8 ms·

100% agree, perhaps instead of only tracking usernames it can also track external Github URLs (to portfolios, linkedin, twitter, and the like), email addresses,

100% agree, perhaps instead of only tracking usernames it can also track external Github URLs (to portfolios, linkedin, twitter, and the like), email addresses, etc etc, just to make it a little harder to evade the sanction while also taking credit for their work off of Github.

0des 5y ago
Maybe we could pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify
- TobyTheDog123 5y ago
  - idontknowifican 5y ago
    it’s always the people accusing folks of being nazis, but it turns out they’re the real nazi. pretty cool shit going on
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Or a scarlet letter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter?msclkid=b47519cbb7a311eca375463a82e75c1c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter?msclkid=b47...
    - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
      The defense is that it's an obscure reference to a story in which women are physically marked instead of Jews?
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        The Scarlet Letter is not obscure, there was even a major Hollywood movie made a few years ago that was extremely loosely based on it. Perhaps you need to read more.
        TobyTheDog123 5y ago
        Perhaps you need to find a better argument. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F01pk4g,%2Fm%2F03hzt https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&ge...
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    Uh. Interpreting that as referencing the Holocaust seems a little extreme.
    - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
      To not interpret it that way would be naive.
      - rubyist5eva 5y ago
        [flagged]
        TobyTheDog123 5y ago
        [flagged]
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        It's not actually naive to disagree with you, and at the time of this writing, several other people have disagreed with you as well, including two people giving alternative and less extreme interpretations which also fit the casual usage of the phrase. Several other people have pushed back on what they suggest is you inserting nazis into the conversation. It's pretty aggressive to tell someone they're being naive because they don't agree with you and are trying to defend someone, in my opinion. Nominally, saying someone is being naive suggests that you can show that something is not just wrong but shouldn't have been believed by anyone sensible. Since you appear to be interpreting the words of a stranger, I doubt that this is the case. Usually, in my experience, going to the most extreme possible interpretation without direct support isn't actually justified. If several different people have disagreed with you, perhaps that's a point at which you might reconsider, instead of criticizing everyone as being unable to see what you see. One possibility is that you might be overreacting. But to be clear, to me, the wording that they used seems to specifically indicate the novel The Scarlet Letter, by Nathanial Hawthorne. This is a culturally significant phrasing with frequent repetition, which is non-offensive, and unlike a mention of the Nazis, actually makes sense in context. In the rest of the text, they are talking about shaming, not wholesale slaughter of human life. If I wanted to discuss someone wearing a mark of social shame as a pariah, it's quite likely that I would phrase it the same way, and I'm quite startled to realize that anyone might interpret such a comment in this radically other way. It's pretty common to talk about wearing a mark of shame, and you are the first person I've ever seen in my life suggest that that should be associated with the genocidal extermination of people by their religion. I think that you might be well advised to look at what other people are saying here. Two people have told you that they feel that other interpretations are appropriate besides me, and another two have expressed concern for what they suggest is the inappropriate addition of a genocide to what was being discussed. I'm inclined to agree with them. It's hard, because earlier in the discussion when you were saying "zero tolerance policy," I was super on your side. I thought that you were one of the few people here discussing solid common sense. But also, ... I dunno, man, this just seems like an unjustified public shaming, to me. In my private experience - and this has no attached data, and I could be wrong - but in my private experience, when someone is actually making a comparison like that, they're doing it for one of three reasons: 1. Shock value 2. Demonization 3. It's actually legitimately relevant in context In all three of those cases, I would expect the person to come out and directly say what they meant, instead of making a vague metaphoric reference. Metaphor defeats shock value; metaphor does not make people look evil; metaphor doesn't have impact when you're trying to make someone face history. Call me naive if you want, but I just don't think that person said what you claim, and I'm not alone in that. If someone didn't say "nazi," and there's a reasonable common way to interpret what they said which makes sense in context, when "nazi" doesn't, probably ... probably they didn't mean nazi, friend. Horses and zebra, and all that stuff.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Wow. You escalated that quickly.
    - zo1 5y ago
      It was the other guy that "escalated it" there. "pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify" is a reference to the star of David that Jews were made to wear in Germany, so they could be "easy to identify".
      - 0des 5y ago
        Its a reference to the scarlet letter and making bad actors of marriage easy to identify. Here we are identifying bad actors in the field of business, analogous to a marriage. You people are insufferable.
        zo1 5y ago
        I never read the book/story, nor do I know anything about it. Star of David and the stuff around Jews in Germany I do. You can't blame people for not knowing some "more" obscure reference that you know.
        0des 5y ago
        I'm defending an assault of my character. Your ignorance of common knowledge does not negate anything I said in my own defense.
        awb 5y ago
        > Your ignorance of common knowledge The Star of David and Scarlet Letter (or letter "A" for adulterer) were both symbols people were made to wear, so they could be identified as "undesirable". The Star of David is probably far more well known world-wide because of how much more recently it was used (some people still alive today were forced to wear it) and the atrocities that followed. Either way, in history it's never been a good thing when people are shaming and identifying people publicly by "marking" them. > I'm defending an assault of my character I hope "Maybe we could pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify" was missing a "/s". Unfortunately, from the other comments in the thread and your follow up: "Here we are identifying bad actors in the field of business, analogous to a marriage.", it seems like proposals like this are unfortunately real. And it's unclear how comparing your proposal to a Scarlet Letter would be a good thing. The Scarlet Letter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter) is a cautionary tale of public shaming: > The major theme of The Scarlet Letter is shaming and social stigmatizing Plus, the analogy doesn't even make sense. 1) business is nothing like marriage 2) this isn't even a business situation since you have no fiduciary relationship with the author (you got something, but paid nothing), and you have no contractual relationship with the author, other than you unilaterally agreeing to be bound by the "AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" terms of the MIT license 3) adulterers (or "bad actors" in a marriage) are rarely punished in modern society, and are no longer "marked" in any country I know of Badges of shame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_shame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_shame) are long gone from modern society because of how cruel, unusual and humiliating they were. This idea of creating a symbol and process to "publicly identify bad actors" is more in alignment with 17th century Puritans and 20th century dictators, not any modern social structure I know of. The better thing to do is: if they broke a law or a Terms of Service, or a Code of Conduct, then warn, suspend or ban them from the platform and/or repository where the offense took place. If they didn't break any rules, then let them be and use your GitHub stars, free speech, forks, etc. to promote alternatives.
- tbrownaw 5y ago
  But what? Something like an "H" for "hacker" would be considered a positive by far too many people who wouldn't realize at first that it's using the other, wrong, definition.
oauea 5y ago
Until they invoke their right to erasure
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Only silly people think that right exists.
  - tbrownaw 5y ago
    Sure retcons are inherently a silly idea, but if "silly people" includes courts and law enforcement is it really that silly?
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      "Sure retcons are inherently a silly idea, but if "silly people" includes courts and law enforcement is it really that silly?" The key understanding is that silly people do not, here, include courts and law enforcement. The thing the poster is trying to reference is the GDPR, and the GDPR does not offer this right with regard to other individuals. What makes this silly is people pretending rights exist that actually do not.
      - oauea 5y ago
        If someone is publicly compiling a database of other individuals, and hosts this on e.g. github, you can absolutely get it taken down.
        JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        Well, go ahead, then. They've been up for literal decades.
        oauea 5y ago
        Link to any that have my personal data listed on them?

0des 5y ago

Maybe we could pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify

TobyTheDog123 5y ago
- idontknowifican 5y ago
  it’s always the people accusing folks of being nazis, but it turns out they’re the real nazi. pretty cool shit going on
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Or a scarlet letter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter?msclkid=b47519cbb7a311eca375463a82e75c1c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter?msclkid=b47...
  - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
    The defense is that it's an obscure reference to a story in which women are physically marked instead of Jews?
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      The Scarlet Letter is not obscure, there was even a major Hollywood movie made a few years ago that was extremely loosely based on it. Perhaps you need to read more.
      - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
        Perhaps you need to find a better argument. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F01pk4g,%2Fm%2F03hzt https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&ge...
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Uh. Interpreting that as referencing the Holocaust seems a little extreme.
  - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
    To not interpret it that way would be naive.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
        [flagged]
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      It's not actually naive to disagree with you, and at the time of this writing, several other people have disagreed with you as well, including two people giving alternative and less extreme interpretations which also fit the casual usage of the phrase. Several other people have pushed back on what they suggest is you inserting nazis into the conversation. It's pretty aggressive to tell someone they're being naive because they don't agree with you and are trying to defend someone, in my opinion. Nominally, saying someone is being naive suggests that you can show that something is not just wrong but shouldn't have been believed by anyone sensible. Since you appear to be interpreting the words of a stranger, I doubt that this is the case. Usually, in my experience, going to the most extreme possible interpretation without direct support isn't actually justified. If several different people have disagreed with you, perhaps that's a point at which you might reconsider, instead of criticizing everyone as being unable to see what you see. One possibility is that you might be overreacting. But to be clear, to me, the wording that they used seems to specifically indicate the novel The Scarlet Letter, by Nathanial Hawthorne. This is a culturally significant phrasing with frequent repetition, which is non-offensive, and unlike a mention of the Nazis, actually makes sense in context. In the rest of the text, they are talking about shaming, not wholesale slaughter of human life. If I wanted to discuss someone wearing a mark of social shame as a pariah, it's quite likely that I would phrase it the same way, and I'm quite startled to realize that anyone might interpret such a comment in this radically other way. It's pretty common to talk about wearing a mark of shame, and you are the first person I've ever seen in my life suggest that that should be associated with the genocidal extermination of people by their religion. I think that you might be well advised to look at what other people are saying here. Two people have told you that they feel that other interpretations are appropriate besides me, and another two have expressed concern for what they suggest is the inappropriate addition of a genocide to what was being discussed. I'm inclined to agree with them. It's hard, because earlier in the discussion when you were saying "zero tolerance policy," I was super on your side. I thought that you were one of the few people here discussing solid common sense. But also, ... I dunno, man, this just seems like an unjustified public shaming, to me. In my private experience - and this has no attached data, and I could be wrong - but in my private experience, when someone is actually making a comparison like that, they're doing it for one of three reasons: 1. Shock value 2. Demonization 3. It's actually legitimately relevant in context In all three of those cases, I would expect the person to come out and directly say what they meant, instead of making a vague metaphoric reference. Metaphor defeats shock value; metaphor does not make people look evil; metaphor doesn't have impact when you're trying to make someone face history. Call me naive if you want, but I just don't think that person said what you claim, and I'm not alone in that. If someone didn't say "nazi," and there's a reasonable common way to interpret what they said which makes sense in context, when "nazi" doesn't, probably ... probably they didn't mean nazi, friend. Horses and zebra, and all that stuff.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Wow. You escalated that quickly.
  - zo1 5y ago
    It was the other guy that "escalated it" there. "pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify" is a reference to the star of David that Jews were made to wear in Germany, so they could be "easy to identify".
    - 0des 5y ago
      Its a reference to the scarlet letter and making bad actors of marriage easy to identify. Here we are identifying bad actors in the field of business, analogous to a marriage. You people are insufferable.
      - zo1 5y ago
        I never read the book/story, nor do I know anything about it. Star of David and the stuff around Jews in Germany I do. You can't blame people for not knowing some "more" obscure reference that you know.
        0des 5y ago
        I'm defending an assault of my character. Your ignorance of common knowledge does not negate anything I said in my own defense.
        awb 5y ago
        > Your ignorance of common knowledge The Star of David and Scarlet Letter (or letter "A" for adulterer) were both symbols people were made to wear, so they could be identified as "undesirable". The Star of David is probably far more well known world-wide because of how much more recently it was used (some people still alive today were forced to wear it) and the atrocities that followed. Either way, in history it's never been a good thing when people are shaming and identifying people publicly by "marking" them. > I'm defending an assault of my character I hope "Maybe we could pin a symbol on their avatars, to make them easy to identify" was missing a "/s". Unfortunately, from the other comments in the thread and your follow up: "Here we are identifying bad actors in the field of business, analogous to a marriage.", it seems like proposals like this are unfortunately real. And it's unclear how comparing your proposal to a Scarlet Letter would be a good thing. The Scarlet Letter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter) is a cautionary tale of public shaming: > The major theme of The Scarlet Letter is shaming and social stigmatizing Plus, the analogy doesn't even make sense. 1) business is nothing like marriage 2) this isn't even a business situation since you have no fiduciary relationship with the author (you got something, but paid nothing), and you have no contractual relationship with the author, other than you unilaterally agreeing to be bound by the "AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" terms of the MIT license 3) adulterers (or "bad actors" in a marriage) are rarely punished in modern society, and are no longer "marked" in any country I know of Badges of shame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_shame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_of_shame) are long gone from modern society because of how cruel, unusual and humiliating they were. This idea of creating a symbol and process to "publicly identify bad actors" is more in alignment with 17th century Puritans and 20th century dictators, not any modern social structure I know of. The better thing to do is: if they broke a law or a Terms of Service, or a Code of Conduct, then warn, suspend or ban them from the platform and/or repository where the offense took place. If they didn't break any rules, then let them be and use your GitHub stars, free speech, forks, etc. to promote alternatives.
tbrownaw 5y ago
But what? Something like an "H" for "hacker" would be considered a positive by far too many people who wouldn't realize at first that it's using the other, wrong, definition.

oauea 5y ago

Until they invoke their right to erasure

rubyist5eva 5y ago
Only silly people think that right exists.
- tbrownaw 5y ago
  Sure retcons are inherently a silly idea, but if "silly people" includes courts and law enforcement is it really that silly?
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    "Sure retcons are inherently a silly idea, but if "silly people" includes courts and law enforcement is it really that silly?" The key understanding is that silly people do not, here, include courts and law enforcement. The thing the poster is trying to reference is the GDPR, and the GDPR does not offer this right with regard to other individuals. What makes this silly is people pretending rights exist that actually do not.
    - oauea 5y ago
      If someone is publicly compiling a database of other individuals, and hosts this on e.g. github, you can absolutely get it taken down.
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        Well, go ahead, then. They've been up for literal decades.
        oauea 5y ago
        Link to any that have my personal data listed on them?