261–270 of 845 posts
It's not the word that's offensive, but rather the insult. Is it offensive to say "retard the cam by 15 degrees"?
(Your English is very good, but maybe you don't speak English as a first language?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'Retard' has no meaning or use? Homonyms are not the same word, you ridiculous caricature.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they knew it was offensive - to others. There is no indication that it actually offended them . Which, unless it did, it's not the same thing.
They are caricaturists, nothing can offend them. You miss the point of their reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a nice look at this list and let me know if you'd like to ban all of these too. After all, they have context and actual loaded meanings, and in many cases represent hundreds of years of oppression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnic...
It's as if we as humans have some kind of context-sensitive language recognition capability, and can tell when a word is being used as a slur or if it has entirely unrelated meanings. We're slightly smarter than regular expressions. And yes, I'd fully expect Github to ban those too.
What sacrifice have you ever made toward the right of no race, person, or condition to not be offended?
What makes you so holier-than-thou, you can think it's ok to sit behind the keyboard like God and quash whatever idea runs contrary to your psyche?
There is a whole website called Twitter, where people act very pompous, very pious, but seldom have the fortitude to trouble themselves to help what they "fighting for". Kind of like how Occupy Wallstreet drank Coca Cola and brought iPhones to protests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they knew it was offensive - to others. There is no indication that it actually offended them . Which, unless it did, it's not the same thing.
They are caricaturists, nothing can offend them. You miss the point of their reasoning.
Then they didn't die to protect speech they were offended by. I don't know how much clearer this can be.
It's particularly ironic to see this coming from a site named Git Hub: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/git#Etymology_1 IMHO as far as offensiveness is concerned, 'retard' is pretty far down the scale... and regardless of whether they have the right to do this, I think this whole "politically correct" movement is a pretty disturbing trend. It's basically encouraging people to become offended more easily, and turns stra…
Large organisations have such policies because they are aware that they are composed of people from diverse set of backgrounds. Unless you know exactly who the message is intended to, the delivery will always sounds vague / generic.
Before coming to Australia, I never knew that showing picture(s) of a deceased Aboriginal person is a cause of offense. If, say for example, a fatality occurred and the last group photo with the deceased Aboriginal was circulated (e.g. in memoriam memo), they would regard it as an offense even with the best of intentions.
TL,DR; Let's just be respectful and not call each other names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't use Twitter. You should pay attention to what's happening over there. It's a good preview for what's coming. Nor are they preventing anyone from getting it or using it. You have an odd view of banning. Yes, that does prevent anyone from getting it or using it. That's like saying banning a book doesn't prevent anyone from getting it or reading it. People will find a way, but that doesn't mean we should enc…
I don't need to use Twitter. Every time something interesting happens through twitter, people flock to forums and blogs to talk about it. Because Twitter is not a platform for mature, reasonable discussions. It's for self-promotion and advertising. >Yes, that does prevent anyone from getting it or using it. That's like saying banning a book doesn't prevent anyone from getting it or reading it. GitHub didn't ban anyth…
Good job avoiding the argument altogether for this particularly uninteresting non-sequitur. You don't trust your livelihood to being able to take your shoes off at a friend's house.
It's kind of scary how many people here consider the word retard offensive. I assume words like "fucker" or "dicks" would also trigger you? I get that Github as a private corporation gets to decide what they want or don't want but that's driven on how many people genuinely get offended so I'm assuming a large portion of people genuinely got bothered by this compared to all the other shit happening in the world.
We're not discussing about private conversation between two friends. I would be offended if a stranger said that to me. Wouldn't you? Of course, I can see that this is done for laughs, but not everyone sees that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are caricaturists, nothing can offend them. You miss the point of their reasoning.
> nothing can offend them Then they didn't die to protect speech they were offended by. I don't know how much clearer this can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech isn't just a legality. It's a valuable principal that's stood the test of time of being one of the few core features of functional societies. Free speech is a value that we should all uphold regardless whether it legally applies or not. So stop making excuses for bad corporate behaviour.
"Free Speech" isn't a blank check to say and do whatever you want. Even SCOTUS says that direct threats of violence aren't protected by the first amendment. I'm tired of reading people nebulously defining "free speech philosophies" online to act as a shield to justify nefarious behavior on private property. Free speech exists as a protection from government censorship, and it doesn't protect you for acting like a dic…
This thread has been very instructive for me. I've come to the conclusion that you either get free speech as a social virtue or you don't. It's clear to me that most people don't and even can't understand it from that point of view.
What that XKCD comic doesn't even consider is what happens when you're the one being shown the door? Would you go quietly?