"The problem is not whiteness of coding. I'm sorry, but this is the definition of race-baiting."
Race-baiting implies an act meant to deliberately provoke an angry reaction or negative response in someone else, which what your provided Cambridge.org definition clarifies. Clearly the goal of the post was an earnest attempt at uncovering racial disparities in programming, as experienced by this developer. The goal here is not to provoke anger. Yet, your response, among others, is to claim that the mere mention of racial disparities is "race-baiting".
If by reading the post, the effect has been to generate anger in the reader, the issue is with the reader and not the post.
" Clearly the goal of the post was an earnest attempt at uncovering racial disparities in programming, as experienced by this developer."
I am not questioning the motivations of the OP, I'm sure they are not malevolent and it indeed reads as an earnest attept to examine the problem. This is why I even wrote my original response. It's a discussion worth having, hear all the sides.
"Yet, your response, among others, is to claim that the mere mention of racial disparities is "race-baiting"."
This is evidently not so. The mere mention of racial disparities itself amounts to little, nothing controversial in stating facts. Why people may see some part of it as race-baiting is perhaps defining the problem to be "Whiteness" (to be understood as White Culture and/or People). If you cannot see how this is racially provoking, try to reverse the races. You couldn't even publish an article like that on this platform.
"If by reading the post, the effect has been to generate anger in the reader, the issue is with the reader and not the post."
I don't think OP's post, in toto, is ragebait, nor in any substantial way race-baity, precisely because it seems earnest. Furthermore, it doesn't actually seem to enrage anyone. I think the accurate description is it's "starting a conversation". So I think you may be reading more into the responses than what's there.
There are some insightful observations and ideas being made in this post, as well as the rest of the series. When you're done with your faux-outrage™, I hope you will consider sharing something constructive. It's an important topic.
If you don't find my comment to the original post insightful or constructive, that's okay. What you cannot do is call it faux-outrage. It's neither an outrage, nor faux. In fact, your responses to me have mischaracterized my position, which I gladly, politely and constructively corrected. It's okay to misunderstand, that's why we're having a discussion in the first place.
Thank you. I hadn't wanted to bother responding to this comment (i.e., don't feed the trolls). But you've done a wonderful job of covering it. Greatly appreciated.
"The problem is not whiteness of coding. I'm sorry, but this is the definition of race-baiting."
Race-baiting implies an act meant to deliberately provoke an angry reaction or negative response in someone else, which what your provided Cambridge.org definition clarifies. Clearly the goal of the post was an earnest attempt at uncovering racial disparities in programming, as experienced by this developer. The goal here is not to provoke anger. Yet, your response, among others, is to claim that the mere mention of racial disparities is "race-baiting".
If by reading the post, the effect has been to generate anger in the reader, the issue is with the reader and not the post.
" Clearly the goal of the post was an earnest attempt at uncovering racial disparities in programming, as experienced by this developer."
I am not questioning the motivations of the OP, I'm sure they are not malevolent and it indeed reads as an earnest attept to examine the problem. This is why I even wrote my original response. It's a discussion worth having, hear all the sides.
"Yet, your response, among others, is to claim that the mere mention of racial disparities is "race-baiting"."
This is evidently not so. The mere mention of racial disparities itself amounts to little, nothing controversial in stating facts. Why people may see some part of it as race-baiting is perhaps defining the problem to be "Whiteness" (to be understood as White Culture and/or People). If you cannot see how this is racially provoking, try to reverse the races. You couldn't even publish an article like that on this platform.
"If by reading the post, the effect has been to generate anger in the reader, the issue is with the reader and not the post."
I don't think OP's post, in toto, is ragebait, nor in any substantial way race-baity, precisely because it seems earnest. Furthermore, it doesn't actually seem to enrage anyone. I think the accurate description is it's "starting a conversation". So I think you may be reading more into the responses than what's there.
Your ability to strawman is excellent.
Care to elaborate, or is this just a projection?
There are some insightful observations and ideas being made in this post, as well as the rest of the series. When you're done with your faux-outrage™, I hope you will consider sharing something constructive. It's an important topic.
If you don't find my comment to the original post insightful or constructive, that's okay. What you cannot do is call it faux-outrage. It's neither an outrage, nor faux. In fact, your responses to me have mischaracterized my position, which I gladly, politely and constructively corrected. It's okay to misunderstand, that's why we're having a discussion in the first place.
Thank you. I hadn't wanted to bother responding to this comment (i.e., don't feed the trolls). But you've done a wonderful job of covering it. Greatly appreciated.
"I hadn't wanted to bother responding to this comment (i.e., don't feed the trolls)."
Why the hostility?
If you take that as "hostility", then there's nothing more to explain.
Calling someone a troll without any provocation is ill-willed in my book, I suspect there were nothing to explain regardless. All the best.