[scrollaway]

Thanks for speaking up. To answer your points: There's a line, and people are crossing it.

There are words in the english language which are offensive because they are specifically employed to be offensive. Swear words, words used in offensive (as in, literally offensive) contexts, verbal abuse etc.

We avoid using this words in civilized discourse not because we're afraid to offend, but because we have no need for them. We don't intend to offend. If we intend to offend, we use them - there is no political correctness involved in not using actual offensive terms.

Now when a word has a non-offensive meaning and actually offends people, it's important to look at why this happens. Does it only offend one person or does it offend many? Is it meant to offend, is it used in an actual offensive context? Is the person being offended themselves or by proxy?

This is a conversation I've had before when the Django PR came up, so I'll save you looking these up. You'll note that in that PR, almost everybody praising the PR was white, 18-30 years old. The people being offended are near-unanimously fighting a cause that isn't their own.

There's nothing wrong with that of course - I'm not gay, yet I fight for gay rights for example. But was this ever actually an issue for the black community?

Do you know why it's important to answer that question? Because if the answer is no, then you are fabricating problems for a community you are not even a part of. It is not harmless - it is actively harmful.

If a word, a technical word, was not a problem one day, and is a problem the next, you have now artificially widened the gap a certain minority needs to cross in order to be part of the programming community.

And if you look at it closely, you'll see this is exactly what happened. This issue got artificially popular with Django (just about a decade after the LA nonissue). Now it's causing problems in other parts of the technical community. Something which wasn't a problem a year ago, is now a problem - your FOSS project which was open to all, is now perceived as potentially racist.

I don't get pissed off at these things because I get a kick out of discrimination. I get pissed off because they make things worse.

[hackuser]

I agree that if it's not offensive to blacks (or maybe to someone I'm not thinking of) then it doesn't matter. But ...

1) You are saying that you don't know if it's offensive to blacks. Shouldn't we find out before condemning the change?

2) I think you are blowing out of proportion the consequences of erring on the side of not offending. I think they are minor. It's really about a bigger issue, which is why both of us are writing so many words about it.

3) I take your word for it that this isn't the case for you, but for many people this issue is a proxy - a dog-whistle[1] - for change to the status quo dominant culture. It's like people who objected to or advocated school busing when really it was about desegregation, or people fighting over Syrian refugees when it's really about Muslim immigrants (at least Trump was honest).

Anyway, the essential thing is to get these issues out in the open and learn from each other. Good talking to you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

[scrollaway]

> You are saying that you don't know if it's offensive to blacks.

I was very careful not to say anything on what I know. But since you bring it up, what I know is that the original issue in the tracker was created in bad faith and people hopped on the bandwagon. Addressing this is another discussion entirely.

> I think you are blowing out of proportion the consequences of erring on the side of not offending.

I'm open to hear arguments as to why what I'm saying is "blowing things out of proportions", when all I'm claiming is that the direct results of these actions are producing the exact negative of the effects they intend to. So really, my argument's proportion is relative to how large of an issue you think the original premise is.

Another consequence of course is opening your project up to abuse. If people see that you'll cave in to any form of "political correctness" pressure, they'll double down and find more faults, and if there are no more faults they'll create them for you. I'm speaking from experience - This is something we see a lot in the game development community.

[hackuser]

> what I know is that the original issue in the tracker was created in bad faith

I think it's unfair to the Django people to make that allegation without substantiating it. Otherwise it's just a mean rumor.

> all I'm claiming is that the direct results of these actions are producing the exact negative of the effects they intend to. ... If people see that you'll cave in to any form of "political correctness" pressure, they'll double down and find more faults, and if there are no more faults they'll create them for you.

It's hard to tell if you are making a prediction or saying it has happened. Could you provide evidence of these consequences happening to the Django project? Also, perhaps those additional faults are real to others but not to you - returning us to the orginal discussion of how one judges what is 'offensive'.

> "political correctness" pressure

I think today's "political correctness" is to criticize people pointing out any kind of prejudice. They are automatically assumed to be in bad faith and attacked, with the same criticisms almost every time, regardless of the content or merits of their complaint. It's an attempt to intimidate into silence anyone thinking about complaining, which I think is unhealthy and disrespectful.

[foota]

Can I ask how the issue was created in bad faith?

[jldugger]

"The black community hasn't told us it's a problem" isn't a very convincing argument when the intersection of your community and theirs is empty.

> If a word, a technical word, was not a problem one day, and is a problem the next, you have now artificially widened the gap a certain minority needs to cross in order to be part of the programming community.

This is a stretch. Substituting careless technical writing for equally clear and meaningful terminology doesn't harm anyone's ability to stand up continuous integration.

[scrollaway]

> Substituting careless technical writing for equally clear and meaningful terminology doesn't harm anyone's ability to stand up continuous integration

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Substituting one word for another is not harmful in and of itself. The context around it makes it harmful.

For the sake of the argument, let's go to a parallel universe in which a group (any group) decides that the word "lambda" is offensive to them. Like very offensive, heavily politicized etc. It's not a very common word overall in English, but used quite a bit in specific domains.

Now let's say some small parts of the programming community gets together and agrees that "lambda" is offensive and changes it to a less-offensive equivalent. Is the programming community now more or less welcoming overall?

If there was a real problem with the word, the outcome is slightly positive. But if there wasn't, the outcome is extremely negative: Something which didn't use to be a problem, is now a problem. The community appears less inclusive.

Back to our universe now. Do you still think it's wise to carelessly change words whenever someone claims they're offended without actually verifying those claims? Is it still wise to bundle up to an issue you're not affected by when it's more than likely created by people who aren't affected by it either?

I do hope at least some people realize that this is widely open to abuse, as well.

[hackuser]

> if there wasn't [a real problem with the word], the outcome is extremely negative: Something which didn't use to be a problem, is now a problem. The community appears less inclusive.

Here's where I lose you. I don't see how it's more than very slightly negative. To whom is the community less inclusive? People who like to use the word "slave"? People who think this issue is a waste of time? You can find people like that for every issue; if that minor detail turns them away, they weren't going to stay long. People who ideologically object to the attention paid to prejudice or actually are prejudicial? The latter are an easy case; the former - anyone working on a team must learn to respect others' views and accept being outvoted, with regularity.

[scrollaway]

Fabricated issues add up. You're no longer just a minority, you're a minority that wants to change which words others use, that wants others to adapt to them, etc. Even when you're just someone who happens to be black/female/whatever and would really like others to shut the hell up about sex or color.

The majority of people don't have a problem - you're creating a problem for them.

[hackuser]

> The majority of people don't have a problem - you're creating a problem for them.

You keep implying or asserting this, but you don't back it up. I don't believe it (unless taken literally, under the premise that only the interests of people in the majority matter). I believe you don't think it's a problem, but I've read many things over many years that disagree.

[PuercoPop]

Yes, the problem of _empathy_.

Also as pointed above, the issue is not a word _offends you_