9 ms·

I don't understand how censoring something because "it's offensive to someone" came to be acceptable in the first place. Nearly everything is offensive to someo

I don't understand how censoring something because "it's offensive to someone" came to be acceptable in the first place. Nearly everything is offensive to someone, it's simply too low a bar. I'm certainly not campaigning for more use of the terms "retard" and "retarded". On the other hand, I've experienced first hand the very common, reflexive and thoughtless use of these words. Whenever it's used in my presence I make a point to express my distaste for the term and I encourage others to stop using it. I've gone through these motions with countless co-workers and two people higher up on the management chain, including my direct supervisor. But where I live, it's practically a regional colliquialism. In this case, perhaps removal or correction is reasonable and Github is acting responsibly; I've already established that I have problems with these terms and do find them offensive. Still, I am uncomfortable with the whole episode and I don't feel at all confident that the next time this happens, it will seem as reasonable. On the contrary, I expect that the next time this happens, it will end up being more about ideology as it seems more and more people conflate "I am offended" with "I disagree".

smrtinsert 11y ago
I think that's not giving Github enough credit. They are clearly thinking very deeply about professionalism in a social coding frame, and I really doubt they will begin addressing every single complaint they receive. If they do, again, there are existing alternatives or the people are free to build their own. The alarmism over this "incident" is mind boggling. That people don't simple let Github conduct their business is incomprehensible to me. If I owned a Chipotle and someone came in yelling "retard" or any term I found offensive I would feel fine kicking them out. If the Chipotle down the street thought that was fine, they might get my business, but there is always choice.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  Nobody is running into anywhere and "yelling 'retard'", the equivalent of which would be more akin to posting "RETARD" on comment threads all over GitHub. If that's what was happening, most would regard it as spam and would probably agree that the user should be banned (at least temporarily). That's not what happened. So, while I agree that using "retard" in a lighthearted manner is offensive, and I wouldn't do it myself, I don't decide what others are allowed to say, because I don't want others to decide what I'm allowed to say[1]? Instead, I'll make a choice about who I want to be friends with. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
- grovulent 11y ago
  Github's actions are entirely understandable - I agree. They are just trying to survive as a business. But I don't agree that the resultant alarmism is mind boggling. Folks are becoming increasingly anxious at the ever increasing signalling costs being applied to innocent discourse; applied by people who have little to no institutional authority, and who certainly aren't recognised by folk AS authorities. In response - folk are responding instinctively by upping their own application of signalling costs in retaliation. So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day. What I personally find interesting is that I'm not seeing much discussion about what the real causes of these rising signalling costs are. I kind of expected Hacker News to be interested in that sort of thing - but here, as everywhere else, everyone is just getting caught up in the fever. We are all human I suppose. My favourite explanation is one predicted by various game theoretic models about punishment in human groups. Game theory predicts that as human group sizes increases more people become "punishers" and apply higher signalling costs. I can link to research papers if people request. With the internet - of course - group sizes have increased massively. Furthermore - the economic costs of signalling have dropped dramatically. So we are collectively applying much higher social signalling costs to compensate. I haven't been able to find research that specifically tries to confirm this hypothesis - but various related hypotheses, as well as the game theoretic models that generated them, have obtained significant confirmation. Hence I set high credence for this particular hypothesis of mine (though it does need a much more rigorous formulation).
  - iximeow 11y ago
    I'd be interested in reading those papers.
  - the8472 11y ago
    Interesting analysis. > So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day. First of all, I assume that most people DO move along. After all you don't hear of those who don't say anything. Secondly, perhaps those who do feel compelled to speak do so because they are afraid of being part of a silent majority and thus some group A imposing their standards on everyone because that group A is in conflict with group B. Something like "I don't agree with B's behavior, but I don't agree with A's demands either. I just want to do whatever I do my own way. Please be tolerant, even of things that might offend someone out there".
m_mueller 11y ago
Acceptable by whom? It's a privately owned service, not a democratic platform.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Are we not allowed to criticize the actions of a privately owned service?
kefka 11y ago
What's going on at Github is rather perverse. And it happens to be around the word "Meritocracy". Because of the "feels", the word meritocracy is a 'disempowering word'. It makes people with less skill feel 'less valuable'. So the impetus is to raise your skill? No. It's to devalue others who call you on it, or disregard your uninformed opinion. What this accumulates to is the Github rug in the headquarters. "The United Meritocracy Of GitHub". As quoted, "GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath, a designer who also founded the company's all-female lecture series Passion Projects, said the rug first became a problem when photos of it made their way into feminist discussions online. The tech industry isn’t still predominantly white and male because white men are better at their jobs than everyone else, it’s because many white men have had more opportunities to succeed than their minority and female counterparts." Yep. Because of patriarchy, meritocracy really isn't. Oh, and throw in a bash to Paul Graham. Because 'patriarchy'. And of course, there are also allegations that the Feminist Hackerspace DoubleUnion denied a GH employee because of the rug. Some equality, huh? So, the same cancer that hit Reddit (free speech -> 'safe space') is coming to other companies, unsurprisingly. And we have feminism to blame.
- kefka 11y ago
  Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug Because mobile.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    Thank you for providing this link. Even though the rug story happened last year (somehow I missed it), it is relevant to this thread (and a scary read). Taken together (the attempt at censorship and the rug story) indicates to me that Github seems to be overly preoccupied with political correctness and not keeping their eyes on the ball. If this continues, watch for decreased quality/innovation coming from them as we go.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Feminism is not to blame. Feminism is wonderful and empowering ideology. There is a distinct difference between the ideology of feminism and the behavior of a specific group of feminists. Lumping the two together like that is like blaming Islam for terrorists.
kenrikm 11y ago
As someone pointed out in the thread on Github, the term "Git" is also an offensive term. Who's going to start the petition for Github to change its name? Slippery Slopes Indeed. From Wikipedia: "Git is a mild[1] pejorative with origins in British English for a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person.[2] It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker, arsehole or twat.[1][3][4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)
- nols 11y ago
  That's not the same thing though. Calling someone a git is just calling them stupid, calling someone a retard is saying they're so stupid they're mentally disabled and they should feel ashamed for it. It's pretty insulting towards people with mental disabilities. Even Linus has said he named git after himself because he's so egotistical.
  - sakagami0 11y ago
    Honestly, the definition you provided is on par with what I usual go for when I use the insult directed at someone. And I'm okay with that.
  - dwmtm 11y ago
    You're telling us a lot more about how you use speech in an attempt to shame other people and a lot less about how shaming and insulting 'stupid' is relative to 'so stupid'.
    - nols 11y ago
      The problem is the historical usage of "retard" toward the mentally disabled and the trend to use the word to call not mentally disabled people mentally disabled as an insult. The "mentally disabled as an insult" part is why people don't want "retard" to be used. I don't use either of the words because I'm an adult who isn't British.
      - 11y ago

smrtinsert 11y ago

I think that's not giving Github enough credit. They are clearly thinking very deeply about professionalism in a social coding frame, and I really doubt they will begin addressing every single complaint they receive. If they do, again, there are existing alternatives or the people are free to build their own. The alarmism over this "incident" is mind boggling. That people don't simple let Github conduct their business is incomprehensible to me. If I owned a Chipotle and someone came in yelling "retard" or any term I found offensive I would feel fine kicking them out. If the Chipotle down the street thought that was fine, they might get my business, but there is always choice.

mangeletti 11y ago
Nobody is running into anywhere and "yelling 'retard'", the equivalent of which would be more akin to posting "RETARD" on comment threads all over GitHub. If that's what was happening, most would regard it as spam and would probably agree that the user should be banned (at least temporarily). That's not what happened. So, while I agree that using "retard" in a lighthearted manner is offensive, and I wouldn't do it myself, I don't decide what others are allowed to say, because I don't want others to decide what I'm allowed to say[1]? Instead, I'll make a choice about who I want to be friends with. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
grovulent 11y ago
Github's actions are entirely understandable - I agree. They are just trying to survive as a business. But I don't agree that the resultant alarmism is mind boggling. Folks are becoming increasingly anxious at the ever increasing signalling costs being applied to innocent discourse; applied by people who have little to no institutional authority, and who certainly aren't recognised by folk AS authorities. In response - folk are responding instinctively by upping their own application of signalling costs in retaliation. So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day. What I personally find interesting is that I'm not seeing much discussion about what the real causes of these rising signalling costs are. I kind of expected Hacker News to be interested in that sort of thing - but here, as everywhere else, everyone is just getting caught up in the fever. We are all human I suppose. My favourite explanation is one predicted by various game theoretic models about punishment in human groups. Game theory predicts that as human group sizes increases more people become "punishers" and apply higher signalling costs. I can link to research papers if people request. With the internet - of course - group sizes have increased massively. Furthermore - the economic costs of signalling have dropped dramatically. So we are collectively applying much higher social signalling costs to compensate. I haven't been able to find research that specifically tries to confirm this hypothesis - but various related hypotheses, as well as the game theoretic models that generated them, have obtained significant confirmation. Hence I set high credence for this particular hypothesis of mine (though it does need a much more rigorous formulation).
- iximeow 11y ago
  I'd be interested in reading those papers.
- the8472 11y ago
  Interesting analysis. > So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day. First of all, I assume that most people DO move along. After all you don't hear of those who don't say anything. Secondly, perhaps those who do feel compelled to speak do so because they are afraid of being part of a silent majority and thus some group A imposing their standards on everyone because that group A is in conflict with group B. Something like "I don't agree with B's behavior, but I don't agree with A's demands either. I just want to do whatever I do my own way. Please be tolerant, even of things that might offend someone out there".

m_mueller 11y ago

Acceptable by whom? It's a privately owned service, not a democratic platform.

13thLetter 11y ago
Are we not allowed to criticize the actions of a privately owned service?

kefka 11y ago

What's going on at Github is rather perverse. And it happens to be around the word "Meritocracy". Because of the "feels", the word meritocracy is a 'disempowering word'. It makes people with less skill feel 'less valuable'. So the impetus is to raise your skill? No. It's to devalue others who call you on it, or disregard your uninformed opinion. What this accumulates to is the Github rug in the headquarters. "The United Meritocracy Of GitHub". As quoted, "GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath, a designer who also founded the company's all-female lecture series Passion Projects, said the rug first became a problem when photos of it made their way into feminist discussions online. The tech industry isn’t still predominantly white and male because white men are better at their jobs than everyone else, it’s because many white men have had more opportunities to succeed than their minority and female counterparts." Yep. Because of patriarchy, meritocracy really isn't. Oh, and throw in a bash to Paul Graham. Because 'patriarchy'. And of course, there are also allegations that the Feminist Hackerspace DoubleUnion denied a GH employee because of the rug. Some equality, huh? So, the same cancer that hit Reddit (free speech -> 'safe space') is coming to other companies, unsurprisingly. And we have feminism to blame.

kefka 11y ago
Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug Because mobile.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  Thank you for providing this link. Even though the rug story happened last year (somehow I missed it), it is relevant to this thread (and a scary read). Taken together (the attempt at censorship and the rug story) indicates to me that Github seems to be overly preoccupied with political correctness and not keeping their eyes on the ball. If this continues, watch for decreased quality/innovation coming from them as we go.
shkkmo 11y ago
Feminism is not to blame. Feminism is wonderful and empowering ideology. There is a distinct difference between the ideology of feminism and the behavior of a specific group of feminists. Lumping the two together like that is like blaming Islam for terrorists.

kenrikm 11y ago

As someone pointed out in the thread on Github, the term "Git" is also an offensive term. Who's going to start the petition for Github to change its name? Slippery Slopes Indeed. From Wikipedia: "Git is a mild[1] pejorative with origins in British English for a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person.[2] It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker, arsehole or twat.[1][3][4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

nols 11y ago
That's not the same thing though. Calling someone a git is just calling them stupid, calling someone a retard is saying they're so stupid they're mentally disabled and they should feel ashamed for it. It's pretty insulting towards people with mental disabilities. Even Linus has said he named git after himself because he's so egotistical.
- sakagami0 11y ago
  Honestly, the definition you provided is on par with what I usual go for when I use the insult directed at someone. And I'm okay with that.
- dwmtm 11y ago
  You're telling us a lot more about how you use speech in an attempt to shame other people and a lot less about how shaming and insulting 'stupid' is relative to 'so stupid'.
  - nols 11y ago
    The problem is the historical usage of "retard" toward the mentally disabled and the trend to use the word to call not mentally disabled people mentally disabled as an insult. The "mentally disabled as an insult" part is why people don't want "retard" to be used. I don't use either of the words because I'm an adult who isn't British.
    - 11y ago