3 ms·

The project maintainer absolutely has the right to choose not to remove offensive language. Although, I find his position to be unnecessarily defensive. What is

The project maintainer absolutely has the right to choose not to remove offensive language. Although, I find his position to be unnecessarily defensive. What is he really fighting for? The language is outdated and stems from a practice that is universally shunned. There is work involved in changing the language yet there is no harm in it. People absolutely have the right to be offended. Feeling offended is just that - a feeling. If we don’t have a right to experience feelings, then what do we have a right to? And the right to express our feelings with our speech and writing is known as “freedom of speech”, which is not a universal right in the world, but it’s a popular one. While it’s impossible to prevent offending everyone all the time, again, it’s outdated language referring to a shunned practice. This is more than a handful of individuals expressing offended feelings based on esoteric personal perspectives. Changing the language would be more welcoming towards people who still deal with the fallout of such a shunned practice. Again, doing so is not a requirement of any kind, and I’m not claiming racism. I’m just claiming a failure to understand, respect, and welcome people who live in a world still mired in the effects of a devastating practice. I would change the language.

jiofih 6y ago
Fighting against the word police. The net effect of banning words instead of addressing the underlying problems has the potential for very negative effects on society. > there is no harm in it It is immensely harmful to switch core concepts of a product around and break compatibility. Are we gonna ask record producers to stop creating “Master records” too? Rename the disk MBR? Does eliminating racism require deleting history, or understanding and acting on it in the real world? (note: my comment has already been flagged. this is incredibly disheartening)
eterps 6y ago
> The project maintainer absolutely has the right to choose not to remove offensive language. What offensive language has been communicated in this case? > What is he really fighting for? Wasn't that clearly explained in the post? > The language is outdated and stems from a practice Outdated? Has the 'practice' you're referring to dissappeared? > from a practice that is universally shunned. What to think of people practicing BDSM? Or bioligists describing insect behaviour? Is their language offensive? > There is work involved in changing the language yet there is no harm in it. It is harmful when it deflects from the actual problems we have in our society these days. Just because something is immediately actionable doesn't mean it is effective or even helpful. > People absolutely have the right to be offended. Of course people may feel offended, they just shouldn't automatically get additional rights by being offended. > Changing the language would be more welcoming towards people I agree with that. But I'm dissapointed that people are content with it. IMO it distracts from more pressing issues that need to be addressed.
- x3haloed 6y ago
  Nice attempt at deconstrivism. I will address a few of your points together: > What offensive language has been communicated in this case? > Outdated? Has the 'practice' you're referring to dissappeared? > What to think of people practicing BDSM? Or bioligists describing insect behaviour? Is their language offensive? I’m referring, obviously, to the language of “slave and master.” The practice of slavery, unfortunately, has not disappeared, but is universally banned and recognized as morally wrong. The use of language based on slavery in computer science was dreampt up long ago, and it’s time to rethink it - just as “mongoloid” used to be the official scientific word to refer to people with mental disabilities. I highly doubt you or the author would defend so vigorously the right to keep using that term in software APIs and documentation. It was a silly idea to use the word in the first place, and there’s simply no good reason to use it now. As for BDSM and language about insect behavior, that’s completely within a different realm, because those topics are not related to the long history of systemic suppression and subjection of an entire class of people You and other proponents of leaving offensive language intact are blinded by binary thinking - the slippery slope argument. That if one thing is done to address offended people, then something must be done for everyone who is offended, and where does it end? Therefore the slippery slope. That misguided type of thinking supposes that all moral decisions can be made on a set of universally applied rules that will decide what is right and what must be done about it. But the world is gray - not black and white, and no two situations are the same. Judgement is necessary in every situation. >> What is he really fighting for? > Wasn't that clearly explained in the post? Not really. What was clear from the post was that he didn’t want to do it, and he felt he wasn’t wrong for not doing it. That doesn’t explain why he went through the effort of presumably spending hours to write a lengthy blog post about it. The question then, is why is he fighting so hard against making some code and documentation changes? And on a related note: >> Changing the language would be more welcoming towards people > I agree with that. But I'm dissapointed that people are content with it. IMO it distracts from more pressing issues that need to be addressed. I think that actively fighting against changing the language by spending inordinate amounts of time writing blogs about his refusal to change the language is a huge distraction. Just do it or don’t do it. >> There is work involved in changing the language yet there is no harm in it. > It is harmful when it deflects from the actual problems we have in our society these days. Just because something is immediately actionable doesn't mean it is effective or even helpful. And who has determined that is not an actual problem? Or that this is not effective or helpful? You? The white males who run the world? >> People absolutely have the right to be offended. Of course people may feel offended, they just shouldn't automatically get additional rights by being offended. To which additional rights are you referring?
atonse 6y ago
I would say the opposite. Yes, people have the right to be offended. But people don’t have a right to NOT be offended. That’s the right that’s being asserted here. You should change something so that I am no longer offended. Well, the fact that one is offended is a struggle that’s personal to them.

jiofih 6y ago

Fighting against the word police. The net effect of banning words instead of addressing the underlying problems has the potential for very negative effects on society. > there is no harm in it It is immensely harmful to switch core concepts of a product around and break compatibility. Are we gonna ask record producers to stop creating “Master records” too? Rename the disk MBR? Does eliminating racism require deleting history, or understanding and acting on it in the real world? (note: my comment has already been flagged. this is incredibly disheartening)

eterps 6y ago

> The project maintainer absolutely has the right to choose not to remove offensive language. What offensive language has been communicated in this case? > What is he really fighting for? Wasn't that clearly explained in the post? > The language is outdated and stems from a practice Outdated? Has the 'practice' you're referring to dissappeared? > from a practice that is universally shunned. What to think of people practicing BDSM? Or bioligists describing insect behaviour? Is their language offensive? > There is work involved in changing the language yet there is no harm in it. It is harmful when it deflects from the actual problems we have in our society these days. Just because something is immediately actionable doesn't mean it is effective or even helpful. > People absolutely have the right to be offended. Of course people may feel offended, they just shouldn't automatically get additional rights by being offended. > Changing the language would be more welcoming towards people I agree with that. But I'm dissapointed that people are content with it. IMO it distracts from more pressing issues that need to be addressed.

x3haloed 6y ago
Nice attempt at deconstrivism. I will address a few of your points together: > What offensive language has been communicated in this case? > Outdated? Has the 'practice' you're referring to dissappeared? > What to think of people practicing BDSM? Or bioligists describing insect behaviour? Is their language offensive? I’m referring, obviously, to the language of “slave and master.” The practice of slavery, unfortunately, has not disappeared, but is universally banned and recognized as morally wrong. The use of language based on slavery in computer science was dreampt up long ago, and it’s time to rethink it - just as “mongoloid” used to be the official scientific word to refer to people with mental disabilities. I highly doubt you or the author would defend so vigorously the right to keep using that term in software APIs and documentation. It was a silly idea to use the word in the first place, and there’s simply no good reason to use it now. As for BDSM and language about insect behavior, that’s completely within a different realm, because those topics are not related to the long history of systemic suppression and subjection of an entire class of people You and other proponents of leaving offensive language intact are blinded by binary thinking - the slippery slope argument. That if one thing is done to address offended people, then something must be done for everyone who is offended, and where does it end? Therefore the slippery slope. That misguided type of thinking supposes that all moral decisions can be made on a set of universally applied rules that will decide what is right and what must be done about it. But the world is gray - not black and white, and no two situations are the same. Judgement is necessary in every situation. >> What is he really fighting for? > Wasn't that clearly explained in the post? Not really. What was clear from the post was that he didn’t want to do it, and he felt he wasn’t wrong for not doing it. That doesn’t explain why he went through the effort of presumably spending hours to write a lengthy blog post about it. The question then, is why is he fighting so hard against making some code and documentation changes? And on a related note: >> Changing the language would be more welcoming towards people > I agree with that. But I'm dissapointed that people are content with it. IMO it distracts from more pressing issues that need to be addressed. I think that actively fighting against changing the language by spending inordinate amounts of time writing blogs about his refusal to change the language is a huge distraction. Just do it or don’t do it. >> There is work involved in changing the language yet there is no harm in it. > It is harmful when it deflects from the actual problems we have in our society these days. Just because something is immediately actionable doesn't mean it is effective or even helpful. And who has determined that is not an actual problem? Or that this is not effective or helpful? You? The white males who run the world? >> People absolutely have the right to be offended. Of course people may feel offended, they just shouldn't automatically get additional rights by being offended. To which additional rights are you referring?

atonse 6y ago

I would say the opposite. Yes, people have the right to be offended. But people don’t have a right to NOT be offended. That’s the right that’s being asserted here. You should change something so that I am no longer offended. Well, the fact that one is offended is a struggle that’s personal to them.