• ozymandias117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    It wasn’t a word for crossing the street until Ford wanted to make it illegal to cross the street.

    Maybe that’s the historical context you’re missing

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      They didn’t make illegal to cross the street. They made it illegal to cross the street in a particular time or place where the walker would endanger themselves.

      I’m not missing any historical context. What I’m missing is how the term is inaccurate or used inappropriately.

      • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        If you actually care, you can start with things like “walkable cities,” look at city planning before Ford made it illegal, look into how NYC has made it no longer a crime, etc.

        It doesn’t actually seem like you do, though

        Ford’s work to reframe the action caused massive changes to urban planning, mostly for the worse.

        Their work to change cultural views are apparently so strong, you can’t see how changing the language around it was “inaccurate or inappropriate”

        That’s what Google is doing to the average user for “sideloading” - in a few generations, they will have stigmatized it enough that people will be saying it shouldn’t be allowed

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 days ago

          Again, you keep insisting that I just don’t understand anything about walkable cities or talking about Ford’s ad campaigns. I do. That is not what we’re discussing.

          What we’re discussing is how the word is inaccurate or inappropriate or “blames” anyone other than those who are doing exactly what the word is intended to describe. And it doesn’t seem like you have any interest in putting forth a legitimate argument so I guess we’re done here.

          The same goes for “sideloading”.

          • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            If you truly understand the historical context of how calling it “jaywalking” rather than what it was at the time has been used to change the cultural narrative, and you understand how Google (and Apple) are trying to say “sideloading” is dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed on their devices, but can’t get to how that shift in narrative is being used… I agree, there’s no point in continuing