https://lemmy.ca/post/28915538/11651615
I've rephrased this comment more explicitly and concretely here. Feel free to read through the rest of that thread. I'd rather not repeat myself unless you have something new to add.
howrar
joined 1 year ago
If you're still interested in this, CVPR recently made the rule explicit for the upcoming conference.
If they do not serve in another capacity for the organization of CVPR 2025, all authors are obliged to act as reviewers
I'm here with a toddler who just learned to walk and wants to hold my hand and do laps up and down the hallway for hours at a time. Cute af, but also mind numbingly boring.
You're stuck on the toilet I presume? Doesn't sound pleasant. Hope that gets better for you soon.
I wasn't referring to any of that. I was referring to you jumping on an entirely third party, Samvega, and attacking them of baseless accusations. Which is where I joined the conversation. So that might tell you where I came from, since you're so interested in context.
I thought Samvega disagreed with me when I said baseless accusations are bad, but they denied it and refused to elaborate, so I have no idea what that's all about. They have not made any themselves and I never accused them of such.
Your only defense for all of this is, "I just don't want people to accuse random people of being racist."
I don't know what you mean by "defense". I'm restating my main point.
But you also recognize that hasn't happened here. So why are you arguing with me?
Yes. It's often better to prevent a Bad Thing than to fix the consequences after Bad Thing has happened. I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.
No. I don't expect people to reveal everything they hold in their head that could be relevant to the discussion. That would be ridiculous. I do expect people to be wary of their biases and not make assumptions without adequate evidence.
Protist made a very reasonable response to the article given what they knew, and was clear that they didn't have enough information to make further judgement.
treadful's response was saying there also isn't enough evidence to conclude that she isn't racist. Many would read that as saying she's probably racist, so my response is intended to curb that bias.
I'm not accusing anyone of making baseless accusations. I am preemptively drawing attention to a common bias and asking people be aware of it and to avoid it.
Interesting that you list vice versa. What do you typically use instead?
This one amuses me. It looks all fancy in writing. But if someone says "milk toast" and you don't know what it means, they just sound like an idiot.
That's the fun thing about food (and wine especially). You don't need to have the ingredient present for it to taste like that ingredient. I made chocolate chip cookies once that tasted like bananas, and I most definitely didn't add bananas to them.
I've never seen anyone use "demure" in a serious context. It seems to always be used to convey a mocking tone.
You understand that not everyone has the same context as you, right? It's fine to say "[she] made an extremely racist post online" if either
a) you've read the post and recognize that it is racist, or
b) someone else who has read the post has informed you that it is racist
It is not okay to make that claim if neither of the above hold. I'm assuming you've read it, so if you said she made a racist post, then that's acceptable. I've read it too at this point, so I can say the same. I do not want someone who knows nothing about the situation telling me that she made a racist post.
view more: next ›
Your comment is a great example of the kind of biases I'm telling everyone to avoid. You misunderstood my initial message, then decided to cling on to that interpretation despite clarifications.
In any case, if you have feedback (e.g. what made the comment unclear, or how you interpreted it), I'd appreciate hearing about it so I can improve my writing. I'm not always aware of the hidden meanings non-autistic people pull out of words that weren't intended to have any.