7 ms·

Fine with me. It's an offensive term and GitHub has every right to police their service and ban content like this. Am I supposed to be concerned by this, and i

Fine with me. It's an offensive term and GitHub has every right to police their service and ban content like this. Am I supposed to be concerned by this, and if so, why?

joeax 11y ago
Here's my concern. Let's say I forked a repo and started contributing to it. I built an app that depends on that repo. Suddenly that repo vanishes because GitHub found it some word in it offensive, and my fork and all my contributions vanish. All because of some line like: var x = getX(); // this is retarded, needs fixing I didn't write the said offensive code nor did I even know it was there, and GitHub possibly doesn't even tell me why the repo was deleted. At this point my trust with GitHub of keeping my code is safe is broken. When users lose trust in GitHub or feel they've gone big brother then users will jump to newer, emerging alternatives.
- avolcano 11y ago
  But, in this case, GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action. Why do you believe they wouldn't do the same for you?
  - 0x09 11y ago
    > GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action. This repository had been disabled for several days before this.
- oneandoneis2 11y ago
  ..but it's git. Github don't host your repo - they host a copy of it. You still have all your work in your local checkout. What are you concerned about?
  - worklogin 11y ago
    Gettin' real tired of people parroting this. Anyone who has used Github knows there is plenty of data (issues, labels, wikis) that aren't forked when you clone a GH repo.
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
Yes. It incentivizes loudly taking offense to things. Regardless of whether or not you care about the use of the word 'retard' being taken offense to, there are many things that you do care about. It's trivially easy to find examples - millions of Americans care deeply about violence in games and media. Should GitHub police the language a violent open-source video game uses to market itself? By setting itself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable language, GitHub will be petitioned by people who want to make things unacceptable to say. Edit: Also, people can decide to find something to take offense over in order to attack a targeted individual. This should be very concerning to you - are you sure you've never committed anything that an uncharitable person could take offense to? Imagine a few dozen very angry people combing through your work, trying to find something to get outraged about.
- tracker1 11y ago
  As someone of Irish-American descent... I'm offended by the use of the term "git" in "GitHub"... they should be banned..
Gibbon1 11y ago
It's not as offensive as autistic.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Let's compile a list of things it's not as offensive as.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    My brother is a retard. Your serve
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      So to explain myself a lot of people tell me my brother is 'autistic' Well my brother is not autistic. My brother has issues with understanding language and expressing himself. That does make it had for him to relate to ordinary people. But it doesn't mean that he has issues with socialization and emotional attachment. He desperately wants to fit in with people and have meaningful relationships with people. As such I find the term Autistic, which assumes that he doesn't care about human emotional attachments. And assumes that he's somehow 'sick' to be extremely insulting. I'd much rather people use the term retard because at least that just generally says that a person has one or more learning deficits and picks certain tasks slower than normal. And frankly you're never going to get off the euphemism treadmill. That said for the reasons above, the concept of 'retard' is better than autistic by a long shot.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        When you say "people tell you" do you mean everyday people in the street, or medical professionals? If you're talking about people in the street then I agree with you. That must be infuriating. If that's what you're talking about please do ignore the rest of this post because it's not relevant at all. But if you're talking about medical professionals, especially those with LD and autism specialism: Your lack of understanding of autism isn't a particularly good reason to chose to use a word that doesn't fit just because it makes you feel better. ASD is not learning disability, although people with austism can have learning disability as well. Your stigma around autism is a poor reason to chose to use the wrong word for a condition. Importantly there is no cure for autism, but there are treatments. By rejecting the autism diagnosis you risk rejecting useful treatments. > As such I find the term Autistic, which assumes that he doesn't care about human emotional attachments. And assumes that he's somehow 'sick' to be extremely insulting. There's quite a lot bundled here. About the word sick - what's the difference between retarded (a medical condition) and autism (a medical condition)? About the social stuff: That's not true, where did you learn that? That's a caricature of autism. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Page... http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/what-is-autism.aspx http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/what-is-a... People with autism have trouble with human interaction; they can have trouble understanding emotions in other people. That does not mean that they do not care about other people or that they do not crave friendship and relationships. One of the reason that suicide is higher in people with autism is because they desire human interaction but haven't been given the skills to acheive those. > And frankly you're never going to get off the euphemism treadmill. Retard is an imprecise euphemism. It has been used to deny people segregate people from society; to experiment upon them without their will; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them. Learning disability (or autism, if that's what someone has) are more precise, and more neutral, terms. Feel free to call your brother what you like. Just don't be surprised if it causes strongly negative reactions in people you meet.
ryandrake 11y ago
They have every right to do it, but that doesn't make it productive. Is github really going to anoint itself word-police and comb through the source code of every project they host looking for words they [currently] consider potty-mouthed? Is that really where we have ended up? Do they have nothing better to do? What if the word "fail" offended somebody at github? Should they take down projects that have that variable name in their source? (Not asking whether they have the right to do it--asking whether they SHOULD do it) EDIT: A couple more things to point out: 1. Think of yourself as an investor who has put money into GitHub. Someone drawing a salary using your money is sending out a message telling a developer not to use a potty-mouth word on the Internet. Do you feel they are putting your investment to the best possible use? 2. As a developer, I now have a new attribute to use to compare GitHub with competitors. I wonder if I have potty-mouth words in my source code. Maybe BitBucket wouldn't put my project in jeopardy because of it... 3. GitHub's own "remove sensitive data" link (referenced in the takedown E-mail) suggests their users use a tool called "BFG Repo-Cleaner". I'm sure they don't think BFG stands for Big Friendly Gun....
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  1) Yes, absolutely; they're creating a more friendly community, and that's a hard problem. 3) Profanity and derogatory language are not the same thing; the difference is critically important. Similarly, if you tell someone to FOAD, the FO isn't the most offensive part of that statement.
  - Confusion 11y ago
    And in this case the word was used as profanity, to enable self-deprecation. It wasn't derogatory.
- thedz 11y ago
  > 1. Think of yourself as an investor who has put money into GitHub. Someone drawing a salary using your money is sending out a message telling a developer not to use a potty-mouth word on the Internet. Do you feel they are putting your investment to the best possible use? Someone drawing a salary using my money is also: playing foosball in the office, buying a foosball table in the office, probably watching cats on Youtube. This is a silly line of reasoning.
spenvo 11y ago
There's nothing wrong with it. I find the term offensive as well. But it's worth noting because decisions like this are somewhat arbitrary, and we invest in this platform (the visibility/monoculture of github and your "stars" are what make it sticky). So what happens when your repo doesn't conform to their interpretation of social norms? It's a relatively obscure repo (and I'm sure we all have a few of those ;)), that adds to the whole "arbitrary" narrative. Another reason it's worth noting: it runs against what Github has made headlines for in the past couple of years: fighting pressures to censor content. What happens if/when leadership changes at the company (it already has over its lifetime): will the policy won't be relaxed even further? Thought exercises like this help us appreciate how invested we are in the monoculture that is Github
slavik81 11y ago
In the future, if they decide not to take down some other repository, there will be an implication that they find the content less offensive than this.
niuzeta 11y ago
Because "retard" may not be the last time, but the first. A precedence would be set that a repository may be shut down due to an arbitrary(not the word I'd use here, but for the sake of argument) reason.
- paulhodge 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - _ak 11y ago
    Also, euphemism treadmill. "Retard" in the context of medication means that a drug is slowly and continously released into the bloodstream.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- DanBC 11y ago
  But that arbitrariness is baked into the user agreement and always has been.
qwreasdfkjhiouy 11y ago
wow, you have to be kidding. Nice troll, almost had me.
onewaystreet 11y ago
The term was being used in the same context as "dummies" is in the "for dummies" books. Do you consider dummies an offensive term? If not, why not?
- Retra 11y ago
  "Dummy" is very pedestrian term. Compare "shit" and "poo." One is more offensive than the other, even if they are used to mean the same thing in the same context.
kazinator 11y ago
The noun "retard" is not considered profane. I don't think it would have to be bleeped over in broadcast television. It's also a verb which means to slow down. For example, it is necessary to retard the ignition timing of a gasoline engine, and more so at higher RPM, to prevent detonation.
- avolcano 11y ago
  Oh sure, but that's not the context it was being used here, and there's no indication that this was some sort of automated email that was sent purely because a use of the word was detected. I don't think anyone's out there trying to ban the word "retard" for its non-derogatory usages. Seems like a weird straw-man to worry about.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Yes it is the context! "retard" is a short form of "mentally retarded". Which means slowed down developmentally. The spark plug gaps being a little too wide in the old noggin to fire reliably. This is not like a completely separate context like "fag" (cigarette) versus "fag" (homosexual). The long form "mentally retarded" isn't offensive, yet "mental retard" is so offensive that it violates terms of service and gets you a shutdown threat? Absurd. > there's no indication that this was some sort of automated email that was sent purely because a use of the word was detected. I would find the action less distasteful if it was such a bot. That would still leave open the possibility that the bot isn't expressing its author's intent.
    - Retra 11y ago
      >The long form "mentally retarded" isn't offensive I beg to differ. There's a reason the medical community doesn't use that term anymore.
      - kazinator 11y ago
        Quac^H^H^H^HMedical professionals also don't use "stomach" to denote the abdomen. So what? > any more I.e. they did! Lay people still do. Anyway, what matters here is not the standard used by the medical community. I suspect that if a github project had some code that "assists the mentally retarded", it would not bring on the TOS violation police.
austenallred 11y ago
I don't know, I guess I'm supposed to consider it censorship and be outraged or something? Some people feel entitled to say what they want on any platform they choose and cry "censorship" when their offensive speech is removed. My guess is GH doesn't actively monitor things like this, but someone complained. So they're removing it, and it's just a matter of time before we hear a thousand "slippery slope" arguments.
- tomp 11y ago
  Anyone who is offended by the word "retard" is an idiot (pun intended).
kentonv 11y ago
Is it offensive? Yes. Does Github have the right to take it down? Yes. Is it unethical for Github to take it down? Not at all. But should they? I don't know, I don't think I would have. It's kind of scary to use cloud services where it's hard to tell if your content might be judged in violation of some rule and might suddenly disappear as a result. If the offensiveness were more extreme (say, a repo dedicated to making fun of the mentally disabled), then yes, remove it... but the actual case here looks pretty benign to me. A poor choice of words, but with no intended malice. Coming down hard in this case looks arbitrary and unexpected, and arbitrary and unexpected rule enforcement is scary. Certainly, though, it's Github's choice what kind of rules they want to enforce and whether or not they care if this scares users.
- thedz 11y ago
  Your first three questions/answers, summarized, is that "Github ethically and legally removed an offensive word" Should they? Yes. I feel slippery slope arguments get brought up way too much sometimes. Every issue is turning into a binary all-or-nothing ordeal, with no room for nuance or context. As long as what Github did is 1. ethical (removing a generally accepted as offensive word), 2. legal, then I see no problem with it. If, IF Github starts making more arbitrary calls, then I think its the time to be angry or worried.
  - ryandrake 11y ago
    It would also be ethical and legal to comb through their hosted content to remove any other words, but I'd argue it's a ret...er...wasteful use of their resources. Also, I must have missed the memo when 'retarded' became "generally accepted as an offensive word". Are "stupid" "moronic" and "idiotic" also offensive? I guess I need to keep up with the times--as soon as I think I've figured out the list of everything that could possibly offend someone, we come up with something else.
    - hhandoko 11y ago
      If you direct it at a particular person, then your intent is to offend, and by all means it is offensive.
JungleGymSam 11y ago
Yes, you should be. The problem is that people (perhaps you) are elevating something marginally offensive to something hateful and worth shutting down at all costs. The dragging down of minor offenses to serious offenses is a dangerous thing. It's surprising how little intellectual honesty there is in modern society. It's even more surprising here that some people (perhaps you) are willing to abandon any rational thinking in favor of their feelings. You seemingly can't comprehend (or are willing to ignore) the logical conclusion to where we're headed. It's ridiculous for GitHub to police the content on their site in this way. Where does it stop? Will they block commits with "trigger" words?
- seletz 11y ago
  Oh wow -- this is actually a comment which IMO points out the real issue here. This sort of censorship/filter/whatever-you-call-it is bad because it add way too much value to words. So it's not about what is actually said or the context but only about words. By that logic it's completely PC if someone is actually offended but in such a way that no bad words are used. But as soon as a Bad Word (TM) is used -- bam. This is really really dishonest, shallow, and disgusting.
  - JungleGymSam 11y ago
    I think there may be a misunderstanding (could be my fault) because I don't know what you're talking about.
Confusion 11y ago
Because they are either wholly capitulating to a vocal minority or feel they are part of that minority. In both cases they are stepping on a slippery slope to insanity. The criterion used for this decision is necessarily wholly arbitrary, as what is deemed offensive differs with time and community. Now you have to worry whether your repo with a fortune file with some offcolor jokes is going to be banned. Whether your use of 'retard' for its original meaning is going to cause problems. Whether any other words I use may have connotations I don't know about

Fine with me. It's an offensive term and GitHub has every right to police their service and ban content like this. Am I supposed to be concerned by this, and if so, why?

joeax 11y ago

Here's my concern. Let's say I forked a repo and started contributing to it. I built an app that depends on that repo. Suddenly that repo vanishes because GitHub found it some word in it offensive, and my fork and all my contributions vanish. All because of some line like: var x = getX(); // this is retarded, needs fixing I didn't write the said offensive code nor did I even know it was there, and GitHub possibly doesn't even tell me why the repo was deleted. At this point my trust with GitHub of keeping my code is safe is broken. When users lose trust in GitHub or feel they've gone big brother then users will jump to newer, emerging alternatives.

avolcano 11y ago
But, in this case, GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action. Why do you believe they wouldn't do the same for you?
- 0x09 11y ago
  > GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action. This repository had been disabled for several days before this.
oneandoneis2 11y ago
..but it's git. Github don't host your repo - they host a copy of it. You still have all your work in your local checkout. What are you concerned about?
- worklogin 11y ago
  Gettin' real tired of people parroting this. Anyone who has used Github knows there is plenty of data (issues, labels, wikis) that aren't forked when you clone a GH repo.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

Yes. It incentivizes loudly taking offense to things. Regardless of whether or not you care about the use of the word 'retard' being taken offense to, there are many things that you do care about. It's trivially easy to find examples - millions of Americans care deeply about violence in games and media. Should GitHub police the language a violent open-source video game uses to market itself? By setting itself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable language, GitHub will be petitioned by people who want to make things unacceptable to say. Edit: Also, people can decide to find something to take offense over in order to attack a targeted individual. This should be very concerning to you - are you sure you've never committed anything that an uncharitable person could take offense to? Imagine a few dozen very angry people combing through your work, trying to find something to get outraged about.

tracker1 11y ago
As someone of Irish-American descent... I'm offended by the use of the term "git" in "GitHub"... they should be banned..

Gibbon1 11y ago

It's not as offensive as autistic.

aerovistae 11y ago
Let's compile a list of things it's not as offensive as.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  My brother is a retard. Your serve
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    So to explain myself a lot of people tell me my brother is 'autistic' Well my brother is not autistic. My brother has issues with understanding language and expressing himself. That does make it had for him to relate to ordinary people. But it doesn't mean that he has issues with socialization and emotional attachment. He desperately wants to fit in with people and have meaningful relationships with people. As such I find the term Autistic, which assumes that he doesn't care about human emotional attachments. And assumes that he's somehow 'sick' to be extremely insulting. I'd much rather people use the term retard because at least that just generally says that a person has one or more learning deficits and picks certain tasks slower than normal. And frankly you're never going to get off the euphemism treadmill. That said for the reasons above, the concept of 'retard' is better than autistic by a long shot.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      When you say "people tell you" do you mean everyday people in the street, or medical professionals? If you're talking about people in the street then I agree with you. That must be infuriating. If that's what you're talking about please do ignore the rest of this post because it's not relevant at all. But if you're talking about medical professionals, especially those with LD and autism specialism: Your lack of understanding of autism isn't a particularly good reason to chose to use a word that doesn't fit just because it makes you feel better. ASD is not learning disability, although people with austism can have learning disability as well. Your stigma around autism is a poor reason to chose to use the wrong word for a condition. Importantly there is no cure for autism, but there are treatments. By rejecting the autism diagnosis you risk rejecting useful treatments. > As such I find the term Autistic, which assumes that he doesn't care about human emotional attachments. And assumes that he's somehow 'sick' to be extremely insulting. There's quite a lot bundled here. About the word sick - what's the difference between retarded (a medical condition) and autism (a medical condition)? About the social stuff: That's not true, where did you learn that? That's a caricature of autism. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Page... http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/what-is-autism.aspx http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/introduction/what-is-a... People with autism have trouble with human interaction; they can have trouble understanding emotions in other people. That does not mean that they do not care about other people or that they do not crave friendship and relationships. One of the reason that suicide is higher in people with autism is because they desire human interaction but haven't been given the skills to acheive those. > And frankly you're never going to get off the euphemism treadmill. Retard is an imprecise euphemism. It has been used to deny people segregate people from society; to experiment upon them without their will; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them. Learning disability (or autism, if that's what someone has) are more precise, and more neutral, terms. Feel free to call your brother what you like. Just don't be surprised if it causes strongly negative reactions in people you meet.

ryandrake 11y ago

They have every right to do it, but that doesn't make it productive. Is github really going to anoint itself word-police and comb through the source code of every project they host looking for words they [currently] consider potty-mouthed? Is that really where we have ended up? Do they have nothing better to do? What if the word "fail" offended somebody at github? Should they take down projects that have that variable name in their source? (Not asking whether they have the right to do it--asking whether they SHOULD do it) EDIT: A couple more things to point out: 1. Think of yourself as an investor who has put money into GitHub. Someone drawing a salary using your money is sending out a message telling a developer not to use a potty-mouth word on the Internet. Do you feel they are putting your investment to the best possible use? 2. As a developer, I now have a new attribute to use to compare GitHub with competitors. I wonder if I have potty-mouth words in my source code. Maybe BitBucket wouldn't put my project in jeopardy because of it... 3. GitHub's own "remove sensitive data" link (referenced in the takedown E-mail) suggests their users use a tool called "BFG Repo-Cleaner". I'm sure they don't think BFG stands for Big Friendly Gun....

JoshTriplett 11y ago
1) Yes, absolutely; they're creating a more friendly community, and that's a hard problem. 3) Profanity and derogatory language are not the same thing; the difference is critically important. Similarly, if you tell someone to FOAD, the FO isn't the most offensive part of that statement.
- Confusion 11y ago
  And in this case the word was used as profanity, to enable self-deprecation. It wasn't derogatory.
thedz 11y ago
> 1. Think of yourself as an investor who has put money into GitHub. Someone drawing a salary using your money is sending out a message telling a developer not to use a potty-mouth word on the Internet. Do you feel they are putting your investment to the best possible use? Someone drawing a salary using my money is also: playing foosball in the office, buying a foosball table in the office, probably watching cats on Youtube. This is a silly line of reasoning.

spenvo 11y ago

There's nothing wrong with it. I find the term offensive as well. But it's worth noting because decisions like this are somewhat arbitrary, and we invest in this platform (the visibility/monoculture of github and your "stars" are what make it sticky). So what happens when your repo doesn't conform to their interpretation of social norms? It's a relatively obscure repo (and I'm sure we all have a few of those ;)), that adds to the whole "arbitrary" narrative. Another reason it's worth noting: it runs against what Github has made headlines for in the past couple of years: fighting pressures to censor content. What happens if/when leadership changes at the company (it already has over its lifetime): will the policy won't be relaxed even further? Thought exercises like this help us appreciate how invested we are in the monoculture that is Github

slavik81 11y ago

In the future, if they decide not to take down some other repository, there will be an implication that they find the content less offensive than this.

niuzeta 11y ago

Because "retard" may not be the last time, but the first. A precedence would be set that a repository may be shut down due to an arbitrary(not the word I'd use here, but for the sake of argument) reason.

paulhodge 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- _ak 11y ago
  Also, euphemism treadmill. "Retard" in the context of medication means that a drug is slowly and continously released into the bloodstream.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
DanBC 11y ago
But that arbitrariness is baked into the user agreement and always has been.

qwreasdfkjhiouy 11y ago

wow, you have to be kidding. Nice troll, almost had me.

onewaystreet 11y ago

The term was being used in the same context as "dummies" is in the "for dummies" books. Do you consider dummies an offensive term? If not, why not?

Retra 11y ago
"Dummy" is very pedestrian term. Compare "shit" and "poo." One is more offensive than the other, even if they are used to mean the same thing in the same context.

kazinator 11y ago

The noun "retard" is not considered profane. I don't think it would have to be bleeped over in broadcast television. It's also a verb which means to slow down. For example, it is necessary to retard the ignition timing of a gasoline engine, and more so at higher RPM, to prevent detonation.

avolcano 11y ago
Oh sure, but that's not the context it was being used here, and there's no indication that this was some sort of automated email that was sent purely because a use of the word was detected. I don't think anyone's out there trying to ban the word "retard" for its non-derogatory usages. Seems like a weird straw-man to worry about.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Yes it is the context! "retard" is a short form of "mentally retarded". Which means slowed down developmentally. The spark plug gaps being a little too wide in the old noggin to fire reliably. This is not like a completely separate context like "fag" (cigarette) versus "fag" (homosexual). The long form "mentally retarded" isn't offensive, yet "mental retard" is so offensive that it violates terms of service and gets you a shutdown threat? Absurd. > there's no indication that this was some sort of automated email that was sent purely because a use of the word was detected. I would find the action less distasteful if it was such a bot. That would still leave open the possibility that the bot isn't expressing its author's intent.
  - Retra 11y ago
    >The long form "mentally retarded" isn't offensive I beg to differ. There's a reason the medical community doesn't use that term anymore.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      Quac^H^H^H^HMedical professionals also don't use "stomach" to denote the abdomen. So what? > any more I.e. they did! Lay people still do. Anyway, what matters here is not the standard used by the medical community. I suspect that if a github project had some code that "assists the mentally retarded", it would not bring on the TOS violation police.

austenallred 11y ago

I don't know, I guess I'm supposed to consider it censorship and be outraged or something? Some people feel entitled to say what they want on any platform they choose and cry "censorship" when their offensive speech is removed. My guess is GH doesn't actively monitor things like this, but someone complained. So they're removing it, and it's just a matter of time before we hear a thousand "slippery slope" arguments.

tomp 11y ago
Anyone who is offended by the word "retard" is an idiot (pun intended).

kentonv 11y ago

Is it offensive? Yes. Does Github have the right to take it down? Yes. Is it unethical for Github to take it down? Not at all. But should they? I don't know, I don't think I would have. It's kind of scary to use cloud services where it's hard to tell if your content might be judged in violation of some rule and might suddenly disappear as a result. If the offensiveness were more extreme (say, a repo dedicated to making fun of the mentally disabled), then yes, remove it... but the actual case here looks pretty benign to me. A poor choice of words, but with no intended malice. Coming down hard in this case looks arbitrary and unexpected, and arbitrary and unexpected rule enforcement is scary. Certainly, though, it's Github's choice what kind of rules they want to enforce and whether or not they care if this scares users.

thedz 11y ago
Your first three questions/answers, summarized, is that "Github ethically and legally removed an offensive word" Should they? Yes. I feel slippery slope arguments get brought up way too much sometimes. Every issue is turning into a binary all-or-nothing ordeal, with no room for nuance or context. As long as what Github did is 1. ethical (removing a generally accepted as offensive word), 2. legal, then I see no problem with it. If, IF Github starts making more arbitrary calls, then I think its the time to be angry or worried.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  It would also be ethical and legal to comb through their hosted content to remove any other words, but I'd argue it's a ret...er...wasteful use of their resources. Also, I must have missed the memo when 'retarded' became "generally accepted as an offensive word". Are "stupid" "moronic" and "idiotic" also offensive? I guess I need to keep up with the times--as soon as I think I've figured out the list of everything that could possibly offend someone, we come up with something else.
  - hhandoko 11y ago
    If you direct it at a particular person, then your intent is to offend, and by all means it is offensive.

JungleGymSam 11y ago

Yes, you should be. The problem is that people (perhaps you) are elevating something marginally offensive to something hateful and worth shutting down at all costs. The dragging down of minor offenses to serious offenses is a dangerous thing. It's surprising how little intellectual honesty there is in modern society. It's even more surprising here that some people (perhaps you) are willing to abandon any rational thinking in favor of their feelings. You seemingly can't comprehend (or are willing to ignore) the logical conclusion to where we're headed. It's ridiculous for GitHub to police the content on their site in this way. Where does it stop? Will they block commits with "trigger" words?

seletz 11y ago
Oh wow -- this is actually a comment which IMO points out the real issue here. This sort of censorship/filter/whatever-you-call-it is bad because it add way too much value to words. So it's not about what is actually said or the context but only about words. By that logic it's completely PC if someone is actually offended but in such a way that no bad words are used. But as soon as a Bad Word (TM) is used -- bam. This is really really dishonest, shallow, and disgusting.
- JungleGymSam 11y ago
  I think there may be a misunderstanding (could be my fault) because I don't know what you're talking about.

Confusion 11y ago

Because they are either wholly capitulating to a vocal minority or feel they are part of that minority. In both cases they are stepping on a slippery slope to insanity. The criterion used for this decision is necessarily wholly arbitrary, as what is deemed offensive differs with time and community. Now you have to worry whether your repo with a fortune file with some offcolor jokes is going to be banned. Whether your use of 'retard' for its original meaning is going to cause problems. Whether any other words I use may have connotations I don't know about