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

761–770 of 845 posts

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

#761

Post by mehwoot »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #164
mehwoot wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information The argument is it isn't suppression because as a private company, people can still choose to engage in that speech elsewhere. The government can actually make laws to stop people from saying certain things in any context. When a private company does it, they can only do it in the medium they control and for people who choose to use th…

From the same wiki article you're quoting from - "Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship" It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.

It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.

If they have enough control over a medium to effectively suppress speech, then yes. The argument is whether that is the case here. The definition of censorship is not merely "any case where someone prevents someone from saying something". The bar is higher than that.

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

#762

Post by learnstats2 »

deciplex wrote: post #310
thedz wrote: post #116

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. 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. 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.

No, it really does, for most people. For example, you don't have the right to publish in the New York Times.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard.

Corporations love the first amendment because they get to set the narrative without interference.

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

#763

Post by gambler »

DanBC wrote: post #476
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. No it doesn't. Where's your proof? Plenty of people have said plenty of nasty things throughout the years, and no one died. Yet our empire uses remote control drones to bomb small children, and that's totally OK. (Now there's a real "culture that causes actual harm") What is really harmful, and what isn't? Take a good, hard look around. Sticks and…

There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD. There are cases of people who have attempted suicide because of bullying based on their LD. These are significant because people with LD are under-represented in suicide statistics. > Try it. Go on. Call me whatever you want. And watch me not give two fucks what you think. Next time you need medical treatment to keep you alive…

There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD.

You cannot solve bullying by banning words. Especially in cases when those words are used in an entirely different context, having an entirely different meaning, without any profound malevolence.

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

#764

Post by [deleted] »

Nadya wrote: post #716
shkkmo wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feminism, by its very name, is a sexist philosophy. And according to feminists, sexism (mainly patriarchy) is bad. Unless it's feminism. That seems to imply that you don't think sexism is bad. Did you mean to imply that? Feminism, is by definition, anti-sexist. There are sexists who claim to be feminists, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word. While the term 'feminism' does come from the root 'feminine',…

Feminism, by definition, is sexist. MRA, by definition, is also sexist. Both are centered around their own sex and "leveling the playing field" for their own gender. Feminists do not give a rat's ass about paternal child custody issues or "men's mental health" (particularly the much higher rates of suicide). Because those aren't issues where women are under-privileged . MRA's don't really care about women's issues. T…

[deleted]

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

#765

Post by kefka »

kunai wrote: post #757
kefka wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the case of GitHub censorship, it really is feminism and social justice warrior garbage. But I might be a white (-3 points) guy (-2 points) so you have to balance that in with the cited facts about the rug. I think it's pretty clear.

I never thought I'd see the day when HN's tide of hatred would turn from government surveillance towards the social justice boogeymen of Redditdom. You're arguing that feminism and "social justice warrior garbage" are the direct causes of Github censoring repos. It's not. If Github was pressured by people on Tumblr to use a regex to change the word, it would be a different story. They have good intentions, but the wa…

As I quoted elsewhere;

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'

#766

Post by [deleted] »

nucleardog wrote: post #713
nols wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they really don't. Retard has historically been used to classify the mentally disabled, it literally was a definition. Using it to call someone mentally disabled as an insult is more offensive to the mentally disabled than calling someone stupid. That's the issue. You're free to use retard in your code as much as you want, apparently not on Github though. They, as a private company, are allowed to pick and choose…

Ditto for a lot of the words we use as synonyms for "stupid". There's actually an entire ranking for those with disabilities - just below a "normal" person was the "feeble-minded", which ranked ahead of a "moron", which was more functional than an "imbecile" which was the last step before an "idiot". This was all common parlance in the 19th and 20th century. So explain to me again why retard is specifically offensive…

[deleted]

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

#767

Post by [deleted] »

sklogic wrote: post #504
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.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#768

Post by jazzyk »

pekk wrote: post #723
kefka wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's going on at Github is rather perverse. And it happens to be around the word "Meritocracy". Because of the "feels", the word meritocracy is a 'disempowering word'. It makes people with less skill feel 'less valuable'. So the impetus is to raise your skill? No. It's to devalue others who call you on it, or disregard your uninformed opinion. What this accumulates to is the Github rug in the headquarters. "The Uni…

This isn't the real problem. Github's earlier obsession with the word "meritocracy" isn't even relevant. Horvath isn't relevant here either. Feminism isn't relevant here. Paul Graham isn't relevant here. Reddit isn't relevant here. You're all over the place with stuff that isn't relevant. The issue is that Github's content policing has been turned up to 11 so that it's not just harassment or even seriously offensive…

I disagree that the "meritocracy rug" story at GH is irrelevant.

It is another example of political correctness taking place (at GH, and elsewhere), but with a strong feminist-driven aspect to it. Fervent feminism absolutely tries to ride the PC wave and uses its methods - word censorship and name calling "if you don't agree with me, you are a misogynist".

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

#769

Post by gambler »

bduerst wrote: post #287
PopeOfNope wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired of reading people nebulously defining "free speech philosophies" online to act as a shield to justify nefarious behavior on private property. 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 c…

>you either get free speech as a social virtue or you don't. False dichotomy. Many people get that free speech is a social virtue, because many people see protection from government censorship as a social virtue. What it sounds like is that you wish was a social virtue is the ability to behave or act in any manor on privately-owned websites without having to face the consequences of your actions. We can consider hypo…

> privately-owned websites

If GitHub used their privately-owned website to deliberately offend people, would you be defending them? To me it seems like this argument based on ownership is chosen purely because it is convenient in this particular case.

> having to face the consequences of your actions

This sounds ominous, except the "action" we're talking about is forking a repository that used the "wrong" vocabulary in its assembly title. Taking that into consideration, the response is disproportionate and selectively enforced.

Nobody would say a word if GitHub sent a polite request asking (rather than demanding) the change. I am willing to bet the owner would gladly indulge them.

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

#770

Post by Nadya »

[deleted] wrote: post #764
Nadya wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminism, by definition, is sexist. MRA, by definition, is also sexist. Both are centered around their own sex and "leveling the playing field" for their own gender. Feminists do not give a rat's ass about paternal child custody issues or "men's mental health" (particularly the much higher rates of suicide). Because those aren't issues where women are under-privileged . MRA's don't really care about women's issues. T…

[deleted]

>Just because a movement/ideology is focused on advancing particular issues, doesn't mean they support discrimination against others groups, which is what sexism/racism/etc actually is.

White-pride groups that sing the praises of white people while not mentioning POC at all would be totally fine in your book, since they aren't supporting discrimination of POC? I think you're in the minority opinion here...

Don't get me wrong - I think that sexism/racism is about malevolent actions intended to harm or belittle or otherwise negatively discriminate against another group. But I'm of the minority opinion. Benevolent actions are considered sexist/racist nowadays, chivalry is extremely sexist. Always opening the door for women - but not always for men - is sexist.

Advocating for women's rights but not equally advocating for men's rights is therefore just as sexist as chivalry. One is an egalitarian if they're actually practicing behavior focused on equality. They can mislabel themselves as a feminist all the want, though I will call them out on promoting sexist ideology.

And yes - I've met a few "actually egalitarian but call themselves feminists". Most of them agree that egalitarian defines them better and they'd rather separate themselves from the extremely sexist "militant feminists" by labeling themselves as an egalitarian rather than a feminist.

In today's political climate, being an MRA and a feminist at the same time is like being a KKK member who's a member of the Black Panther Party.

Post reply on HN