GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard' • Hacker News Board

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

#671

Post by sklogic » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

rmxt wrote: post #536

sklogic wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diff…

Did I get it right that you support the shitstorm against Eich and Card?

In my book, SJWs are by far much more evil and destructive than anyone from my list.

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

#672

Post by Fishman343 » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #450

jonah wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Martin Niemöller's quote[1] is an important one, possibly even more so today than when he first said it. We're so caught up in our own selfish bubbles, we're failing to consider those around us. There are many variations of the saying - several from himself, but the best known version goes: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionis…

Ah yes, the famous quote about Nazi Germany. So, do people use the same quote about how the German government banned Nazi symbols in the aftermath of that? Oh wait, no they don't. I wonder why that might be.

There's an enormous difference between banning things with direct links to the murder of more than 6 million people, in the hope that no-one gets hurt in the years immediately after the event, and the banning of a word which hurt tens of people's feelings over the internet.

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

#673

Post by Retra » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #516

Retra wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick biology lesson: stomachs and abdomens are different things. The stomach is an organ inside the abdomen, and the abdomen is a region of the body. >I.e. they did! Lay people still do. As do rude people. Here's what you can do: invent a time machine and go back to a time when the term wasn't offensive. Then your statement that the term isn't offensive will be true. Right now, it isn't. >Anyway, what matters here i…

Check this out: http://www.wowktv.com/story/29652314/missing-mentally-retard... The URL has "retarded" in it! And Google's index still has the original article text, which uses the term in the body. They changed it to "challenged". "Officers are looking for a mentally retarded man they say walked away from a supervised group home where he was ordered to stay." "Mentally retarded" isn't so offensive that a TV station…

The line between insensitive and offensive is so blurry, it would be extremely difficult to make any consistent distinction between the two. It would effectively reduce the discussion to definitional pedantry.

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

#674

Post by hga » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

simeonf wrote: post #617

bduerst wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Worst xkcd ever. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ is a decent reply if less pithy.

For pithy, I prefer this reply: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w33mawVRXdE/VL6Wd6Bc3rI/AAAAAAAABE...

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

#675

Post by sklogic » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #561

sklogic wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"idiot" is not a synonym for the word in question here. This is similar to saying that "t *ny" and "transsexual" are synonyms. They're not. Let me give you an example of how referring to you in an insulting way can change your attitudes and discourage conversation. 1. Words have a lesser impact on you because you've [a lucky person] who doesn't live a life were they have been used to deny you opportunity and basic hu…

No, "idiot" is exactly a synonym, in even a strictest definition. And both versions of your sentence are equally wrong, deliberately misleading and twisted. Words have absolutely nothing to do with "opportunities" and "basic humanity".

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

#676

Post by sklogic » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #571

sklogic wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 housi…

People with learning disability have been the target of eugenics in various forms. They've been subjected to sterilisation sometimes without their knowledge and sometimes against their will. They've been interned in segregated care homes. They've been murdered - either directly killed because they have LD or allowed to die by doctors refusing to provide medical care or placing DNR notices without the patient's (or th…

And how exactly did you manage to draw a connection between these outrageous facts and a use of an innocent derogatory language?

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

#677

Post by sklogic » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #554

jazzyk wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ever been to Odessa? An epic butthurt is guaranteed from an Odessan Jewish peculiar humour.

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

#678

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #372

bduerst wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Defending your position by citing that comic is basically the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling argument you can make for GitHub's actions is that they weren't illegal. (For anyone who doesn't get the reference, look at the hovertext on that xkcd.)

[deleted]

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

#679

Post by PopeOfNope » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 6:10 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #652

PopeOfNope wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust my livelihood to the need to say offensive things, either. You're trusting your livelihood to the idea that other people won't willfully misinterpret innocent phrasing on your part for their 2 minutes outrage. And typically, when one's brain stops understanding analogies, that's a pretty good sign it isn't working at all. So get some rest and think about it when you're in better condition. Aww, your arg…

We both understand each other's argument. There's something more interesting going on underneath the surface arguments; values and priorities. You are taking what I say in rhetoric, interpreting it literally, and throwing it back in my face. That is dishonest and hypocritical at best. The reason there is something wrong with you is because you have no intention of solving any problems here, you are attempting to beat…

Oh dear, it seems I've touched a nerve. You still haven't demonstrated you understand me or my position at all. This is amusing. I have a checklist of typical strategies employed by the intellectually dishonest and you're hitting one after the other. You're up to 'projection' on my list.

You are taking what I say in rhetoric, interpreting it literally, and throwing it back in my face.

That's because I'm arguing facts (dialectic) and you're arguing emotion (rhetoric), the exact thing you accuse me of doing. Hmm. Isn't that interesting.

Your priority here is winning the argument.

If that was true, I wouldn't still be typing. I'm not trying to convince you or win an argument. I'm trying to convince anyone who might be reading but not participating. That and I'm curious how many more items I'll get to check off my list. I'm a programmer. I love systems and patterns, even psychological ones.

Well, you've won. ... Now interpret that as sarcasm, throw it in my face, and get the last word in; your feelings are more important than anything I have to say.

You start arguing the facts again and I'll stop mocking you. It's pretty simple. But based on my previous interactions with the intellectually dishonest, you're either going to run away now or posture as if you've already won the argument or fall back on the "don't hit me, i'm a girl[0]" defense. If you're extremely talented, all three at the same time.

[0]: not literally a girl, but somebody generally weaker than me who needs protecting.

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

#680

Post by Snesker » Wed, Jul 29, 2015, 6:11 PM UTC

thedz wrote: post #151

forrestthewoods wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in the cartoon. If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're retarded. You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.

I think where the confusion comes from is that along with many cries of "censorship", there is often a subtext of "this is illegal" or "this is not allowed".

I've seen that used as a straw-man in this thread over 10 times so far and not a single person who thought what github did was illegal. I'm forced wonder if insane overreactions of the people who think free speech only means the American law are part of some social conditioning project to destroy non-progressive principles. I shouldn't have to. For all the back-patting the users on HN gives themselves they sure are dumb as bricks. Also, with the notion that the subtext of it being illegal being present - I've never seen it once. In the 23 years I've been alive I've never once seen someone say corporate censorship was illegal. Heh. I'm angrier than this text reads, breh.