Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#31

Post by dotBen »

Mz wrote: post #24
Ahmes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought... Whether or not you are genuinely naïve about the terms connotations, I suspect there is a perception that you are trolling. This is in part because the original author of the package expressed the same kind of (artificial) shock when people expressed their concern over the name and responded in a very passive aggressive manner.

Ah, thanks. No, I'm genuinely naive in that regard. I got married young and raised two special needs kids who needed all my time. So for many years, if it wasn't appropriate viewing for a small child, I was not exposed to it. And that's exactly my point: I'm fairly well read and had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either. And when you start a convers…

[I] had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either.

The original author, when challenged, renamed the package to 'Misaka', an Anime character portrayed as an 11-year old who is often depicted graphically from an upskirt angle (its all pretty unsavory, frankly).

Point is... original author clearly knew what he was doing with these package names.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#32

Post by Mz »

dotBen wrote: post #25
Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule. Innocent on the part of the cel…

Well, honestly, I consider that relatively innocent on the part of the photographer as well, at least compared to some of the harassing things the paparazzi do. If you are a celebrity and in public, you know they are taking pictures. It's not unexpected, surprising, "gee I had no idea the paparazzi would be at the award ceremony". I consider it to be a lot more obnoxious when celebrities are harassed at home, their trash is gone through and so on. Taking a picture of a celebrity at a public event where they know they will be photographed and lucking out and capitalizing on it really doesn't strike me as evil behavior. Though I realize that Arabs found it very offensive when American publications showed some middle-eastern public figure in his t-shirt -- which I imagine is kind of like a "pantyshot" to their minds: it's his underclothes, it's too intimate and it's disrespectful. It wasn't intended that way by the Americans who published it. It never crossed anyone's mind here that a man in a t-shirt was risque.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#34

Post by dlss »

> It’s not that the names were simply sexual in nature: it was that they targeted a women over the very thing that makes them a minority in the Python community in the first place: you could call it a sexual exploit.

I don't understand this part -- what is she saying causes women to be a minority in the Python community?

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#35

Post by ignifero »

possibilistic wrote: post #20
ignifero wrote: post #16

There's another domain where predominantly white males give arbitrary names: Physics. While there are many examples of funny or quirky names there, none of them is offensive. For the extra reason that the innuendo loses its humor after the first time you use it, and these names are meant to stick indefinately. P.S. Also Biology, but these people are not even comfortable with sonic the hedgehog.

Biologist here. The Drosophila community is rife with humorous (and sometimes offensive) gene names like "Cheap Date" (ethanol sensitivity), "Ken and Barbie" (genitalia fail to develop), and "Fruity" (male fruit flies show no attraction to females) -- that one was so controversial it got renamed "fruitless". http://flybase.org/reports/FBgn0004652.html The research communities for organisms such as E. coli tend to thi…

Wow, i didn't know fruity was a slang word for gay. But see, the community changed it eventhough it's a milder case than the one presented here (as "pantyshot" presumably refers to a non-consensual/harassment act (not that i am not sympathetic to gay drosophilas))

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#36

Post by Mz »

antihero wrote: post #26
Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

If you are famous and attending a public event, you are well aware they will take photos. If you don't want your panties published, you should take appropriate measures to avoid flashing them. It is possible to do that. If they invade your home and take photos of you in your back yard or something, sure, sue the hell out of them. But a famous person at a public event is very often seeking publicity and looking to be photographed, not trying to avoid it. So I fail to see your point.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#37

Post by duodecim »

Harkins wrote: post #4

I look at the choice of "Misaka" after "pantyshot" and think this is unambiguously an example for talking about the recent topic of not tolerating assholes in open source software.

Man spends hours developing free software for the world and gives it a tongue in cheek name. World judges man and software by name, wants the software out of repository and the man gone from the planet.

I think John Cleese would like to send you all to the front line of a gruesome war – in panties, of course – to learn to deal with an actual problem.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#38

Post by Mz »

dotBen wrote: post #31
Mz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thanks. No, I'm genuinely naive in that regard. I got married young and raised two special needs kids who needed all my time. So for many years, if it wasn't appropriate viewing for a small child, I was not exposed to it. And that's exactly my point: I'm fairly well read and had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either. And when you start a convers…

[I] had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either. The original author, when challenged, renamed the package to 'Misaka', an Anime character portrayed as an 11-year old who is often depicted graphically from an upskirt angle (its all pretty unsavory, frankly) . Point is... original author clearly knew what he was doing with these package names.

Point is... original author clearly knew what he was doing with these package names.

That seems very likely, but from what I have read so far, all the evidence is circumstantial and guilt is being inferred. So it is still possible it's a stupid mistake. Seriously. (Perhaps there is damning, definitive evidence out there. But what I have read so far contains no smoking gun.)

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#39

Post by cheez »

dotBen wrote: post #25
Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule. Innocent on the part of the cel…

If I was going somewhere and I didn't want people to see my elbow, I'd wear a long sleeved shirt.

Edit: This is specifically for celebrities/public people. I do agree that taking pictures of random girls in this manner is an invasion of privacy however the same common sense rule applies.

Post reply on HN