Discussion on: Blaming Git Blame

[Sandra Spanik]

Hey, thanks for your comment and for taking the time to write it. But, I have to ask: did you really read my article in full? I actually mention git alias as well as why it's not an adequate solution, pre-empting replies like yours, so I'm surprised to read your comment.

In your reply, you also dismiss the entire section about how language subconsciously affects individuals. Your argument seems to be that because you understand git blame better than others and as a result don't feel negatively affected by it, the naming of git blame is totally fine.

Just because you personally don't feel affected, doesn't mean other people won't.

We clearly have different sensitivities when it comes to language, because I'd never winky smiley anyone the way you just winky smiley'd me - to me, it feels rude. It's okay that you don't, and I'm not offended, but it's important for you to be aware that just because you think certain language is cool, doesn't necessarily make it so for everyone. Becoming an inclusive industry means being aware of these cross-cultural and individual differences and accommodating the norm so as to cause the least amount of harm possible.

I am also concerned about the cumulative effect on an entire industry rather than just the impact on any one individual.

Fair point about my mentioning Linus' past behaviour. I felt his past behaviour illustrated the general mindset that led to the naming of git blame in the first place quite well. I hopefully make it clear enough that it wasn't directly responsible for it, and specifically link to an article about him having changed. I take your feedback on board though.

[teamradhq]

You’re welcome, and I did read your article in full. Did you?

Given your post's topic, it seems ironic to call people rude or dicks... If you truly believe about stepping away from shame culture and towards openness and inclusivity, how about you start by not shaming people and instead moderating your own behaviour and language?

Git alias does solve a problem. The reason I mentioned it is because your pre-emptive supposition is wrong. If your problem is that you don’t want to write git blame defining an alias allows you to not type the word "blame".

Similarly, this snippet solves your problem, if your problem is that you don't want to see the word "blame" on GitHub:

document.querySelectorAll("a[href*='blame']")
  .forEach(el => {
    el.innerText = 'Author' ;
  });

If you really feel this language is a problem for many people, you could use this as a basis for a browser extension so that other people can utilise it. If many people use it, GitHub might even take notice and implement this as a feature. Nobody is stopping you from doing this and it would certainly be a more productive use of your time than insulting individuals.

And if seeing the word is an issue for you in vscode, you’re entirely welcome to checkout the extension you’re using for blame and modify it to substitute another word.

This is the great thing about being a programmer: you see a problem and you have the tools to fix it.

I don’t dismiss the subconscious effects language has on individuals. Obviously it could be harmful to call [redacted] and [redacted] dicks because they expressed a different opinion to yours. It doesn't seem very genuine to tell your audience to be mindful of the language they use as it may cause negative psychological responses in others, then say something ageist like that is soooo two thousand and late.*

Similarly, calling someone rude for signing off their post with a positive emote in a reply to a post that signs off with a positive emote is hypocritical and discriminatory. I mean seriously! You'd never use an emote in a discussion? Clearly you didn't get to the end of your article!

Passing judgement on someone who, unlike you, doesn’t have access to an emoji keyboard with star eyes isn’t very inclusive or accommodating, and I wonder if you’d have a problem with an emote in a post whose contents affirm your opinion, or if it's just because emoticons are sooooo two thousand and late and you hate old people.... if you still think using emotes in textual communication on the internet is inappropriate, you should remove them from your article (bearing in mind that emotes are language too).

[edit] and reading your replies to other comments, it’s clear you are discriminating as you didn’t call out other posters who signed off with a wink emote, and you seem to think it’s okay if you emote at people… obviously your rules don’t apply to you, just the people who are different to you.

Comments on individuals and insults to strangers (like yours) make our industry less inclusive. I hardly think that [redacted] or [redacted] would feel very welcome or safe to contribute to this discussion after being called old dicks... and you have no hope of changing an industry when you can't even follow your own guidelines!

Your statements thus far show a clear lack of empathy for people who are different from you and I hardly think you'd do well in a cross-cultural, diverse team with your current outlook and behaviour. My only hope at this point in our interaction is that you at least see the irony of your public shaming of individuals with different perspectives in an article telling an industry to avoid shaming individuals. I hope you take some time to contemplate what you need to change in yourself to be the change you want to see in an industry.

[Sandra Spanik]

I disagree with a lot here, and am hurt by your conclusions. You're making on the surface reasonable-sounding accusations that fall apart upon closer inspection, because your premises are false.

You continue to suggest my problem would be solved if I aliased git blame or programmatically removed the word blame from Github in my browser. This demonstrates I have either not been able to convey my point to you via the medium of my article, or that you're intentionally ignoring entire paragraphs.

1. I describe how the effect of git blame on any one individual is negligible but how it has an industry-wide cumulative effect. I never characterise this as my problem to begin with, which you disregard in all your replies.
2. I pre-empt replies like yours by mentioning why git alias is not an adequate solution - it doesn't address that blame remains the default wording for an entire industry.
3. As for your code snippet. I can only conclude you assume I don't know about DOM manipulation or about how to implement it. You're wrong on both accounts. Besides, it takes more work than your bit of code to make the change permanent. If you're going to flex your coding muscles at me, perhaps suggest something that actually works.
4. A browser extension also doesn't address the default. Neither does a new VS Code extension. Suggesting I build something from scratch, once again, ignores the premise of my article. I maintain that patching git itself is the most straightforward way to shift the default.
5. You do make a fair point about censoring names. I will. I stand by my decision to include the screenshots though, for the same reason I stand by my choice to include examples of Linus' past behaviour. They're both exemplary of an overall, industry-wide norm that has led to naming choices like git blame. Equally, I stand by my choice to infuse the article with light-hearted humour in order to make the 15-min read more palatable. Blaming any one individual for the harmful convention would have indeed been hypocritical, but asking individuals not to be dicks going forward and indicating that a cultural shift has happened over the last 2 decades is not. Besides, the effects of language are weighted by the power dynamics it exists within. I'm hardly causing harm here in the same way a feature that affects millions and shapes our default is, or in the same way a leader with livelihoods depending on them would be.
6. "star-eyed-emoji" ≠ "winky emoji" and there's no way you can frame my use of emojis as hypocritical. I didn't even call you out on the use of yours - I merely said that it's exemplary of our differences. The fact you're getting hung up over this and are trying to twist it into a portrayal of me as a hypocrite signals to me this is no longer a reasonable, factual discussion, but a personal attack.

And so I can only assume you're intentionally trying to hurt me. I will leave your comments up but I am putting up boundaries and disengaging from any future discussion. You've made this personal by intentionally misconstruing or ignoring my perspective on a multitude of issues and whilst I'm appreciative of factual debates, I draw the line at people attacking me.