1) A person uses an "offensive" word (without intent or without directing it at a particular person) but only to highlight a dislike of an idea or way of doing things.
2) A person uses an "offensive" word to make somebody else feel bad by directing their language at their victim.
I feel these two are in fact different uses of the word and I don't have sympathy for the "victim" in the first scenario. In the second scenario there is clear intent to hurt an individual. In the first scenario something like "Library for retards" is doing what exactly? The retarded reader sees the word retarded, remembers that they are retarded, and then feels sad because they are in fact retarded? Insulted by proxy. It, unfortunately, clearly implies that being retarded is bad. Lets be honest though. How many people here would switch their current level of cognitive abilities for that of somebody who is mentally disabled? Nobody. It is a terrible state of human suffering (I would say). But then again I am biased in thinking that life is "better" on the right end of most bell curves.
- If somebody is actively trying to hurt another person physically this needs to stop. Full stop.
- If somebody is trying to emotionally hurt another person because of who they are that should stop. So calling somebody retarded to their face? Not a good thing.
- If somebody is trying to emotionally hurt another person by calling them names arbitrary names ("you fag" when the person is in fact hetero etc) is not a good thing.
The above are based on intent and are targeted towards a victim.
- If somebody tries to insult another persons beliefs or ideas? Perfectly ok. This, of course, isn't what is happening in this case on github, but since this thread seems to be talking a bit about slippery slopes, I would rather not see our society fall so far at to make criticism a punishable "offense".
At the end of the day changing one single word is just fine, but I wish it had happened in a more positive way rather than github using the heavy hand of their "policy" (an undefinable totally subjective ambiguity that isn't applied uniformly to the whole site).
By the way, I am looking forward to the day when an "offensive word" registry is kept that bans language from use on the internet. If a word is found to be offensive by 10,000 or more individuals anywhere in the world, we have to be sure to purge it from everyday usage (good luck keeping up with malicious grade school kids) /s ...It is a stupid idea.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones and words will most certainly kill me." The new mantra.
The individuals who threw their childish temper tantrums and caused the explosive issue will:
1) Never be back other than to "report" the original offender if they ever catch him violating the COC that they so proudly forced on an otherwise harmless community.
2) Never have and never will contribute anything to the code base. Ever! Talk about entitlement.
It is the worst type of third-party drive-by policing ever.
2) A person uses an "offensive" word to make somebody else feel bad by directing their language at their victim.
I feel these two are in fact different uses of the word and I don't have sympathy for the "victim" in the first scenario. In the second scenario there is clear intent to hurt an individual. In the first scenario something like "Library for retards" is doing what exactly? The retarded reader sees the word retarded, remembers that they are retarded, and then feels sad because they are in fact retarded? Insulted by proxy. It, unfortunately, clearly implies that being retarded is bad. Lets be honest though. How many people here would switch their current level of cognitive abilities for that of somebody who is mentally disabled? Nobody. It is a terrible state of human suffering (I would say). But then again I am biased in thinking that life is "better" on the right end of most bell curves.
- If somebody is actively trying to hurt another person physically this needs to stop. Full stop.
- If somebody is trying to emotionally hurt another person because of who they are that should stop. So calling somebody retarded to their face? Not a good thing.
- If somebody is trying to emotionally hurt another person by calling them names arbitrary names ("you fag" when the person is in fact hetero etc) is not a good thing.
The above are based on intent and are targeted towards a victim.
- If somebody tries to insult another persons beliefs or ideas? Perfectly ok. This, of course, isn't what is happening in this case on github, but since this thread seems to be talking a bit about slippery slopes, I would rather not see our society fall so far at to make criticism a punishable "offense".
At the end of the day changing one single word is just fine, but I wish it had happened in a more positive way rather than github using the heavy hand of their "policy" (an undefinable totally subjective ambiguity that isn't applied uniformly to the whole site).
By the way, I am looking forward to the day when an "offensive word" registry is kept that bans language from use on the internet. If a word is found to be offensive by 10,000 or more individuals anywhere in the world, we have to be sure to purge it from everyday usage (good luck keeping up with malicious grade school kids) /s ...It is a stupid idea.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones and words will most certainly kill me." The new mantra.