You're drawing a moral equivalence between an album cover reference and a racial slur. That's insane. I reject your entire angle.
"Joyplot" harms literally nobody. There are no victims of joyplots. There aren't even victims of Joy Division. It's a reference to an image associated with a band which was grimly ironically named in reference to a historical atrocity. The connection is so tenuous that you can't get your feelings hurt by it unless you're actively trying. It's so obscure that nobody even noticed it until some asshole wanted to make waves, obviously it was entirely about cancelling the word because it wasn't even an issue until then.
So who am I supposed to show empathy for? Descendants of Holocaust victims who are into data visualization but evidently feel too threatened by the community to speak up for themselves? Get a grip. There is nobody hurt by this. There is nobody to have empathy for. You're just abusing "empathy" to insinuate I'm not even a decent human being if I don't go along with your personal taste. That's not empathy, that's bullying. I don't feel sorry for you over a piece of trivia.
I'm saying that once you know what the "joy" in "joy plot" refers to, you can't unsee that. And that every time you see the term "joy plot" you're going to be aware of that.
No, that isn't "literal" harm in the sense of violence. But it's unpleasant. And it's not just my personal taste, but clearly that of others or it would never have been brought up.
So that's the empathy to show: for people who think using a historical reference that shows humanity at a shameful low point is inappropriate for modern technical terminology. For modern people in general, not specific holocaust victims or their descendents.
That it's not an "edgy joke", it's just inappropriate. So let's try to be decent understanding people and call it something better, shall we?
I hate being told what words I have to use. No it's not literal harm. But it's unpleasant. And it's not just my personal taste, but clearly the that of others.
So that's the empathy to show: for people who hate being directed how to think and express themselves by complete strangers. For free society in general.
See how it goes both ways? Empathy is only a mode of thinking. You are demanding compliance. You're not even empathizing yourself, since you can't see past your own notion of how you want people to interact. "Inappropriate", "modern", "decent", "understanding" are all just passive-aggressive weasel words for your subjective norms. True understanding doesn't insist on others to perfect themselves to your comfort.
I get that. That's the root of your discomfort here.
But the thing is, in society, we all have to work together. Getting along is important. Of course you're free to use the words you want. But then the rest of us are free to choose not to work with you and criticize your insensitivity.
I'm arguing that people ought to get along with each other. That involves having empathy for each other. Having human sensitivity.
You're arguing you should be able to do whatever you want, and if other people are bothered that it's their problem. You can call that many things, but you can't call it empathy. It's mainly called being selfish, not trying to get along.
His stated position is that it's ok to criticize the R community's unwitting insensitivity, but not Apple's. Shouldn't an open community of people have at least as much freedom of speech as a giant corporation?
Some people find it offensive and uncomfortable when other people make contradictory statements in the same conversation. Should we cancel hypocrisy and logical inconsistency, then?
