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

551–560 of 845 posts

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

#551

Post by cmiles74 »

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".

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

#552

Post by syoc »

thedz wrote: post #116
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…

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "ce…

1. Still censorship.

2. "Github asked the repo to change it." Did github say: Can you please not use the word retarded?. No, they shut down the repo. Huge difference.

3. What a rediculous hill is is quite subjective.

4. Github can improve even though it's not sourceforge. The argument there is no need to fix any problem that is not "truly abusive" does no hold.

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

#553

Post by tempodox »

As a non-“git”, I personally find the association of “git” with “retard” appropriate, correct, and a fair use of free speech.

However, as a private company, GitHub has every right to define their own house rules and enforce them. It might even be mentioned in the Terms of Service somewhere.

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

#554

Post by DanBC »

jazzyk wrote: post #508
DanBC wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gene…

Your child is eating something. You ask if you can try a bit. They laughingly say "no way! These are mine!"

Do you then continue the joke? "stop being such a Jew! Give me a chip!"

Are you saying it's fine to use that word because it's just a joke? It's not a serious insult?

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

#555

Post by deciplex »

02 wrote: post #415
deciplex wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. This is about the dumbest argument in favor of censorship theoretically possible, btw. Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. > 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was o…

> 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.

I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument falls totally flat and completely misses the point.

Probably no one posting in this ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is arguing that Github broke the damn law. Quit pretending otherwise. TIA.

I mean, it's right in what you quoted! Read it again:

> Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.

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

#557

Post by sklogic »

KirinDave wrote: post #547
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.

Hi. I've lived my life with a closeted gender because of words spoken by my parents, friends, and incredulous members of the LGBT community. It lead to depression, frustration, and many wasted opportunities. Now that I am no longer concealing this I still receive regular discouragement that is extremely frustrating. The idea that "words do not cause harm" is so ludicrous. What if I started a rumor that cost you your…

Of course semantics can hurt, obviously. But the choice of synonyms does not, and anyone claiming otherwise must try really hart to prove such an outrageous claim.

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

#558

Post by blerb8 »

monstruoso wrote: post #499
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offence is meaningless. White people are occasionally offended by 'cracker', rich people by other terms, but they don't cause material harm to them. But people of colour are hurt by words like 'n$@!%r".

Words themselves have no meaning. The meaning is derived by the intention and context. It is perfectly correct to use nigger in some context. Just look at Louis CK or George Carlin. Actually George Carlin made a bit about the word nigger and he made pretty good arguments against the American obsession with "bad" words. The Americans have a very childish attitude towards this, I haven't seen any country were adults re…

Linguist here: you haven't seen much, this "obsession" is inherent to language itself and has a name of its own: connotation. Connotation is everything associated with a word, denotation is what the word actually means. But denotation doesn't override connotation, they coexist. If anything, connotation can change denotation, while connotation changes independently from denotation.

So what's the difference between saying nigger and meaning nigger? When you're saying nigger, you give away the option of not meaning nigger, because you cannot use the word free of its connotation: it's there, no matter how you use it. Dogwhistle terms used instead of nigger do not have that universal connotation to them, which is precisely why they are used: they can slip under the radar.

So what to do? Honestly, this is extremely simple: don't say nigger if you don't want people to equate what you're saying with the connotation your words carry. And the same goes for retard: if you don't want people to equate your words with the hate directed at people with mental health issues, don't use words whose connotation is limited to that hate. The denotation of "Sieg Heil" is completely harmless, but you have no problem with understanding its connotation and you don't go around saying it when the denotation fits because you know that only Nazis say "Sieg Heil".

Well, only assholes say retarded or retard. That's the connotation you're associating yourself with and no matter how much you complain about being misunderstood and people being too PC, you just messed up by not paying attention to the connotation of the word.

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

#559

Post by DanBC »

kefka wrote: post #535
huu wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

When I see someone who doesn't care about language I think the following: "I'm too stupid and lazy to use language creatively so I'll fall back on my stupid and lazy language. I can say what I like, and I'm going to try to deny you the same right. Some bollocks about SJWs and Leftists goes here".

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

#560

Post by KirinDave »

otherusername2 wrote: post #227
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…

Personally I think this is censorship because Github holds power in the development world. Basically every developer is on Github. I switched from Bitbucket to github not because Github is better, but because it's basically open source suicide NOT to be on Github. Disabling a repo because they don't agree with a word in it seems like an abuse of that power to me. So basically, I feel it's censorship because Github ho…

Why is the word "censorship" the problem here? Of course it is. Github is censoring what it is willing to host. This is roughly akin to you or I selecting which papers we'll read tonight, or which speakers we'd like to hear in a conference, or which links we'd like to include as related work on a blog post. Or which book we'd give to a friend.

The western world has a lot of implicit censorship going on that we think is unfairly applied en masse, and that's where we start to see a problem. Women, for example, are consistently and provably discriminated against in a variety of ways in these subtle decisions. This creates a general vacuum of their input in our field (and many others!).

Actions like this help to remove said implicit bias and apply the censorship principles we use in our daily lives more fairly, giving us a more accurate picture of the world without having to listen to every single voice.

Post reply on HN