We are talking about the descendants of the wealthy or dissident people who were escaping the Cuban revolution, where Cuba at the time was largely owned by foreign sugar plantations which was perpetuated by the the brutal military dictatorship of Batista, which was supported by the US government as well as organized crime (and where one ends and the other begins is sometimes unclear…)

It’s a tale as old as time!

Yes and collective guilt is still wrong. Being a descendant is not a punishable deed, nor should it be. Also many professionals had to leave too.

The legacy of colonialism still casts a dark shadow. You can replace who rules much easier than changing how they rule. Batista a dictator replaced by Castro another dictator.

It was a better lie when "the people we robbed and killed totally deserved it" was about Kulaks. Seriously it is the same victim blaming bullshit to absolve a government of thieves.

This state of affairs is very much due to competition (instead of cooperation) and the feast-and-famine shape of what software invention and development looks like, especially in the US.

It takes time and effort to optimize software for performance, user-friendliness, developer-friendliness and everything that ethical and mindful developers hold up so highly, but that’s not the kind of thing that the big money or academic prestige is very interested in. The goal is to get the most users possible to participate in something that doesn’t repulse them and ideally draws them in. The concerns of ethics, dignity, and utility are just consequences to settle, occasionally dealt with before the world raises a stink about it, but are hardly ever part of the M.O.

Imagine if developers could make a dignified living working to listen to people and see what they really need or want and can focus on that instead of having to come up with a better ‘feature set’ than their competitors. It’s essentially why we have hundreds of different Dr. Pepper ripoffs sold as ‘alternatives’ to Dr. Pepper (is this really a good use of resources?) instead of making the best Dr. Pepper or finding a way to tailor the base Dr. Pepper to the consumers taste, assuming enough people claim they want a different Dr. Pepper.

I don't care what they want. A lot of people are tired of playing these language games.

Also, "do what people want" is fine for your interactions with an individual. But it's not a viable general rule for language, where we need one single approach. I think saying gypsy unless someone personally tells you they would rather you don't call them a gypsy is perfectly reasonable.

Everybody, in fact, takes innumerable social parameters into consideration when you say anything, especially with strangers.

For the sake of mass communication where you can’t really know your receiver, you have to do your best to just communicate whatever you need to (i.e. ‘a single approach’). Choosing to use a word that is ambiguous as to whether it is a slur is a bit unwise. I think it is probably unwise to do the same in personal interactions.

Then “a lot of people” (lol) shouldn’t complain when they piss someone off when someone already warned them

What you're saying very well seems like a threat. A threat of violence for speech.

That attitude defaults to better at violence in a particular context gets to impose their will. Or whoever has the security forces to back them out of an inferiority situation.

You miss the part when I can arbitrarily warn you about a lot of things myself and then use any interpretation of rule breaking on your part to attack you.

I know it may sound harsh but this is where many end up going so let's make it explicit.

Your first paragraph missed the point. Your second is how you deal with it. I've just told you I had a different experience. Your experience doesn't supersede mine. Your "be careful" (or else) doesn't sit well with people who don't like to be threatened.