| > they'll probably be offended by it once they figure out what it means. If that person is from the States and/or uses the term specifically in the way it's used in the US. And even then most might just shrug it away because the word doesn't bare any significant emotional or historical baggage. What's another idiot on the internet? Meanwhile you keep forcing the US-centric view onto the world. > I just answered your question with the simple and obvious truth. Ah yes. The "obvious truth" apparently meaning "whatever is true for this specific US-centric view of US-specific issues and US_specific cultural baggage is the truth". > Honestly you're coming across as more of the "offended" type than the people asking for the name change in the first place. Yes. I'm offended by the US shoving its way of thinking down everyone's throats and expecting everyone to meekly comply because "it's the objective truth". > And your quote isn't really helping you out. Comparing changing the name of a new software library to changing the name of a long standing physical product on shelves is dishonest Of course what makes it dishonest is your monopoly on the truth, got it. > If I consider a hypothetical situation where I named my project "Coolie" You already said, I quote, "I’m working on a new terminal string styling library that I’ve named Colored which should be of some interest to you." which was probably supposed to evoke some kind of indignation from me. I can only re-iterate: stop forcing your US cultural and societal issues onto the world. > I'd just change it. You? Maybe. As it actually turns out, Americans expect everyone else to conform to whatever they find offensive while never, or rarely, changing themselves. A great example: Pidora has been "actively seeking a new name" for the past 9 years, and counting https://wiki.cdot.senecacollege.ca/wiki/Pidora_Russian |
You keep saying this, but the world view presented i've presented is anything but. The coolie example is specifically addressing non-US racism right?
> Of course what makes it dishonest is your monopoly on the truth, got it.
No, what makes it dishonest is that a bad example was specifically chosen because it helped the point. Where a good example would have been detrimental to the point.
> which was probably supposed to evoke some kind of indignation from me
No, you've been indignant the whole time. The US existing and having people in it that have their own perspectives seems to be some kind of attack on your identity which is causing you to lose reason and froth at the mouth.
You keep talking about "shoving" and "forcing", but the only person forcing anything is you and your ad nauseam repetition of some "US centric" accusation. It's just as baseless and pointless the 10th time as the first. Everyone gets it, you can chill.