5 ms·

Your first three questions/answers, summarized, is that "Github ethically and legally removed an offensive word" Should they? Yes. I feel slippery slope argu

by 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.
  - renata 11y ago
    So not at all in the case of this repo?
    - hhandoko 11y ago
      Merely clarifying parent's post on what is construed as offensive (when it is directed at someone, especially to incite a reaction). As I've mentioned in my other comments, I get that the author is just having fun... But: - not everyone will see it that way - it will reflect poorly on the author and GitHub So, in short, just be careful of what you put out in public. If we can all agree on a code of conduct (and maintaining civility), then we shouldn't be having this conversation ever again :)
kodablah 11y ago
I think the slippery slope argument is justified here. Things like "offensive" and "arbitrary calls" are fairly subjective. Of course GitHub can do what they want, but it is quite noteworthy to point out that they are policing offensive words now. They have a lot of work to do[0]. 0 - https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard
kentonv 11y ago
I'm not making any slippery slope argument. I'm saying that if it's hard to predict what minor infractions might result in 24-hour ultimatums, then that's going to make users uncomfortable, and that a lot of users wouldn't have predicted that this particular case would lead to a 24-hour ultimatum. If the ultimatum were, say, 30 days, then I think it's in the realm that I consider sensible. That's long enough to get back from vacation without finding all your stuff is gone. The file had been there over a year, so surely it wasn't that urgent. Maybe they could have sent an auto-generated pull request to make things easier.
- lsaferite 11y ago
  It was worse than a 24 hours ultimatum. The original got the notice and apparently never replied (due to abandonment?) which caused GH to disable the repo AND THE FORKS. The Fork owners were NOT notified. In fact, the problem was only resolved when a fork owner contacted GH and got the repo enabled 3 days later.
Confusion 11y ago
That word is not generally accepted as offensive. If you believe that, you live in an echo box dominated by politically correct SJWs. You also completely forget the world isn't limited to the US and other cultures consider the equivalent of the word entirely differently. 'The Dummy guide to ...' can be more offensive than 'The retards guide to ...'.
manish_gill 11y ago
You are quick to summarize how Github is justified in doing this in an utterly benign case and yet are talking about nuance. I don't see any nuance here at all. 1. This itself was an arbitrary call. 2. So the issue needs to escalate to a certain arbitrary number in order for you to be worried? One person's repo getting fucked over is not enough, you want it to happen to 20?

by thedz 11y ago

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.
- renata 11y ago
  So not at all in the case of this repo?
  - hhandoko 11y ago
    Merely clarifying parent's post on what is construed as offensive (when it is directed at someone, especially to incite a reaction). As I've mentioned in my other comments, I get that the author is just having fun... But: - not everyone will see it that way - it will reflect poorly on the author and GitHub So, in short, just be careful of what you put out in public. If we can all agree on a code of conduct (and maintaining civility), then we shouldn't be having this conversation ever again :)

kodablah 11y ago

I think the slippery slope argument is justified here. Things like "offensive" and "arbitrary calls" are fairly subjective. Of course GitHub can do what they want, but it is quite noteworthy to point out that they are policing offensive words now. They have a lot of work to do[0]. 0 - https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard

kentonv 11y ago

I'm not making any slippery slope argument. I'm saying that if it's hard to predict what minor infractions might result in 24-hour ultimatums, then that's going to make users uncomfortable, and that a lot of users wouldn't have predicted that this particular case would lead to a 24-hour ultimatum. If the ultimatum were, say, 30 days, then I think it's in the realm that I consider sensible. That's long enough to get back from vacation without finding all your stuff is gone. The file had been there over a year, so surely it wasn't that urgent. Maybe they could have sent an auto-generated pull request to make things easier.

lsaferite 11y ago
It was worse than a 24 hours ultimatum. The original got the notice and apparently never replied (due to abandonment?) which caused GH to disable the repo AND THE FORKS. The Fork owners were NOT notified. In fact, the problem was only resolved when a fork owner contacted GH and got the repo enabled 3 days later.

Confusion 11y ago

That word is not generally accepted as offensive. If you believe that, you live in an echo box dominated by politically correct SJWs. You also completely forget the world isn't limited to the US and other cultures consider the equivalent of the word entirely differently. 'The Dummy guide to ...' can be more offensive than 'The retards guide to ...'.

manish_gill 11y ago

You are quick to summarize how Github is justified in doing this in an utterly benign case and yet are talking about nuance. I don't see any nuance here at all. 1. This itself was an arbitrary call. 2. So the issue needs to escalate to a certain arbitrary number in order for you to be worried? One person's repo getting fucked over is not enough, you want it to happen to 20?