[nightmiles]

Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?"

It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior."

A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with differing sets of abilities are both also fully human. Just because someone else is made of slightly different stuff doesn't make those differences fair game for ridicule.

[aerovistae]

Normally, I don't argue with people on the internet. Tonight, I'm bored and I'm making an exception.

That being said, this isn't an argument about how we should treat people. This is an argument over whether we should be allowed to say what we wish and let others react how they will. If people don't want to use this individual's code because of his questionable mentality, let that be their choice. Instead we're now papering over it and making him perhaps look nicer than he is.

Would you also like to halt publication of Mein Kampf? It's available in bookstores near you, and I assure you there are many people who are offended by its content, myself included.

Shall we reword the sections of the Bible chastising homosexual behavior?

Or do we only censor the little things?

[nightmiles]

While I did not speak to censorship, nor did you in the comment I replied to, I do agree that blanket censorship is not good for anyone. That does not mean that casual discriminatory speech shouldn't be considered foul in general.

Insert bit here about it not being illegal or immoral to police discriminatory speech on a private service.

[JoshTriplett]

Say whatever you like. Do it on your own resources. And when you run a server, boot off whoever you like for acting against whatever standards or lack of standards you choose to have. And if you run a bookstore, you're welcome to carry or not carry whatever books you like.

[Retra]

GitHub is not the center of the world. They are not establishing law. You can publish Mein Kampf if everyone else decides not to. You can edit the bible if you wish.

Or you can try to foster the development of a professional community by taking steps to prohibit needlessly offensive language.

You can publish whatever you like on your personal website and link to it from anywhere. I don't see how this is an over-reach of censorship.

[aerovistae]

It's not, and this isn't a big deal. I agree. But I'm bored and I hate seeing people censored over little things, drops in an ocean, so I'm sharing my opinion, which is that this doesn't accomplish anything useful in any way.

[crgt]

How about the "Idiot's Guide To WebM" or "WebM for Dummies". Are those OK? I guess I'm not seeing the difference..

[dingaling]

Some ( many! ) years ago there was a popular how-to entitled something like 'Kerberos for Imbeciles' which I had to save to disk and edit to retitle before printing it in work.

It was a useful guide but several people were offended by the original title.

[Retra]

The difference is that fewer people would get offended by those.

[tehbeard]

Do those fewer people have less right to not be offended than those who are offended by "retard"?

[nightmiles]

Those are similarly problematic for the same reasons.