←back to thread

386 points italophil | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
praptak ◴[] No.46228088[source]
Calibri was supposedly easier to read by people with disabilities. While this itself is debatable, that's not the reasoning behind the font switch. The mere attempt at making life easier for disadvantaged people is labeled DEI and as such cannot be tolerated by this administration.
replies(6): >>46228261 #>>46228310 #>>46228352 #>>46229561 #>>46229633 #>>46229638 #
midnitewarrior ◴[] No.46228261[source]
I don't think that much thought went into it. The change was initiated by the department's DEIA ("A" for Accessibility) office. Anything that office did was a priority for this administration.

Keep in mind that the transgenic mouse breeding program used to make lab mice for research got defined because the President claimed Democrats were so woke they were funding "trans" mice research.

Half of what they are doing is virtue signalling and posturing without any real understanding of what they are doing.

replies(4): >>46228316 #>>46228358 #>>46228478 #>>46228535 #
rdiddly ◴[] No.46228535[source]
All true except the fact that it's not virtue that they're signaling.
replies(2): >>46228581 #>>46229646 #
ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.46229646[source]
Cruelty signalling?
replies(1): >>46229949 #
oneeyedpigeon ◴[] No.46229949[source]
I prefer "ideology signalling" so that it's neutral and we can use it to apply to both sides.
replies(2): >>46231294 #>>46232309 #
buellerbueller ◴[] No.46232309[source]
"Virtue signaling" still works because the actor indeed believes they are being virtuous.
replies(1): >>46233250 #
ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.46233250[source]
Since when is it a virtue to needlessly make things harder for some people?
replies(3): >>46233934 #>>46233959 #>>46234912 #
1. buellerbueller ◴[] No.46233934[source]
You would need to ask that of someone who agrees with their font choices. I am only opining that they probably have $REASONS that they believe to be virtuous, and that by calling it virtue signaling, we point that out.

In my time as a righteous woke progressive, it eventually dawned on me that the other side was just as likely to believe in the righteousness of their cause, even if I couldn't understand their reasoning for it. It also dawned on me that the righteous folks on the other side of the divide likely see my beliefs and the reasoning by which I arrived at them as equally baffling.

If both sides believe fully in their righteousness, and see their opponents as wholly unreasonable, then we will end up in a non-religious holy war.

The only way to recover is for both sides to turn down their righteousness.

One small step to do that is to at least try to understand--without agreeing--why the people with whom you disagree hold their beliefs, which ones are inflexible and which are mutable.

replies(1): >>46234311 #
2. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.46234311[source]
I just don't understand why it would be a virtue to deliberately make things harder for people. If the font was neutral in terms of being easy to read, then they would never have touched it. To my mind, they're making a "virtue" out of cruelty.

The problem is that we've seen what this kind of "righteousness" leads to (gas chambers, The Final Solution, World War II) and yet we're heading down the same road. There is no reasoning with Nazis.