A massive reach of it being literally the same word? Like obviously they didn’t mean it in a racist way but clearly they decided that having a racial slur in the docs there was not something they felt good about.
So does apple, coconut, cracker, gin, barbarian, brownie, skinny, spade, spook, teabag and a whole host of different words.
It should never be about the word itself, but how it’s being used. Someone being called a genius doesn’t usually mean they are being applauded for their intellect either, for example.
I have realised, upon reflection, what I take issue with with your argument.
It places the onus on the intention, as opposed to the result.
If the result of me doing something particularly mundane, that I could do another way with zero extra effort, is that some people are offended or othered or hurt, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that the action to take is to change what I’m doing. Theres nuance in the wider discussion but you can’t judge intentions, since nobody can know what someone else’s intentions are. You can judge actions and outcomes.
The action in this case is mundane, and I don’t place any blame or hate toward the people who took the action (made the Tycoon joke). The outcome is potentially negative, and I would argue demonstrably negative since people felt compelled to comment about it. It still doesn’t mean that the folks who wrote the joke are massive racists or fascists or whatever, but the outcome related to their action is negative. Hence they chose to change the action to change the outcome.
Seems pretty cut and dry that this was a wholly positive thing, no?
Sure, but unless you’re talking about a Maine coon then its not really an apples to apples comparison is it? All the words you’ve mentioned have very commonplace uses but this does not, and it is not being used in a context that is “usual” for it.
This discussion is meaningless anyway because nobody was like, calling them out for it, or at least I haven’t seen evidence for that being the case. They decided they felt uncomfortable and changed it.
Doesn’t seem like anyone was calling them out in that. They’re pointing out that it might be a good idea to change it, but I digress, I’ll stand corrected here.
There may be people who consider it a slur but there are also three species of butterflies, two species of mammals, and a few dozen Wikipedia-worthy people with that name. I mean, I’m all against insulting people, but come on.
This came up during the GPLv3 drafting period. Bradley Kuhn (whose surname is a homonym of this word) relayed personal experience. One commenter said they experienced being called this slur. It’s unfortunately still a problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon
That’s a massive reach.
A massive reach of it being literally the same word? Like obviously they didn’t mean it in a racist way but clearly they decided that having a racial slur in the docs there was not something they felt good about.
So does apple, coconut, cracker, gin, barbarian, brownie, skinny, spade, spook, teabag and a whole host of different words.
It should never be about the word itself, but how it’s being used. Someone being called a genius doesn’t usually mean they are being applauded for their intellect either, for example.
I have realised, upon reflection, what I take issue with with your argument.
It places the onus on the intention, as opposed to the result.
If the result of me doing something particularly mundane, that I could do another way with zero extra effort, is that some people are offended or othered or hurt, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that the action to take is to change what I’m doing. Theres nuance in the wider discussion but you can’t judge intentions, since nobody can know what someone else’s intentions are. You can judge actions and outcomes.
The action in this case is mundane, and I don’t place any blame or hate toward the people who took the action (made the Tycoon joke). The outcome is potentially negative, and I would argue demonstrably negative since people felt compelled to comment about it. It still doesn’t mean that the folks who wrote the joke are massive racists or fascists or whatever, but the outcome related to their action is negative. Hence they chose to change the action to change the outcome.
Seems pretty cut and dry that this was a wholly positive thing, no?
Sure, but unless you’re talking about a Maine coon then its not really an apples to apples comparison is it? All the words you’ve mentioned have very commonplace uses but this does not, and it is not being used in a context that is “usual” for it.
This discussion is meaningless anyway because nobody was like, calling them out for it, or at least I haven’t seen evidence for that being the case. They decided they felt uncomfortable and changed it.
Yes they were.
Doesn’t seem like anyone was calling them out in that. They’re pointing out that it might be a good idea to change it, but I digress, I’ll stand corrected here.
There may be people who consider it a slur but there are also three species of butterflies, two species of mammals, and a few dozen Wikipedia-worthy people with that name. I mean, I’m all against insulting people, but come on.
This came up during the GPLv3 drafting period. Bradley Kuhn (whose surname is a homonym of this word) relayed personal experience. One commenter said they experienced being called this slur. It’s unfortunately still a problem.