Note that, even if that's all true (and I do agree that studies should have been conducted), the two positions are:

a) We made this change because we think it will help certain people

and

b) We made this change because we fundamentally disagree with attempts to help certain people, whether effective or not

I think b) is a lot worse than a). Or, to put it another way, has the current administration demonstrated a benefit from this change, or are they behaving at least as badly as "the left"?

▲

JetSetWilly 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap. You can read the full text of the actual memo (and a reasonable interpretation of it) below, but it appears to me that the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional, inconsistent with all other government communications and even inconsistent letterheads on the very same department's material, and that appearance matters. It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke", but it does seem like the original decision to use Calibri was not based on anything and just about appearing to be woke.

https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/full_text_of_marco_rubio_...

▲

oneeyedpigeon 2 days ago | parent [-]

> No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap.

I'm not sure where this conclusion came from. I even acknowledged that the original change was problematic.

> the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional

That's fair, but it doesn't erase the 'DEI' comment in the memo. If that weren't there, we might actually be having a discussion about the merits of one font vs. another.

> It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke"

Again, that might be believable if the memo hadn't explicitly complained about DEI.

	▲	JetSetWilly 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		DEI was mentioned in a footnote, it didn't seem to be the main thrust of the memo. I agree it would have been better to not mention it at all, the decision is perfectly defensible on the basis of all the previous non-footnoted points. I apologise for my first comment, it seems like those critical of the latest decision are painting a simplistic picture - "this was one side attempting to be kind vs other side deliberately being unkind". But it doesn't appear to be the case to me.