I’d like to know how you handle arguing for something like “usability” in the face of a morally urgent argument like “don’t be eurocentric.”
I would probably start with rejecting the premise that I have to listen to other people’s arguments.
(This makes even more sense when we know that the people who loudly express their opinions are often just a tiny minority of users. However, it is perfectly possible to ignore the majority, too.)
I think this is a mistake that many intelligent people make, to believe that you need to win verbal fights. Perhaps identifying as a rationalist can make it even worse, if you conflate “being rational” with “winning verbal fights”. The trick is to realize that it is perfectly possible to hear a verbal argument against doing X, and then do X anyway (without having to win the verbal fight first, or at all).
I would probably start with rejecting the premise that I have to listen to other people’s arguments.
(This makes even more sense when we know that the people who loudly express their opinions are often just a tiny minority of users. However, it is perfectly possible to ignore the majority, too.)
I think this is a mistake that many intelligent people make, to believe that you need to win verbal fights. Perhaps identifying as a rationalist can make it even worse, if you conflate “being rational” with “winning verbal fights”. The trick is to realize that it is perfectly possible to hear a verbal argument against doing X, and then do X anyway (without having to win the verbal fight first, or at all).