5 ms·

I'm all for funny names, but giving your project a needlessly inflammatory name, to me signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the grea

I'm all for funny names, but giving your project a needlessly inflammatory name, to me signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the greater open-source community to develop it further or adopt it.

austinjp 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  "Git" is an insult, but it's not a slur.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Etymology is weird. Git is derived from "Get" (as in "beget") which is another term for a bastard. Watered down through the decades and much less sting, but the meaning is the same.
    - fknorangesite 4y ago
      Don't be obtuse. As widely discussed in this thread, we aren't talking about "bastard."
      - dijit 4y ago
        some people want to talk about the latter section of the word "tard" being shorthand for "retard" presumably. So I'll take you up on that, even though I fully disagree that this is the pun the author was making. I'll start by saying that "to retard" has actual meaning, outside of derogatory statements, slurs or so on. In fact, that meaning predates by many hundreds of years: the description of people in such a way. Since you could argue that this project is trying to speed up development, it could also argue that this is a commentary on "being retarded from your original objective" of running commands. So, my first argument is that "to retard" can have meaning outside of being offensive, in fact, that was its primary use. Now: Retard is a slur, absolutely. But, is it worse than Idiot? Moron? At some point in time those were clinical definitions to mean the same thing as retard, they became used as slurs and fell out of favour. Now, ironically, they are less inflammatory than the new derogatory word. So, my second argument is that being offended by certain language is arbitrary. --- Why am I arguing? Because you assume mal-intent where it's possible there is none. I genuinely assumed "bashtard" = "bastard", and that's "as offensive" to me as "git" (as a living and breathing british bastard), I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was attempting to denigrate low IQ people. This type of language policing needs to be self-critical, because if you're not willing to be critical on what you're putting out into the world and onto other people: I will be, and you'll hate me for it.
- RockRobotRock 4y ago
rgoulter 4y ago
> signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the greater open-source community to develop it further or adopt it. This reminds me, there's a somewhat inherent affiliation in the flamewar over the branch name master/main. The people who use "master" clearly don't think it's a bad term to use, and probably think being upset over it is silly. Those who use "main" either think it's (to some extent) racist to use the word master, or don't want to be yelled at. Whichever word you chose ultimately signals affiliation, and the other group will feel you don't recognise their frustration. -- I think the sensible people just ignore it. Rather.. I think if you want to have a community where people with different cultural attitudes feel welcome, I think some toe-stepping is inevitable and unavoidable.
- kelnos 4y ago
  The thing that bothers me about the people who dig in and insist on continuing to use "master" is that... well... this is the hill they want to die on? If changing was some big expensive process, or if it was a name that held some sort of special historical significance (or whatever), I could maybe see the argument against. But it's... the original default branch name of a source control tool. Get over it and move on, maybe? (Having said that, I still haven't gotten around to renaming all my existing repositories...)
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > If changing was some big expensive process This is the main fear in every org I have seen the debate play out. Going to every single script and tool that touches git, check and update it isn’t free, nor completely devoid of risk. Even when everyone is one the same page about the right thing to do, it’s tough to prioritize over other actual production issues.
  - rgoulter 4y ago
    The appeal to arbitrariness goes both ways. If it's a minor choice, insisting it be changed is silly. "Get over it and move on" applies just as much to either. That people have feelings about a topic that's disproportionate to its significance is characteristic of a flame-war. It's natural for people to hold strong opinions on all sorts of stuff like this. It's very human.

austinjp 4y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

fknorangesite 4y ago
"Git" is an insult, but it's not a slur.
- dijit 4y ago
  Etymology is weird. Git is derived from "Get" (as in "beget") which is another term for a bastard. Watered down through the decades and much less sting, but the meaning is the same.
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    Don't be obtuse. As widely discussed in this thread, we aren't talking about "bastard."
    - dijit 4y ago
      some people want to talk about the latter section of the word "tard" being shorthand for "retard" presumably. So I'll take you up on that, even though I fully disagree that this is the pun the author was making. I'll start by saying that "to retard" has actual meaning, outside of derogatory statements, slurs or so on. In fact, that meaning predates by many hundreds of years: the description of people in such a way. Since you could argue that this project is trying to speed up development, it could also argue that this is a commentary on "being retarded from your original objective" of running commands. So, my first argument is that "to retard" can have meaning outside of being offensive, in fact, that was its primary use. Now: Retard is a slur, absolutely. But, is it worse than Idiot? Moron? At some point in time those were clinical definitions to mean the same thing as retard, they became used as slurs and fell out of favour. Now, ironically, they are less inflammatory than the new derogatory word. So, my second argument is that being offended by certain language is arbitrary. --- Why am I arguing? Because you assume mal-intent where it's possible there is none. I genuinely assumed "bashtard" = "bastard", and that's "as offensive" to me as "git" (as a living and breathing british bastard), I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was attempting to denigrate low IQ people. This type of language policing needs to be self-critical, because if you're not willing to be critical on what you're putting out into the world and onto other people: I will be, and you'll hate me for it.
RockRobotRock 4y ago

rgoulter 4y ago

> signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the greater open-source community to develop it further or adopt it. This reminds me, there's a somewhat inherent affiliation in the flamewar over the branch name master/main. The people who use "master" clearly don't think it's a bad term to use, and probably think being upset over it is silly. Those who use "main" either think it's (to some extent) racist to use the word master, or don't want to be yelled at. Whichever word you chose ultimately signals affiliation, and the other group will feel you don't recognise their frustration. -- I think the sensible people just ignore it. Rather.. I think if you want to have a community where people with different cultural attitudes feel welcome, I think some toe-stepping is inevitable and unavoidable.

kelnos 4y ago
The thing that bothers me about the people who dig in and insist on continuing to use "master" is that... well... this is the hill they want to die on? If changing was some big expensive process, or if it was a name that held some sort of special historical significance (or whatever), I could maybe see the argument against. But it's... the original default branch name of a source control tool. Get over it and move on, maybe? (Having said that, I still haven't gotten around to renaming all my existing repositories...)
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > If changing was some big expensive process This is the main fear in every org I have seen the debate play out. Going to every single script and tool that touches git, check and update it isn’t free, nor completely devoid of risk. Even when everyone is one the same page about the right thing to do, it’s tough to prioritize over other actual production issues.
- rgoulter 4y ago
  The appeal to arbitrariness goes both ways. If it's a minor choice, insisting it be changed is silly. "Get over it and move on" applies just as much to either. That people have feelings about a topic that's disproportionate to its significance is characteristic of a flame-war. It's natural for people to hold strong opinions on all sorts of stuff like this. It's very human.