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'

#781

Post by spopejoy » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 2:40 AM UTC

kefka wrote: post #665

shkkmo wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminism is not to blame. Feminism is wonderful and empowering ideology. There is a distinct difference between the ideology of feminism and the behavior of a specific group of feminists. Lumping the two together like that is like blaming Islam for terrorists.

Feminism, by its very name, is a sexist philosophy. And according to feminists, sexism (mainly patriarchy) is bad. Unless it's feminism. Feminism -> Feminine -> Female Definition of -ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

Words aren't legos fella, and they have more than one meaning.

"Sexism" is a good example. It can mean any discrimination by gender or sex. It also refers to a socio-political structure under which it is impossible for a woman to effectively discriminate or oppress a man. Which meaning you choose to wield says a lot about your biases.

You will accept that a large chunk of modern history saw women deprived of basic rights. Recent legislation may have made a dent, but hundreds of years of behavior and social structure do not vanish overnight. In this light, feminism emerges as a mode of analysis that seeks to understand how male-supremacy operates in society to elevate men and denigrate women. It is also a form of activism that seeks to correct the imbalance.

It means other things too. But since you clearly have an unsubtle and unsympathetic viewpoint, your point of view is frankly not relevant. You don't get to define it. Instead, consider talking less and listening more. Start by asking a woman feminist what feminism means to her, and see if you can actually keep your mouth shut while she's talking.

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

#782

Post by drdeca » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #587

michaelt wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, seems to me there are lots of situations where censorship by private companies is a problem. For example, if Chinese banks / communication companies / whatever refuse to do business with human rights groups, that's a bad thing even if the companies acted without being explicitly ordered to by the government. And just because newspapers and TV stations are privately owned, doesn't mean it's a good thing if they al…

I agree that it's not bad for them to not publish it [edit: I mean, not bad for the kids books publisher to not publish the 4 Chan book of shock images and racist jokes] (probably good actually), but does that mean it isn't censorship? It seems like the only things which might be why it isn't "censorship" would be because either we like it (or it is objectively good by some reasoning) (which would be a terrible defin…

ok, so,

whoever downvoted this, that is entirely within your rights and all. I'm just a bit confused. This comment of mine seemed entirely inoffensive, so I'm not sure why it has been downvoted three times.

When I ended it with "Thoughts?" I meant to be inviting arguments against the line of reasoning that I proposed. I thought I was being fairly open minded about it.

If it is because I was allowing for the possibility of some censorship being good, know that I was not claiming that some censorship was good. I just was choosing to not immediately reject that possibility when looking for how best to define censorship. I was not arguing in favor of censorship.

I was hoping for a discussion to try to find reasons why some definitions of the word "censorship" would be better than others.

I really don't understand why my post would be sufficiently objectionable for 3 people to downvote it. I don't mean that they were incorrect to do so, their/your reasons could have been made perfect sense. I'm just saying that I don't understand what the reasons were, and I would appreciate understanding what they were or might have been (so, if you are only providing your best guess for why someone else might have, I would appreciate that also)

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

#783

Post by _jgdh » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 4:50 AM UTC

hhandoko wrote: post #625

_jgdh wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think it is acceptable behaviour in a professional setting. I would be less likely to hire someone who's Github had such references. That does not mean that censoring them is acceptable. Github's previous policy was to allow any content that did not expressly break American laws. I thought this was a good idea, and it was the justification behind keeping the GreatFire repo up, even in the face of DoS attacks…

I get what you mean. We are getting into some grey areas though, where does GitHub draw the line? I still think that it's not a matter of the law, but one of conduct. GitHub probably has some ideals on how their service should be used, and this instance the language did not match up to their ideals. What do you think GitHub should do? It's probably the same issues reddit mods have when trying to maintain their commun…

> where does Github draw the line

Where they did previously - content that doesn't break American laws is allowed, everything else is removed. Words weren't censored because they hurt people's feelings. There was no respect given to Americans' new found affinity to the "right to feel comfortable".

You point out that "git" means something else entirely now. I'd point out that the word retard is changing in a similar way, just like "moron" did. As you know, moron used to refer to mentally handicapped people, but the meaning has changed to mean "stupid".

In this case people were marketing their repo as "WebM for retards". This seems to be extremely similar to the "X for Dummies" series of books. These books were controversial when they came out, but they've become an accepted part of our bookshelves now. If the SJWs had had their way, "X for Dummies" would have changed to something that didn't hurt the feelings of dummies everywhere.

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

#784

Post by vacri » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:31 AM UTC

scarlson wrote: post #173

tracker1 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github is itself using an offensive term... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

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.

> I can't say fuck on TV, but it's ok on Github.

'Fuck' is frequently used on TV.

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

#785

Post by Retra » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

jakejake wrote: post #295

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…

Censorship of your freedom of speech really only applies when the government is doing it. Github is not the government and, by contract law, you waived your right to freedom of speech when you agreed to their terms of service. If that truly does concern you then you're free to move your code to a new repo, or host it yourself. Unless Github decides that "anything goes" on their servers then it's going to be a judgeme…

Freedom of speech is broader subject than the rights granted by the first amendment.

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

#786

Post by mdekkers » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:03 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #25

mdekkers wrote: post #19

Yeah, when you host all your code with a 3rd party, and you run all your services with a 3rd party, and you depend on another 3rd party for significant chunks of your functionality, you will find that starting up is a lot easier, as long as you don't mind giving up a very significant chunk of your independence and freedom to do as you wish. I don't understand the obsession with github, google, amazon and the like. We…

Are you serious? Maintaining things is hard. Even for relatively simple stuff, things fall over all the time and suddenly your job is "make sure your mail server is up" instead of "accomplish your core business task". I don't have that sort of free time anymore.

Yeah - I am serious. Correct, maintaining things is hard, but for the right person, it is easy. I would rather pay the right person and retain independence over being beholden to a bunch of corps that have time and time again shown to simply "end-of-life", kill due to "ToS violations" or whatever. In most cases, if you have any kind of meaningful turnover, it is also cheaper. You are happy doing what you do the way you do it? Good for you!

Mail is something I would rather keep private, and outsourced mail providers also have issues. Running a mailserver, when you actually know what you are doing, isn't difficult, and keeping it available isn't either.

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

#787

Post by mdekkers » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:04 AM UTC

lfowles wrote: post #115

rtpg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? Maintaining things is hard. Even for relatively simple stuff, things fall over all the time and suddenly your job is "make sure your mail server is up" instead of "accomplish your core business task". I don't have that sort of free time anymore.

Case in point: Ran update && upgrade on my server that runs a mailinabox container. Whoops, something broke and now the container doesn't recognize any of the owners or groups. Your family mail server is down while your wife is waiting on replies to job applications. Thankfully, it was fixed within a day, but I've had stressful weeks where I've considered just moving to fastmail instead of spending my limited time at…

...and that's why you plan and test.

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

#788

Post by mdekkers » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:09 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #31

mdekkers wrote: post #19

Yeah, when you host all your code with a 3rd party, and you run all your services with a 3rd party, and you depend on another 3rd party for significant chunks of your functionality, you will find that starting up is a lot easier, as long as you don't mind giving up a very significant chunk of your independence and freedom to do as you wish. I don't understand the obsession with github, google, amazon and the like. We…

Are you really trying to make this about "a very significant chunk of your independence and freedom"? Yes, when you host with people who have standards of conduct and civility, you have to respect those standards. Get over it, or host derogatory content on your own dime.

"Are you really trying to make this about "a very significant chunk of your independence and freedom"?"

Uh, yeah - I thought that was clear, and your comment seems to make the point for me...

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

#789

Post by pluma » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:32 AM UTC

nols wrote: post #642

kenrikm wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone pointed out in the thread on Github, the term "Git" is also an offensive term. Who's going to start the petition for Github to change its name? Slippery Slopes Indeed. From Wikipedia: "Git is a mild[1] pejorative with origins in British English for a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person.[2] It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wank…

That's not the same thing though. Calling someone a git is just calling them stupid, calling someone a retard is saying they're so stupid they're mentally disabled and they should feel ashamed for it. It's pretty insulting towards people with mental disabilities. Even Linus has said he named git after himself because he's so egotistical.

Have people with mental disabilities actually spoken out against this use of the word (i.e. using "retard" to describe someone as "extremely stupid")? If the answer is "yes" the discussion is over.

We like to get offended on other people's behalf. This is incredibly disrespectful -- it's no different from male feminists speaking on the behalf of women.

If at least some people with actual mental disabilities find the use of the term (as a substitute for similar phrases like "idiots" or "dummies", not as a direct smear against people with mental disabilities) inappropriate and hurtful, I fully agree that we shouldn't be using it.

The reason we don't use the "N-word" (even outside the context of "black person") isn't that it's offensive, it's that a significant share of black people find its use in any context extremely hurtful. If it was just white people complaining, we shouldn't change a thing.

Outside of the use as a slur against people with mental disabilities, the only difference between "retard" and "idiot" is how long it's been since the term was considered appropriate when describing people with mental disabilities in medical texts. This in itself is not sufficient.

This is actually a big problem with self-identifying feminists on the Internet (read: leaking from tumblr) today. Instead of empowering the actual victims they get offended on other people's behalf or just plain insist they themselves uniquely have the right not to be offended (but nobody else does because whoever disagrees with them is wrong, even if they self-identify as feminists, too).

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

#790

Post by pluma » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:39 AM UTC

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…

The reason "retard" is more offensive to people with mental disabilities (even when not used directly as a slur) is that its use in that context is more recent than the use of "idiot" or "imbecile".

That is all. Really. Give it a few decades and we wouldn't be having this discussion because no person with mental disabilities would feel offended by anyone using it as a mere synonym for "dunce".

Of course so-called Internet feminists might still demand your head on a silver platter even then, but (in stark contrast with actual feminists) nobody should be paying attention to them to begin with, even if they make it hard not to.