7 ms·

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The problem with letting thin skinned people decide what's offensive and what isn't is the list constantly changes,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The problem with letting thin skinned people decide what's offensive and what isn't is the list constantly changes, and contradicts itself. Now there's precedent. Other people's turbulent emotions define what is acceptable in redis, and all you need to do is throw tantrums and say your feelings are hurt. This is sheer insanity. If the words are that offensive that they should be removed from a computer program, should they be removed from the dictionary next? Sheer insanity. Antirez, I sympathize with you. I'm sorry you have to put up with this madness.

compsdon 8y ago
Now there's precedent. The court of public opinion isn't a real court, and has no rules, so setting any precedent in this way is meaningless. One guy caves to pressure, and assuredly this is what describes these events. But the next time around, anybody who chooses to, can safely ignore this incident. This sort of thing comes down to either telling people to shove it, or not. Some people can drop that hammer every single time, others are pained by it, and take the path of least resistance. Telling people to get bent was a thing for decades, but internet amnesia means some people have either forgotten about it, or never learned how to do it in the first place.
SZJX 8y ago
> This is sheer insanity. If the words are that offensive that they should be removed from a computer program, should they be removed from the dictionary next? Your argument is sheer insanity. Should history books teach facts about slavery and holocaust? Of course they do. Should slavery still be preserved nowadays in a normal society and defended in a normal context? Of course it shouldn't. What's your point? This incident didn't come out of nowhere and I personally have also always felt the terminologies to be a bit unsavory. I'm glad that somebody out there actually did the job of calling it out. I don't think this is generalizable to many other situations as well. I don't think there are any other terms that made me uncomfortable as this one. Can you come up with an example that might be "subject to whimsical fit"? What a way to distort the argument really.

compsdon 8y ago

Now there's precedent. The court of public opinion isn't a real court, and has no rules, so setting any precedent in this way is meaningless. One guy caves to pressure, and assuredly this is what describes these events. But the next time around, anybody who chooses to, can safely ignore this incident. This sort of thing comes down to either telling people to shove it, or not. Some people can drop that hammer every single time, others are pained by it, and take the path of least resistance. Telling people to get bent was a thing for decades, but internet amnesia means some people have either forgotten about it, or never learned how to do it in the first place.

SZJX 8y ago

> This is sheer insanity. If the words are that offensive that they should be removed from a computer program, should they be removed from the dictionary next? Your argument is sheer insanity. Should history books teach facts about slavery and holocaust? Of course they do. Should slavery still be preserved nowadays in a normal society and defended in a normal context? Of course it shouldn't. What's your point? This incident didn't come out of nowhere and I personally have also always felt the terminologies to be a bit unsavory. I'm glad that somebody out there actually did the job of calling it out. I don't think this is generalizable to many other situations as well. I don't think there are any other terms that made me uncomfortable as this one. Can you come up with an example that might be "subject to whimsical fit"? What a way to distort the argument really.