> I do always find it jarring and confusing when I come across gendered language in that context.
While I genuinely do not object to gender neutral language, I often find the opposite to be true: it's extremely obvious when gendered pronouns have been lazily replaced. For example, "If the Minister consults the Commission before they issue a direction, they must notify the Board before they take any further action." Who is "they" in this scenario? And is each "they" referring to the same entity? What this made-up example demonstrates is that, very often, switching to gender neutral language often requires you to rewrite and restructure the text, rather than merely find-and-replacing he/him/his with they/them/theirs. Though wrt to the specific Ladybird PR in question, it really was that simple.
Steel-manning the argument, I can understand a general aversion to updating language just for the sake of updating language: nothing is being added, clarified, or elaborated on. It's not like the section was rewritten to include a new feature and the rewrite used gender-neutral language. If anything, one could easily accuse the PR of being an attempt to pad a resume.
That being said, I do want to reiterate that Kling was being an absolute chud for rejecting the PR the way he did.
====
> I don't think that saying someone "might be amoral" is an ad hominem
Ah, the "just asking questions" defence. Wonderful.
====
> You may be thinking of the word immoral instead, which would certainly be an ad hominem attack.
Fun fact, saying someone is without morals is also an ad hominem attack.
====
> You went beyond "questioning their boycott" when you stated assumptions
No? Me stating an assumption based on demonstrated behaviour is part of questioning their boycott.
====
> When OP and others explained how they evaluate projects
Okay, this is the second time you've referenced conversations that have not taken place within this thread, so let me remind you of the flow of the conversation with 1attice thus far:
> I'm excited for ladybird to reach alpha
> [flagged comment that said something approximating "I don't use browsers that don't respect human rights"]
> Fair enough. Which browser are you currently using?
> Iceweasel
> And you are certain that its maintainers comply with your requirements?
> Yes. [later edited to repeat the "yes" and state that I might be amoral]
> From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
At no point during this exchange did they explain that they "researched the Iceweasel project before choosing it" or "explained how they evaluate projects" (both quoting you). In fact, prior to their comment editing, both of their answers to my questions were single-word responses. So once again I must insist that you actually show me these comments where they supposably said these things, because I cannot find these comments from 1attice anywhere in the comments or on their profile, so I'm starting to doubt their existence.