←back to thread

Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri

(www.reuters.com)
386 points italophil | 4 comments | 10 Dec 25 00:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hbogert ◴[10 Dec 25 15:37 UTC] No.46218904[source]▶
The left and right signalling is such a waste of everyone's time and effort. Reactive pettiness
replies(2): >>46219026 #>>46225274 #
miltonlost ◴[10 Dec 25 23:04 UTC] No.46225274[source]▶
Is it "signalling" when the left's change was for an accessibility reason, to enable more people to be able to easily read? Signaling means there's no tangible benefit to the change, so the Blinken's switch to a sans-serif font would not be signaling.

Rubio, however, specifically pointed out the symbolic (and malicious) gesture of his whole switch back to Times New Roman.

The left didn't react pettily. Please stop thinking the left are the right are the same when the facts show they are not. The left's change was for a demonstrative benefit. The right is doing it so fuck over people. You think these are the same.

replies(3): >>46225515 #>>46229975 #>>46234841 #
JetSetWilly[dead post] ◴[11 Dec 25 11:11 UTC] No.46229975[source]▶
[flagged]
1. oneeyedpigeon ◴[11 Dec 25 11:34 UTC] No.46230136[source]▶
Note that, even if that's all true (and I do agree that studies should have been conducted), the two positions are:

a) We made this change because we think it will help certain people

and

b) We made this change because we fundamentally disagree with attempts to help certain people, whether effective or not

I think b) is a lot worse than a). Or, to put it another way, has the current administration demonstrated a benefit from this change, or are they behaving at least as badly as "the left"?

replies(1): >>46230843 #
2. JetSetWilly ◴[11 Dec 25 13:01 UTC] No.46230843[source]▶
No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap. You can read the full text of the actual memo (and a reasonable interpretation of it) below, but it appears to me that the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional, inconsistent with all other government communications and even inconsistent letterheads on the very same department's material, and that appearance matters. It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke", but it does seem like the original decision to use Calibri was not based on anything and just about appearing to be woke.

https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/full_text_of_marco_rubio_...

replies(1): >>46231027 #
3. oneeyedpigeon ◴[11 Dec 25 13:20 UTC] No.46231027[source]▶
> No, you're just falling into the sort of left wing "people who disagree with me can only do so because they are a bad person" trap.

I'm not sure where this conclusion came from. I even acknowledged that the original change was problematic.

> the principle reason as stated is that Calibri is less professional

That's fair, but it doesn't erase the 'DEI' comment in the memo. If that weren't there, we might actually be having a discussion about the merits of one font vs. another.

> It isn't in fact about "sticking it to the woke"

Again, that might be believable if the memo hadn't explicitly complained about DEI.

replies(1): >>46231165 #
4. JetSetWilly ◴[11 Dec 25 13:33 UTC] No.46231165{3}[source]▶
DEI was mentioned in a footnote, it didn't seem to be the main thrust of the memo. I agree it would have been better to not mention it at all, the decision is perfectly defensible on the basis of all the previous non-footnoted points.

I apologise for my first comment, it seems like those critical of the latest decision are painting a simplistic picture - "this was one side attempting to be kind vs other side deliberately being unkind". But it doesn't appear to be the case to me.