When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy • Hacker News Board

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#21

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:13 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #11

There are times where I envy the straight forward rationale of these beasts of burden we instruct in our daily routines. The name of the package is irrelevant to them, its just an identifier that represents a thing that does stuff. As software engineers you'd hope we were some of the most logical peoples of this planet but then we find ourselves tripping over our own societal taboos and inferences we are perceiving t…

I don't know how upset she really is here (the page you linked to seems pretty measured) but she's had an "us vs. them" narrative going with her library for awhile, ever since Github forked it. I can't find it now, but she had a commit-for-commit commentary for Github's "Redcarpet" fork which at times seemed unhinged.

I paid attention to this only because we helped with Github's audit of the code, and am motivated to comment here primarily as an opportunity to say:

Make sure your Markdown library is secure.

Everyone seems at some point to end up with a C-language Markdown implementation, and nobody I know of has managed to implement Markdown in C without memory corruption bugs... you know, the kind that let attackers upload their own code onto your servers.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#22

Post by Ahmes » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:14 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

>>So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought...

Whether or not you are genuinely naïve about the terms connotations, I suspect there is a perception that you are trolling. This is in part because the original author of the package expressed the same kind of (artificial) shock when people expressed their concern over the name and responded in a very passive aggressive manner.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#23

Post by eropple » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:15 PM UTC

p_l wrote: post #2

I wonder how the hell did they focus on Misaka and upskirts... cause anyone who read/watched the material would know, that the running gag is that her clothing makes any try at pantyshot futile... and thus doesn't really care about moving in a way that would normally expose her. I guess my astonishment comes from the fact that to me, the name reminds me not of a minor gag, but rather of the mentally-broken, war-torn…

It's not only "media" that thought he was a tool for it. The relation was made by a member of the Python community.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#24

Post by Mz » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:18 PM UTC

Ahmes wrote: post #22

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

>>So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought... Whether or not you are genuinely naïve about the terms connotations, I suspect there is a perception that you are trolling. This is in part because the original author of the package expressed the same kind of (artificial) shock when people expressed their concern over the name and responded in a very passive aggressive manner.

Ah, thanks.

No, I'm genuinely naive in that regard. I got married young and raised two special needs kids who needed all my time. So for many years, if it wasn't appropriate viewing for a small child, I was not exposed to it. And that's exactly my point: I'm fairly well read and had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either. And when you start a conversation with something that amounts to a personal attack/assumption of guilt, it is very normal to get defensive reactions which you might not have gotten had you simply inquired "Do you know how bad this sounds?" In cases on HN where someone used very offensive terms, I did exactly that -- asked what their understanding of the term was or quoted a dictionary -- and in every case they honestly had no idea and promptly changed it without any argument.

Peace.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#25

Post by dotBen » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:20 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity

Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule.

Innocent on the part of the celebrity, sure. But not innocent on the part of the photographer which I think squarely places this within Violet Blue's assertion of upskit/pantyshot being 'an attack on a female'.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#26

Post by antihero » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#27

Post by pyre » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:23 PM UTC

dotBen wrote: post #25

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule. Innocent on the part of the cel…

She also characterized it as 'illegal,' which may be the case for hidden cameras, but I doubt it is the case for celebrities in a public space.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#28

Post by duodecim » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:25 PM UTC

yid wrote: post #9

benbeltran wrote: post #8

Sexism and Racism: two cards people play all the time for ever-annoying reasons. They're the kind of arguments you "can't be against" because, how can you be against stopping racism/sexism? They're also the kind of arguments that keep sexism/racism happening. We should focus on the important parts: Are you offended by it? - Deal with it or don't use it or politely make your opinion known to the author. Be an adult an…

You're asking people not to have a knee-jerk reaction to offensive language, but you're having a knee-jerk reaction to people being offended. Some people might choke on their morning coffee when reviewing a pull request for "pantyshot", but the majority of us just want a bit of civility (not unlike the rules of HN).

Nobody chokes on their morning coffee when reviewing a pull request for "pantyshot". Such people ought to be sent to the front line in all-out war to learn to deal with some real issues in life.

Besides, men wear panties too. I've seen them do it.

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#29

Post by pyre » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:26 PM UTC

antihero wrote: post #26

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

Hmm, so instead of being about non-consensual pictures of panties of random girls, it's about non-consensual pictures of random celebrities, and is thus ok? I haven't downvoted but the term is far from innocent.

So, if I run around naked in a public space, I can call any pictures of the event 'non-consensual' and 'illegal?'

Re: When software offends, the pantyshot package controversy

#30

Post by barrkel » Sun, Jul 10, 2011, 11:28 PM UTC

dotBen wrote: post #25

Mz wrote: post #12

I was surprised at how the article characterized the terms "pantyshot" and "upskirt" -- how extremely negative. My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity and I would have never thought of it in the extremely negative way the article portrays it. Also, people often have…

My familiarity with the terms is not from porn but from celebrities who, whoops, get caught flashing their panties inadvertently in public. So to my mind this was relatively innocent activity Famous female celebrity gets out of car, inadvertently flashes underwear due to short skirt, photographer snaps said inadvertent underwear flash and publishes results for titillation and ridicule. Innocent on the part of the cel…

I don't for a second believe it is "innocent" on the part of the celebrity, in the majority of cases. If you're not in the news, you're no longer a celebrity.