I see your point. I would argue that care and the protection of quality can take on many forms, but that behaving like Linus Torvalds is not a requirement.

▲

hypfer an hour ago | parent [-]

I can see that viewpoint, and I guess it is legit to have it, however, first of all "behave like Linus Torvalds" is a shorthand that could mean a lot or nothing, and thus doesn't lead us anywhere, and, on top, what is correct gets determined by what works, and not by what feels good.

You've introduced a category that could be described as an alias for "bad", and then you threw in random stuff into that, based on unclear and handwavy criteria.

This can only end in a screaming match, so let's not do that.

▲

theletterf an hour ago | parent [-]

Not interested in engaging in a screaming match at all. Yes, I've used an extreme to try to make a point, which is not great. :)

I'm curious, though: How would you picture protecting taste while at the same time adopting an inclusive (as in not putting people off) stance? Do you have examples of such a behavior?

	▲	hypfer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Now that is an interesting question. > How would you picture protecting taste while at the same time adopting an inclusive (as in not putting people off) stance? I don't, because I reject the definition. Being inclusive does not mean "not putting people off". For starters, because measuring there doesn't work. How people react is not a direct reproducible consequence of your actions. Your actions might influence it, but they have this ginormous internal state that has much more control over it. But that is a side-track. The actual problem with the definition is that putting people off isn't bad. Putting people off for arbitrary reasons like race, gender, etc is, but that "arbitrary reasons" is a strong modifier that significantly limits the set, and was dropped in your framing.