←back to thread

How Bodega typifies Silicon Valley’s cultural ignorance

(www.engadget.com)
39 points pmcpinto | 2 comments | 20 Sep 17 08:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
imartin2k ◴[20 Sep 17 11:12 UTC] No.15292445[source]▶
I don't take anyone seriously who casually calls something like Bodega an "offensive idea", as if this is the most natural thing to do. A name choice ca be bad without the whole idea "being offensive". Lazy labels are bad for discourse.
replies(1): >>15292485 #
kmonad ◴[20 Sep 17 11:18 UTC] No.15292485[source]▶
The article is not centered around the choice of name, it's an example. The offensiveness, to the author, comes from more than that.
replies(1): >>15292557 #
imartin2k ◴[20 Sep 17 11:32 UTC] No.15292557[source]▶
It's the idea that "offensiveness" even is a reasonable critical descriptor of a startup idea that i see as a problem. This is such a fluid term which lacks any clear, objective boundaries. Everybody has their own view on what's offensive (apart from some areas in which somewhat of a consensus exists about offensiveness, mostly regarding pejorative expressions). Some people have a thick skin and find nothing offensive, others consider any opposing argument presented in a determined tone offensive. And then there is a huge space in between.

Therefore expanding the scope of "offensiveness" more and more is, in my eyes, a problematic trend.

replies(2): >>15292611 #>>15292809 #
1. kmonad ◴[20 Sep 17 12:11 UTC] No.15292809[source]▶
The waste of money on a stupid idea is offending the author in light of the increasing issue of wealth discrepancy and homelessness in SF. This may not be offensive to all, but is not inappropriate usage.
replies(1): >>15296591 #
2. imartin2k ◴[20 Sep 17 18:03 UTC] No.15296591[source]▶
It might not be inappropriate to you, but I'd argue it's counterproductive to use it. If the idea is to find allies outside of certain digital echo chambers of very like-minded people who all would instanly agree on the offensiveness, then it's not working, as outside of such groups, the concepts of what's offensive and what's not are very different.

It's like someone highly involved in church talks to non-religious people on the street in the same way as to members of the church, assuming that they by definition have the same context & associations. This assumption then could be considered a sign of ignorance from the church representative, who seemingly isn't even aware of what he/she is doing.