5 ms·

I am perfectly alright with this.

aerovistae 11y ago
Can't say I am. People should be free to use the language they wish. The words that were offensive 200 years ago are laughable today. It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't, I cannot stand behind efforts to censor the world. Once upon a time 'idiot' was the more common word for the mentally disabled. Has GitHub banned 'idiot,' too? Good long while ago people would've been pretty offended by that. I get that we're more concerned with what people are offended by TODAY rather than 200 years ago; my point is that we SHOULDN'T be concerned.
- schneidmaster 11y ago
  People are free to use the language they wish. They are not necessarily free to host said language on other people's websites. This isn't a legal ban or something, GitHub is a private company and they have the right to limit what content they want on their website.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    Of course they have the right. I'm not saying they don't have the right. I'm saying that their choice to enforce this right doesn't make sense to me, on multiple levels.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  > The words that were offensive 200 years ago are laughable today. Even if we take this at face value, we are not living 200 years ago. We're here now, and your words can have impact beyond what you realize. You're lucky that words don't affect you so. That's your good fortune. Some words evoke experiences and implications that can drive people to depression and suicide. Basic. Civility. Is. Not. Unreasonable. > my point is that we SHOULDN'T be concerned. Then you won't be concerned when I tell you your basic set of inalienable rights you take for granted has, by and large, been won on the backs of slaves and economic disparity for thousands of years. You are at the tip of a pyramid of privilege that expands backwards in time. Have some good grace about it and stop using useless and hurtful words just because you technically can.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    Should we ban all these 'useless' words too? Like eggplant, spade, and oreo? After all, many people find them offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnic...
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      Would it actually bother you if you couldn't use those words in those contexts? You're arguing over a principle while dismissing the real harm people have suffered. The word that got banned has no meaning or use outside the most base kind of interactions. It's not like you can no longer say the word "eggplant" at the supermarket to refer to a vegetable.
      - aerovistae 11y ago
        'Retard' has no meaning or use? https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=retard&num=10 https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=retard&num=10 Also, please be careful how you use the word 'vegetable.' My aunt is in a coma, and many people find that offensive.
        KirinDave 11y ago
        > 'Retard' has no meaning or use? Homonyms are not the same word, you ridiculous caricature.
        aerovistae 11y ago
        Praytell, what here do you think is being used as a homonym? Where exactly do you think the word 'retard' as a noun comes from?
        KirinDave 11y ago
        A foreshortening of "developmentalluly retarded" that became its own derogatory noun. Again for someone who beat the drum about the fluidity of language you seem to have a tough time seeing it in action or accepting that new words can emerge via the context.
- rtpg 11y ago
  >It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't This cannot be further from the truth. Words that are deemed offensive are deemed so because of the attitude and the meaning behind using these words The reason white people get yelled at for using n (don't know if I can post it on HN) is because it represents hundreds of years of oppression by white people that has basically continued. People who were "retarded" used to be thrown into asylums or abandoned as small children because they were just a pain to deal with The thing about words is that they have context and actual loaded meanings, and trying to ignore that is to ignore how language works
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    Good Lord, I have heard so many different takes on 'what makes something offensive.' My favorite was a teenager telling me only one person has to find something offensive before we have to all consider it as such and stop saying it. The fact that words "have context and actual loaded meanings" is besides the point. I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. I'm sure you know it was only in the past 70 years that 'gay' took on its new meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual Stop trying to lock words in place and ban them. Let people use them or avoid them as they will, and their meanings will shift, as they always have.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      > I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. If words can come INTO fashion for various reasons, then some must be allowed to LEAVE fashion for other reasons. Letting them pass out of empathy is probably one of the most noble and equitable reasons we could have to change our language. Your argument is so strange. You argue that language is fluid then get angry, confused and dismissive when people use that fact to change the world around them.
      - aerovistae 11y ago
        Yes, I'm very angry and confused.
- spdustin 11y ago
  Yes, the developer had every right to say retard. 100% correct. And if they said it in front of me, I'd have every right to kick them, hard. Both of us will have paid a price, sure, but hey, freedom of speech wasn't violated. You're free to call me a retard. I'm free to kick you for doing it. Everybody wins. But your calling me a retard isn't a divinely bestowed right to get away with it without a response just because you had the right to say it. GitHub chose to respond. The author chose to comply with the request. Done and done.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    >And if they said it in front of me, I'd have every right to kick them, hard. Where do you live? In most countries, that would be assault, and is considered a crime.
    - scruple 11y ago
      Just to nitpick... Battery is the physical act. Assault is telling someone that you're going to kick them, hard, and giving them the impression that you intend to actually do so. Both of these things are criminal, obviously. But apparently saying $BAD_WORD is, too. /s
  - echlebek 11y ago
    You're not free to kick someone that calls you a retard. That is assault, which is a crime in most places on earth. I thought every adult would know that, but here we are. Sticks and stones.
  - saryant 11y ago
    If your response to someone using the word "retard" is physical assault, I'd say the problem isn't with the other person.
- nightmiles 11y ago
  Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?" It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior." A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with differing sets of abilities are both also fully human. Just because someone else is made of slightly different stuff doesn't make those differences fair game for ridicule.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    Normally, I don't argue with people on the internet. Tonight, I'm bored and I'm making an exception. That being said, this isn't an argument about how we should treat people. This is an argument over whether we should be allowed to say what we wish and let others react how they will. If people don't want to use this individual's code because of his questionable mentality, let that be their choice. Instead we're now papering over it and making him perhaps look nicer than he is. Would you also like to halt publication of Mein Kampf? It's available in bookstores near you, and I assure you there are many people who are offended by its content, myself included. Shall we reword the sections of the Bible chastising homosexual behavior? Or do we only censor the little things?
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      Say whatever you like. Do it on your own resources. And when you run a server, boot off whoever you like for acting against whatever standards or lack of standards you choose to have. And if you run a bookstore, you're welcome to carry or not carry whatever books you like.
    - Retra 11y ago
      GitHub is not the center of the world. They are not establishing law. You can publish Mein Kampf if everyone else decides not to. You can edit the bible if you wish. Or you can try to foster the development of a professional community by taking steps to prohibit needlessly offensive language. You can publish whatever you like on your personal website and link to it from anywhere. I don't see how this is an over-reach of censorship.

Can't say I am. People should be free to use the language they wish. The words that were offensive 200 years ago are laughable today. It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't, I cannot stand behind efforts to censor the world. Once upon a time 'idiot' was the more common word for the mentally disabled. Has GitHub banned 'idiot,' too? Good long while ago people would've been pretty offended by that. I get that we're more concerned with what people are offended by TODAY rather than 200 years ago; my point is that we SHOULDN'T be concerned.

schneidmaster 11y ago
People are free to use the language they wish. They are not necessarily free to host said language on other people's websites. This isn't a legal ban or something, GitHub is a private company and they have the right to limit what content they want on their website.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Of course they have the right. I'm not saying they don't have the right. I'm saying that their choice to enforce this right doesn't make sense to me, on multiple levels.
KirinDave 11y ago
> The words that were offensive 200 years ago are laughable today. Even if we take this at face value, we are not living 200 years ago. We're here now, and your words can have impact beyond what you realize. You're lucky that words don't affect you so. That's your good fortune. Some words evoke experiences and implications that can drive people to depression and suicide. Basic. Civility. Is. Not. Unreasonable. > my point is that we SHOULDN'T be concerned. Then you won't be concerned when I tell you your basic set of inalienable rights you take for granted has, by and large, been won on the backs of slaves and economic disparity for thousands of years. You are at the tip of a pyramid of privilege that expands backwards in time. Have some good grace about it and stop using useless and hurtful words just because you technically can.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Should we ban all these 'useless' words too? Like eggplant, spade, and oreo? After all, many people find them offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnic...
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    Would it actually bother you if you couldn't use those words in those contexts? You're arguing over a principle while dismissing the real harm people have suffered. The word that got banned has no meaning or use outside the most base kind of interactions. It's not like you can no longer say the word "eggplant" at the supermarket to refer to a vegetable.
    - aerovistae 11y ago
      'Retard' has no meaning or use? https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=retard&num=10 https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=retard&num=10 Also, please be careful how you use the word 'vegetable.' My aunt is in a coma, and many people find that offensive.
      - KirinDave 11y ago
        > 'Retard' has no meaning or use? Homonyms are not the same word, you ridiculous caricature.
        aerovistae 11y ago
        Praytell, what here do you think is being used as a homonym? Where exactly do you think the word 'retard' as a noun comes from?
        KirinDave 11y ago
        A foreshortening of "developmentalluly retarded" that became its own derogatory noun. Again for someone who beat the drum about the fluidity of language you seem to have a tough time seeing it in action or accepting that new words can emerge via the context.
rtpg 11y ago
>It's just such a superficial thing, almost arbitrarily deciding which words are 'sensitive' and which ones aren't This cannot be further from the truth. Words that are deemed offensive are deemed so because of the attitude and the meaning behind using these words The reason white people get yelled at for using n (don't know if I can post it on HN) is because it represents hundreds of years of oppression by white people that has basically continued. People who were "retarded" used to be thrown into asylums or abandoned as small children because they were just a pain to deal with The thing about words is that they have context and actual loaded meanings, and trying to ignore that is to ignore how language works
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Good Lord, I have heard so many different takes on 'what makes something offensive.' My favorite was a teenager telling me only one person has to find something offensive before we have to all consider it as such and stop saying it. The fact that words "have context and actual loaded meanings" is besides the point. I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. I'm sure you know it was only in the past 70 years that 'gay' took on its new meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Shift_to_homosexual Stop trying to lock words in place and ban them. Let people use them or avoid them as they will, and their meanings will shift, as they always have.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    > I am saying that these things come into fashion and then pass away. If words can come INTO fashion for various reasons, then some must be allowed to LEAVE fashion for other reasons. Letting them pass out of empathy is probably one of the most noble and equitable reasons we could have to change our language. Your argument is so strange. You argue that language is fluid then get angry, confused and dismissive when people use that fact to change the world around them.
    - aerovistae 11y ago
      Yes, I'm very angry and confused.
spdustin 11y ago
Yes, the developer had every right to say retard. 100% correct. And if they said it in front of me, I'd have every right to kick them, hard. Both of us will have paid a price, sure, but hey, freedom of speech wasn't violated. You're free to call me a retard. I'm free to kick you for doing it. Everybody wins. But your calling me a retard isn't a divinely bestowed right to get away with it without a response just because you had the right to say it. GitHub chose to respond. The author chose to comply with the request. Done and done.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  >And if they said it in front of me, I'd have every right to kick them, hard. Where do you live? In most countries, that would be assault, and is considered a crime.
  - scruple 11y ago
    Just to nitpick... Battery is the physical act. Assault is telling someone that you're going to kick them, hard, and giving them the impression that you intend to actually do so. Both of these things are criminal, obviously. But apparently saying $BAD_WORD is, too. /s
- echlebek 11y ago
  You're not free to kick someone that calls you a retard. That is assault, which is a crime in most places on earth. I thought every adult would know that, but here we are. Sticks and stones.
- saryant 11y ago
  If your response to someone using the word "retard" is physical assault, I'd say the problem isn't with the other person.
nightmiles 11y ago
Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?" It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior." A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with differing sets of abilities are both also fully human. Just because someone else is made of slightly different stuff doesn't make those differences fair game for ridicule.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Normally, I don't argue with people on the internet. Tonight, I'm bored and I'm making an exception. That being said, this isn't an argument about how we should treat people. This is an argument over whether we should be allowed to say what we wish and let others react how they will. If people don't want to use this individual's code because of his questionable mentality, let that be their choice. Instead we're now papering over it and making him perhaps look nicer than he is. Would you also like to halt publication of Mein Kampf? It's available in bookstores near you, and I assure you there are many people who are offended by its content, myself included. Shall we reword the sections of the Bible chastising homosexual behavior? Or do we only censor the little things?
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    Say whatever you like. Do it on your own resources. And when you run a server, boot off whoever you like for acting against whatever standards or lack of standards you choose to have. And if you run a bookstore, you're welcome to carry or not carry whatever books you like.
  - Retra 11y ago
    GitHub is not the center of the world. They are not establishing law. You can publish Mein Kampf if everyone else decides not to. You can edit the bible if you wish. Or you can try to foster the development of a professional community by taking steps to prohibit needlessly offensive language. You can publish whatever you like on your personal website and link to it from anywhere. I don't see how this is an over-reach of censorship.