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

531–540 of 845 posts

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

#531

Post by realityking »

golergka wrote: post #402
realityking wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is not by defintion done by the government. It's perfectly correct to say "GitHub is censoring X on their platform". Now censorship by the government is a much worse act, because you can't just go become a citizen of another country, but it's still censorship if a compay does it.

OK, we seem to have a problem with definitions. I use definition of "censorship" that people use when they think that "censorship is bad". Because this definition implies that this kind of censorship affects everyone and they can't do anything about it. The other definition of censorship, that also includes private companies and people restricting some materials in their own domain can also be used — that seems to be…

Let's take this a step furher, for arguments sake.

Say blogger.com or wordpress.com would delete any mention of police violence because, well, that offensive to many people. Is that censorship? If not, what should I call it?

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

#532

Post by greiskul »

Panino wrote: post #102

Lots of misuse of the word "censorship" here and any time this subject comes up generally, not just on this site but anywhere the topic is discussed. What is/are the root issue(s) of this mistaken belief? I typed a few possibilities but they sounded preposterous so I just deleted all that. Could someone who thinks this is censorship please explain why Github doesn't have the right to control its own privately owned w…

The Comics Code Authority was not part of the government, but it was a censor. Can you explain your use of the word censorship to only mean when the government does it? And sure, it's just one single website, it's in their rights to do that. And then another website. And suddenly it's the entire industry, and if you dare oppose it you will be blacklisted and boycotted.

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

#533

Post by Karunamon »

madeofpalk wrote: post #501
tux3 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

When people say "freedom of speech" and they're not talking about a government entity, it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about the principle enshrined in the first amendment, not the first amendment itself.

Considering that The Internet as a whole is basically amounts to a whole lot of interconnected, other people's (back yards/restaurants/other poor analogies for physical spaces), saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.

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

#535

Post by kefka »

huu wrote: post #495
yummyfajitas wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you're a person who hates women who happens upon a repo that uses "she" as the universal gender. Perhaps you would have contributed to that repository and now you won't. Is it therefore "harmful" to use "she" as universal gender? "People with biases might not like it" gives basically everyone a heckler's veto. Now I recognize that you don't actually plan to give everyone with a bias such a veto - only the peo…

This is a valid point. I don't really have a response to it other than, I know people like the one I asked y'all to imagine, but I'm having trouble thinking of anyone I know who might fit your imaginary person's description. You're probably right that this betrays a bias of mine. And you're also probably right that this isn't a great guiding principle for decision-making in the future. Still, if I'm interested in inc…

When I think of someone who is "offended", I think the following:

"Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you."

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

#536

Post by rmxt »

sklogic wrote: post #452
huu wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you're a parent who happens upon a repo that uses the word "retard" as a replacement for "stupid person" or "idiot". You also happen to have a mentally disabled child. Perhaps you would have contributed to that repository and now you won't. That seems materially harmful to me, to reduce the sum total of people contributing to open source. Compare that to the potential of falling down a slippery slope to "tota…

Elsewhere in this thread you can find a comment from a brother of a mentally handicapped person who explains why he'd prefer the term 'retard'. So it's not that simple. I suspect that rational people (i.e., worthy contributors) won't take offence that easy. > Compare that to the potential of falling down a slippery slope to "total censorship" This is not a "potential". We're already rolling down that path with a very…

The only intolerance society should promote is the intolerance of intolerant beliefs. Bucketing people off as "rational people" and "worthy contributors" because they disagree with your beliefs is an unfortunate way of dismissing conversation, probably something that you dislike when people that oppose your beliefs do it. That is, I'd say that claiming that all "rational people" would agree with you is minimally different than when "SJWs" cry "homophobe" to "polarize" discussion.

Also, how does the partial social ostracizing of the people you've listed amount to censorship? In the case of the first two, I'd say that their beliefs amount to censorship of another group of people. Don't want to allow a certain segment of the population to do the same thing that other segments already do? Sounds like censorship to me. For the latter two, I would say that those are probably unfortunate cases of a trigger-happy outrage-seeking media machine, that hones in on soundbites and screenshots. I do think that people can choose their words/attire/actions more carefully to be more inclusive of all, but I don't think we should crucify people when they fail to do that.

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

#537

Post by hga »

fluidcruft wrote: post #503
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.

It you're using Chrome or Chromium, this extension provides that plus after a refresh orange bars indicating new postings: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodle...

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

#538

Post by kefka »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #277
BetaMechazawa wrote: post #47

This obsession with making every single website a hugbox these days is moronic. The word retard/retarded is seldom associated with actual retardation instead it's just a synonym for moron. Even if you dissagree with that you should still be able to see that even if we did s/retard/moron/ or replaced it with git, idiot etc it would still violate the TOS.

Even the words "moron", "idiot", etc. all have an etymological root in referring to the mentally handicapped. I, for one, will think twice about relying on Github in the future if they try to police what is and isn't appropriate language.

Just use "double plus unsmart".

Or retard. Because I've dealt with retarded compilers and libraries before.

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

#539

Post by j-pb »

As somebody who has multiple sclerosis and thus the prospect of disability (both physically and mentally), I find this trend worrying.

I have other things to worry about than "bad words", I could spontaneously loose my vision, my ability to walk, type, speak, swallow or to breath, in addition to a variety of cognitive impairments. What keeps me up at night is wether that tingling in my hand is just because I lay on it or because my immune system destroys my brain again, not wether or not somebody used "retard" or "spastic" online.

It makes me sad and angry that people can act and feel as if they've done something for the handicapped by being offended at some word, while they have literally done nothing to improve the lives of those affected. I wish more people would put their time and energy into improving medicine, wheelchairs & exoskeletons, and social-programs.

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

#540

Post by seanhandley »

The word itself isn't the problem. It's the context in which a word is used which makes it offensive.

If it's being directed at someone intentionally then you have a case for offensive behaviour. In the context here, it looks passive enough to me.

Post reply on HN