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

GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 845 posts

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#501

Post by madeofpalk »

tux3 wrote: post #444
02 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. You never had the freedom of speech you think you have. You never had the right to say what you like in my house without getting kicked out, and you never had the right to say 'retard' on GitHub. Sorry. You can mourn its loss now if you like.

We do, however, have the right to complain about it and take our business elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would see a problem with that.

...sure, but freedom of 'using whatever source code hosting provider' is a different (legal) concept as 'freedom of speech'.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#502

Post by njharman »

Lazare wrote: post #105
CoryG89 wrote: post #40

For people who don't see what's wrong here. The issue is not about whether the word 'retard' is or is not offensive to anyone. You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories. This is censorship plain and simple, something that IMO has no place in open source. The issue is that there are plenty of things some people might find offensive on GitHub but you dont…

Github is not a public service; they're a private company. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. That's how that works. If you prefer you could try and lobby your government to set up some sort of national source code repo. Maybe you'd find the rules on such a thing more to your liking. (Note: You really, really wouldn't.) Alternatively, you could host your own source code repos, and then you can…

> > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? > Github does. That's how that works.

In practice, for Github and most companies, it is their customers who decide. Companies are beholden to their customer's for existence. That is why they pay so much for PR (trying to mold their customer's opinions into ones favorable to the company).

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#503

Post by fluidcruft »

CoryG89 wrote: post #40

For people who don't see what's wrong here. The issue is not about whether the word 'retard' is or is not offensive to anyone. You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories. This is censorship plain and simple, something that IMO has no place in open source. The issue is that there are plenty of things some people might find offensive on GitHub but you dont…

It's threads like these that remind me that reddit's ability to collapse entire threads is priceless.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#504

Post by sklogic »

DanBC wrote: post #469
sklogic wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's about using a word that causes harm Words do not cause harm. It's a slippery slope to total censorship and thought policing to think otherwise.

Words do cause harm. It's a failure of imagination to think otherwise. When you use the word retard you dehumanise people with LD. You contribute to a culture where it's okay to deny those people work; to segregate them in specialist housing; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them with lack of medical treatment. It's a slippery slope to eugenics and genocide to think otherwise.

> When you use the word retard you dehumanise people with LD.

No. When I use the word "retard" I'm pointing out on a lack of mental ability demonstrated by a particular person. And I do not even want to discuss anything that contains the SJW newspeak like "dehumanise", "empower", "exclude" and all that crap.

> You contribute to a culture where it's okay to deny those people work; to segregate them in specialist housing; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them with lack of medical treatment.

Your imagination is likely boosted by an illegal substances abuse.

> It's a slippery slope to eugenics

Yes, another victim of the early SJWs. There is nothing wrong with the idea of eugenics per se, problems arise with its potential uses. I admire the eugenics efforts of Singapore, for example, and will be delighted to see where it all goes.

> and genocide to think otherwise.

It's a bullshit scaremongering to put these two words in one sentence.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#505

Post by njharman »

thedz wrote: post #177

Can I take a moment to just point out the silliness of worrying about the censoring or suppression of content in a distributed source control system? The very nature of git means you can just clone the repo and do whatever you want to it.

You are confusing and commingling git with Github. Even though one uses the other they are very much not the same thing conceptually or practically.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#506

Post by morganvachon »

palmer_eldritch wrote: post #493
morganvachon wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Downvoting isn't equal to censorship. Except when it is. Given sufficient downvotes, a post will fade to the same color as the background, making it easy to scroll past and not see it. Whether you want to admit it or not, brigading happens here too, and once in a while a perfectly valid, thoughtful, and reasoned response is silenced because it doesn't fit in with the group mentality here. The only solution for this…

> Except when it is. Given sufficient downvotes, a post will fade to the same color as the background, making it easy to scroll past and not see it. It doesn't change anything. The content is still available for anyone to see if they want to. Censorship is about making content unavailable. Not giving the exact same visibility to everything out there isn't censorship. Or upvoting is also a form of censorship, since it…

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, attempting to whitewash something you don't agree with is censorship, and Merriam-Webster agrees with me, given their definition of "censor" means to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (emphasis mine):

"Full Definition of CENSOR transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable "[1]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#507

Post by shkkmo »

DanBC wrote: post #335
scarlson wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also gladly index and help you find brainfuck repos. I can't say fuck on TV, but it's ok on Github. I can't say retard on Github, but it's ok on TV. I'm glad we've accomplished something here.

Doesn't that reassure you? Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. TV is a poor example: it's fine to make jokes about male rape on TV, but everyone loses their shit when an obscured nipple is shown.

'retarded' in it's current usage is not offensive. It means "very foolish or stupid."

'retarded' in it's dated usage is offensive, but it wasn't being used in that sense in the repo in question. This dated usage has fortunately fallen pretty much completely out of common usage.

If I tell you "my brother is retarded" you know exactly what I mean because if I had wanted to tell you that my brother has a learning disability I would have used a different word than 'retarded'.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#508

Post by jazzyk »

DanBC wrote: post #469
sklogic wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's about using a word that causes harm Words do not cause harm. It's a slippery slope to total censorship and thought policing to think otherwise.

Words do cause harm. It's a failure of imagination to think otherwise. When you use the word retard you dehumanise people with LD. You contribute to a culture where it's okay to deny those people work; to segregate them in specialist housing; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them with lack of medical treatment. It's a slippery slope to eugenics and genocide to think otherwise.

You guys may be thinking about two different contexts:

1. calling someone with a disability a retard (which I would never, ever do)

2. using the word "retarded" in a generic sense. For example: I may have called my kids retarded, in exasperation, for doing something nonsensical. Not elegant, but has been used as a figure of speech, of sorts, for ever.

My problem with censoring words (and political correctness in general) is that it is an overly simplistic intent to make the world a gentler place - even if you forbid people from saying/writing certain words, you will not change how they think/behave.

Nobody dares to use the n... word, but there are still a lot of racists (and reverse-racists, it needs to be said) out there. The only way to fix it is education and culture - no other way around it.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#510

Post by kazagistar »

shadowmint wrote: post #351
otherusername2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting.

Frankly, good. I honestly have no issue with people managing to contain their own righteous opinions (for either side of the debate) and not smash thousands of characters of spam and spam images into issue trackers. That's not what they're for. If the issue doesn't affect you directly (and it doesnt ), and you're not a contributor to the project, then dont get involved . There are places for discussions to happen. Gi…

The issue of someone else getting censored affects everyone who might also get censored. Being silent about injustice against others, just because it does not affect you, is umwise.
Post reply on HN