These both look within the realm of reason. Not that you must agree with them, only that they are not some kind of hideous evil.

▲

Forgeties79 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The dismissal of gendered language as politics is arguably “defensible” in a “I wrote this in a way that allows me to hide behind it” sort of way. It was wrong and needlessly dismissive in a way that clearly communicates he disagrees to anyone who understands typical internet discourse tactics.

If he really did not want “political drama” or whatever there are far more effective ways to handle it that don't allow you to also signal your disapproval/disagreement with the content.

TL;DR: he handled it in a way that expressed his disagreement while staying plausibly deniable.

▲

happytoexplain 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I completely agree that he was unnecessarily prickly/political in his response. I only disagree that it validates xgulfie's implication that he is in the "so bad we should disparage whatever he does" category.

	▲	flaviolivolsi 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you

▲

dev1ycan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I was dealing with the same type of "person" that's only "contribution" to every github repo is to just go and ask for language policing I would intentionally be as prickly as possibly to them while telling them no.

	▲	Forgeties79 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Then you’d be a bad steward.

▲

bigstrat2003 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is absolutely nothing constructive about removing "gendered language". He was absolutely right to shut that nonsense down.

	▲	Forgeties79 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You’re literally doing what I described. You’re not even attempting to understand the issue,