based on identity, rather than discussing specific behaviors.
>However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.”
No, I am saying that some people are groomers. And some people are LGBTQ. And the groomers (some percentage of them being LGBTQ) would yell "homophobia" and claim that their critics are trying to steal civil liberties (while some of the critics would actually be trying to do that and trying to use anti-groomer guise for cover up). So it's important to make a distinction between behaviors (e.g. allowing gay people to marry) and affiliation (like identity-based quotas and virtue signalling), because the former is rather hard to abuse, and the latter is an abuser magnet.
>Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said.
Oh, I would argue it is. Attention is a legitimate intangible asset. Pride month is taking a small "attention tax" from everyone, and redistributing it based on identity. Stop doing that and the tensions in the society will decrease. If you want activism, divert it towards actions (like bullying is bad, regardless of the victim's identity) and you will get people to actually agree rather than splinter.
> So it's important to make a distinction between behaviors (e.g. allowing gay people to marry) and affiliation (like identity-based quotas and virtue signalling), because the former is rather hard to abuse, and the latter is an abuser magnet.
This is a pretty odd statement.
In any case: if you want to try and split hairs about this, that’s your call. What I’ll say is this: nobody seemed to care much about a “grooming” epidemic until a few months ago, and since then it’s only been about LGBTQ people.
Nobody else is making the distinctions you’re trying to make here.
>In any case: if you want to try and split hairs about this, that’s your call. What I’ll say is this: nobody seemed to care much about a “grooming” epidemic until a few months ago, and since then it’s only been about LGBTQ people.
Not really. Mild and reasonable concerns have been raised on the right-wing websites for at least a year. The media swept it under the rug. Then the attention-seekers from the right side picked it up and started exaggerating the issue to get visibility to their personas. The media labeled them "far right extremists" and completely dismissed the point of their complaints. Now it's reaching the state where every meme-maker with an MS paint feels compelled to photoshop something about groomers, and that's where you can't ignore the problem anymore. Congratulations, you have suppressed the voices of reason and you will now have to deal with an angry mob.
>Nobody else is making the distinctions you’re trying to make here.
Some people are. Most people aren't. That's exactly why your country will splinter. In some states you will get a ticket for showing up in public with a same-sex partner. In others teaches will be financially incentivized to reach the quota of trans students, as it will be seen as helping people find their true identity. Both extremes are idiotic, but that's how tribalism works and that's how empires fall. You can safely ignore it for a single-digit number of years, but you will see it in your lifetime.
It’s interesting that you’re putting so much blame on the media here, when - as you said - “Then the attention-seekers from the right side picked it up and started exaggerating the issue to get visibility to their personas”.
> Mild and reasonable concerns
The concerns are not reasonable, and not mild. This idealistic “all orientations have this problem” take is blind to the fact that this is criticism leveled at the LGBTQ community for decades.
The media “swept it under the rug” because the association with LGBTQ people isn’t necessary to address the societal issue of sexual abuse. They rightfully didn’t want to revive the tired slurs of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
> In others teaches will be financially incentivized to reach the quota of trans students, as it will be seen as helping people find their true identity.
This is just nonsense. I’ve been trying to engage in good faith so far, but the idea of “trans quotas” is completely ridiculous.
> The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference?
There isn’t one. There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture.
> The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important?
That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?
> That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?
My statement was referring to the immediate parent, which bemoaned the lack of “Fathers appreciation month” and “housewives appreciation.”
How does the lack of an “abstinence celebration month” support the idea I was responding to - the idea that the media has decided that “fathers” and “housewives” are unimportant?
> There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture.
I dunno... as a straight hetero man, Pride has had pretty much zero impact on me. A bunch of gay people walk by in costumes and flags, and businesses add rainbows to everything. What's the big deal?
But for people who are LGBTQ, it is an expression not just of pride but also sheer survival and resilience, something that wasn't guaranteed even in recent history (and still isn't, in many places).
I think it's easier to think of something as "political" when it's different from one's own norms, because the status quo is often invisible. And most of these minority groups don't seek to convert the status quo, only to find space for them to be themselves. There's a difference between evangelism and asking for tolerance, between asking for respect and reversing the oppression.
> There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified.
Isn't that just how culture works? It's not some baked-in static thing that we figure out once and then never have to discuss again.
As to why certain topics get more positive coverage than others, well, probably it's just cultural norms trying to change, but seeing friction when it meets the status quo. Change is hard on a lot of people, institutions, cultures, and religions -- and that conflict is therefore newsworthy (and inflammatory and gets all the hits on social media, sigh).
The things that are changing get more coverage because they are actually newsworthy -- they are novel. "How to raise your kids" is a very important topic, but it's not exactly newsworthy because it's not new. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. You're still welcome to raise your family in a heterosexual nuclear way if you'd like, but it's relatively new for LGBTQ couples to be able to openly adopt (or otherwise have children), or even to work and marry and walk around in the open. Likewise, "How to be a housewife" is also a very important topic (and a difficult job!). And frankly it would be great if we celebrated both kids and moms more, and gave kids enough schooling and shelter and care and love to be able to grow and thrive as kids, and paid the working class enough such that single-earner households become viable again. For what it's worth, all those same concerns apply to gay parents raising kids too, but it would be considered "ideological" or "political" to discuss that in some circles.
> And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.
So... like giving health benefits to one's heterosexual spouse, before gay marriage was legal?
Or... having people take free, undocumented PTO for a personal errand, but only if they have kids to pick up?
Or... paying and promoting white hetero men more?
Or... having reproductive health covered by your health plan?
Or... having Christmas as a mandatory paid holiday and refusing to cover other religious days?
There is so much in the workplace that is already discriminatory to many people. The difference is that the status quo has the power to just invisibly normalize these things and so we don't really have to think about it day to day, but the underdogs have to use "political" messaging or advocacy just to try to reach parity with the status quo majority.
Is something only toxic and tension-causing if it's different from the status quo? What if the status quo IS the problem for some? The "non-monetary tokenism" usually applies to some historically oppressed group for whom "leave politics out of _______" has resulted in actual harm, monetary or worse, upon their lives.
> We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday
That is only the case when your workplace is either homogenous enough (which works well), or else invisibly oppressive (which doesn't work well), or else is diverse but also well paid enough that people choose to look the other way (which also works well, but is rare). In practice the second is the most common, I think, where you don't really talk about it but there's this permanent underclass who's just otherized and neglected. The cultural movements we're seeing now are because many of them have had enough and feel the need to speak up rather than to continue being marginalized. And frankly that goes both ways: all across the ideological spectrum, people are culturally dissatisfied with the status quo, each other, their employer, their government, etc. Our companies are ultimately just reflections of the individuals who own and staff them, and they don't exist in some cultureless vacuum...
If your workplace really hasn't had any discussions about any of this stuff, um... maybe it should? It's an inevitability that it's going to affect the employees/customers/stakeholders in one way or another. And if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up on its own when the pressure builds enough. I think cultural schisms are like earthquakes: you can have many small ones that are easy to address as they come up, or you can let the pressure build and build and build until it explodes catastrophically.
> We instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests.
People are part of the work too. Whether it's taking a new hire out to lunch, or celebrating someone's baby shower, or not offending someone with a gift of the wrong religion, or letting a dad pick up his kids from school, or treating someone's same-sex partner with the same respect you would anyone else at a +1 event. How could you expect to work well with people if you can't even show them basic human dignity and respect? "Shut up and go refactor that test" is pretty awful, no matter their sexual orientation or political ideology. IMO we're people first and employees second, and if your workplace can't even acknowledge that basic tenet of the relationship... eh... :shrug:
So? If the SMART goal [0] is to discourage these governments from passing such legislation, how does the pride publicity in the countries that DO NOT have that problem help? No multinational company is putting rainbows on its stores in Turkey or Pakistan, but there are plenty in North America.
I personally only see the downsides of the current approach:
1. It attracts people that enjoying making others uncomfortable, and all kids of trolls/attention seekers.
2. The former group keeps pushing the limits, demanding more and more unrealistic things, slowly pushing the public opinion against the minority in question.
3. This is used as an excuse for more restrictions of freedom (like the hate speech laws), that are further abused, igniting more and more tensions between people of opposing views.
The OP may well be opposed to the rainbow flag or not. The fact that they are not allowed to make a facially neutral “no politics on my home screen” statement without HN speculating about some political leaning seems to me to be a pretty clear example of how some progressive movements are encroaching on what used to be neutral space.
In the USSR it wasn't enough to have art that was apolitical, it was seen as vital that art acted to actively support the creation of a socialist society, and those seeking to create art in a neutral space were viewed as being reactionary. Defining apolitical spaces out of existence denies people the space to come to their own conclusions
Nobody (at least in the West) are denying LGBT people exist. Companies who put the flag up are just virtue signalling.
If the app icon was changed for a single day for Juneteenth would you sympathize with the OP?
The OP was not complaining about the actual political issue. He was complaining about changing the app icon to push their politics. The OP just wants to be able to easily find the app: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it" and doesn't want the app author's politics on his home screen: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line. My device screen is not an appropriate place for your political statements. So cut that shit out"
Let me ask you a question. Would you still be making the same points if the political activism was putting a Russian flag as the app icon? Maybe they feel like there is a dehumanizing effort against Russians since Russians are being called orcs by Ukrainians. Based on your logic that would not be political since a vauge assertion that Russians exist is not political.
>They’ve moved on from denial, nowadays they say far more hateful things. [1]
All I was getting at is not having a rainbow or supporting a company who changes their logo or whatever doesn't mean somebody is denying the existence of LGBT.
>No, but it’s not for the kind of reasons you’re trying to get at with this kind of questioning. Fundamentally, I don’t much care about people changing their app icons for causes I support. And for causes I don’t support, I will simply uninstall their app if it bothers me at all. I feel no need to make noise about app icons in this way.
I'm not a fan of app icon changes. I don't care if it is for political or just a permanent changing of their logo. I have uninstalled apps which changed icons because it bothered me. I highly sympathize with the OP for those reasons. Changing for political reasons is worse since it is a temporary change and will go back to its original icon later, meaning there will be 2 icon changes in a short time period.
I think complaining about something seems reasonable. Look at various posts that make it to the front page on HN. Huge numbers of them are complaints about things many people don't care about. Maybe you don't think it is a big deal, but many of us do.
>I disagree with this assertion, but it isn’t possible to know. What the author did was say things like “I _might_ even agree…” (emphasis mine), which leaves plausible deniability either way.
Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic.
>But one thing that is certain is this: app icons change frequently, for non-political reasons. It would be trivial to even _mention_ that in the article, but the author did not
I think he was complaining about all icon changes in general and political changes in specific:
"As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it. To that end, I am happy to have on my device your logo or a picture that hints at what the app does."
>So while neither of us can prove it one way or the other, it certainly sounds like the real problem is the political messaging. Context is one of the most important parts of communication.
Unless his point was he doesn't like temporary app icon changes in which case complaining about a specific change would lead to proponents of that political view attacking him.
About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays.
I don’t really disagree on that point, I just didn’t make that argument in the first place. :)
> Unless the OP states otherwise you don't know either. I don't like to make assumptions when the poster goes out of their way to not bring up the topic.
For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it.
That said, I found a few transphobic comments in the authors HN history with no real effort, so I feel pretty comfortable with the assumption.
I would encourage you to learn to recognize this kind of dog-whistle. The explicit omission of what political group motivated a rant centered on politics is a common rhetorical technique.
>About the whole “existence” bit - I think you’re unintentionally arguing a straw man? I never asserted that not having a rainbow logo meant that you must clearly hate the gays.
Then I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess that goes to show the risk we take when we try to read more into the text than what it says.
>For certain? Not from the text, no. I’ve been clear this whole time that I feel it is likely what motivated it
The OP either posted well after an app changed their icon or an app took 20 days to change their icon (or something in between).
It could be related to pride month, but I don't know that you can draw that conclusion.
Juneteenth seems more likely and makes his argument more poignant since the icon is going to change back in a day.
Regardleas, changing an icon for a day or a month is ridiculous and annoying.
>That said, I found a few transphobic comments in the authors HN history with no real effort, so I feel pretty comfortable with the assumption.
Do you have examples? Also, I don't consider dead naming or using pronouns the trans person used to use but not longer to be transphobic, so if you have posts other than that I would like to see them.
>I would encourage you to learn to recognize this kind of dog-whistle. The explicit omission of what political group motivated a rant centered on politics is a common rhetorical technique.
You know what else is a rhetorical technique, calling people transphobic based on nothing more than conjecture.
We are at a point where everything and nothing can be considered a dog whistle.
He redefined “transphobia” such that any accusation of transphobia against him would be laughable. In essence, he makes the argument that transphobia doesn’t exist and is a farce.
And to me, that’s transphobic in and of itself: categorically denying that it exists and asserting that any accusations of it against you are baseless.
As far as I can tell his definition of transphobia is being phobic of trans. That seems like the definition to me. You are the one expanding it to mean more than that.
Somebody who has arachnophobia is phobic of arachnids not entomologists.
This is definitely true. I considered that it could be Ukraine, but ultimately it seemed less likely. Most of the Ukraine-related logo changes I personally saw were done earlier on in the war, and most of what I see right now is Pride-related. I probably could have mentioned this possibility in the comment, as well.
That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess.
There is more to communication than the words said. Context matters - including place and time.
What isn’t said is also important, and “editing” is arguably the hardest part of writing. “Negative space” in art is a powerful tool that one can wield, and I think it’s just as applicable to writing as it is to visual media.
Sure. Context matters. But what you’re doing is projecting a context that fits an existing narrative which is entangled with your beliefs/preferences while entirely dismissing the stated principle. In essence, you got defensive.
And you may not believe it, but most people in non-totalitarian cultures don’t want social/cultural/political symbols planted like a flag in their personal cognitive or physical territory. It’s bad enough that corporations brand the shit out of every physical surface. Now we have intrusions by political movements and social causes.
This is spam and it shouldn’t have to be tolerated.
Okay, but aesthetic design is important. I am very much a part of pride, but I hate having my phone's homescreen totally redesigned at the whim of some dev somewhere. It highlights an already uncomfortable lack of control.
People have the right to make aesthetic choices about the things in their life. I would be pissed if someone came into my house and painted my walls without my permission. Even if I agree with the cause, it's my choice to make.
Given the timing, there’s a very good chance that it’s related to Pride month here in the US. It seems even more probable when you consider the context: very few companies change their logos for Juneteenth (the other contender), but many companies slap a rainbow on it for Pride.
So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices.
I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”