Re: [Python-ideas] Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause
Regardless of whether the original posting is a trolling attempt or not, the argument does have value that I want to corroborate with an anecdote. At one Python conference in Italy, participants were given an elegantly designed and well-crafted t-shirt with a writing in large characters that read "Beautiful is better than ugly" in reference to the Zen of Python. Back home, a close person who is not a Python programmer nor familiar with PEP 20 saw the t-shirt. They were horrified by the out-of-context sentence for reasons similar to what has been already stated in support of this argument. It prompted them of lookism and judgmentality, and found the message to be disturbing in its suggestion to compare by some standard of beauty and to discriminate. Let me add some context: this person is socially and politically active (maybe what someone would call a "SJW"; definitely not what anyone would call "politically correct"), and is specially sensitive to issues of discrimination and sexism. This was enough, though, for me to wonder what kind of message I would be projecting by wearing that writing on me. I've been since then discouraged to ever wear the t-shirt in any public context. This story might have limited value because it's one anecdote, and because the central point is the impact of the clause when taken out of its original context. I don't want to construct this as an argument in favor of removal of the clause, but I want to mention this as evidence that it does carry emotionally (negatively) charged content. If this content can be avoided without compromising the purpose and function of the message, than by all means I would welcome and support the change. It's meaningful, as a community, to show willingness to respond to discomfort of any kind. In this case, I even see the potential to convey the original message in a more powerful way than the current formulation does. I'm not a good candidate for this, as the chosen language for this community is English, which is not my native language nor a language I feel very good at. I appreciate the poetic style of the original, and I think that Tim Peters has done an outstanding job at capturing these ideas into easy and humor-rich language. The opportunity would be to express the idea of aesthetic appeal of code in some way beyond the simplistic judgmental labelling of "beautiful" vs "ugly". To be fair, in my experience this has been a source of confusion to many Python newcomers, as the notion of "beauty", as with any other value judgment, is highly relative to the subject evaluating it. I've seen people think of the Python community as conceited because they would think they possess some absolute metric of beauty. One way out of the impasse is to draw upon the feeling behind the adjective. We call "beautiful" something that appeals to us, makes us comfortable, or inspires us awe. Ugly is something that makes us uncomfortable, repels us, disconcerts us. "Let awe and disconcert drive you"? "Attraction and repulsion are important"? "If it disturbs you, it's probably wrong"? I know these are terrible and will all fail the spirit and the style of the original, but I'm dropping suggestions with the hope to stimulate some constructive thought on the matter. I'm fine with PEP 20 being unchanged; and my goal is not to find a replacement or urge for a change, but rather to be willing to think about it. Cheers, Davide
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:09:06 +0200 Davide Rizzo <sorcio@gmail.com> wrote:
What this merely shows, IMHO, is that writing programming slogans or jokes on clothing you wear in public is stupid. Most people who see them won't understand a word of them, and in some cases may badly misinterpret them as your example shows. I used to think I was the only one for whom conference t-shirts could only serve as pyjamas, but then I read online that others feel the same... That was quite reassuring: there are other sane people out there! ;-) Regards Antoine.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Indeed is *is* subjective -- as is "Pythonic", or "elegant", or other concept of that nature -- that is intentional. "efficient is better than inefficient" kind of goes without saying... What this merely shows, IMHO, is that writing programming slogans or
well, I see them as my "geek cred" t-shirts, and part of the point is that only those those "in the know" will get it. So I don't think this says anything about wearing clothing that refers to a particular group is bad, but that one shoudl be caefule about whicj slogans you display out of context. If teh shirt said" "beuatiful code is better than ugly code" I don't think there would be an issue. As to the OP's point: We now have anecdotal evidence that "beautiful is better than ugly" can be offensive out of context. Other than that, we have people "suspecting" or "imagining" that some people "may" find it offensive in context. I try never to speak for others when saying whether something is troublesome to a community, but if we have exactly zero actual cases of someone finding it personally offensive (in context), I think we'd be going a bit overboard in making any changes. Is it any better to make a change that has not been asked for by imagining other's sensitivities than it is to ignore others' sensitivities? -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
Chris Barker via Python-ideas wrote:
"efficient is better than inefficient" kind of goes without saying...
Perhaps we should just replace the entire Zen with "Good is better than bad." Insert your own subjective ideas on what constitutes "good" and "bad" and you're set to go. :-) -- Greg
I am very disappointed with the responses to this thread. We have mockery, dismissiveness, and even insinuations about OP's psychological health. Whether or not OP is a troll, and whether or not OP's idea has merit, that kind of response is unnecessary and unhelpful. (While I lean toward OP being a troll, the fact that the OP's name is the same as a Canadian actress is insignificant. Chinese surnames are single-syllable, there are only so many one-syllable surnames, and "Samantha" is a common-enough name.) Since Antoine challenged Calvin to name names, I will name names. If the thread devolves into one-on-one fights, then you'll know why Calvin didn't do it. Antoine: - Accusing the OP of not being open-minded for proposing (not "insisting on"!) the idea at all. "You ask others to be open-minded, but fail to show such an attitude yourself." - Labeling the OP's position as reactionary, and intolerant. "And, as a French person, I have to notice this is yet another attempt to impose reactionary, intolerant American politics on the rest of the world (or of the Python community)." David Mertz: Sarcastically suggesting that we burn programming books if they use "beautiful" in their titles. Chris Angelico: This implied accusation: "Not everyone assumes the worst about words." Oleg: - Dismissing the whole post as a troll.* "Nice trolling, go on! :-D" - Calling the OP's idea stupid, and calling a different (settled) decision stupid. (One can argue Oleg isn't really calling anything stupid, but I preemptively say that's a stupid argument.) "Removing master/slave is almost as stupid as ugly/beautiful." - Dismissing the stance as oversensitive offense-taking. "People shouldn't try and take personal offense to things that haven't been applied to them personally, or, even worse, complain about a term applied to anything/anyone else in a way they perceive to be offensive." - Mockery: The entire email with this line is spent on mockery: 'I also propose to ban the following technical terms that carry dark meanings: "abort", "kill" and "execute" (stop the genocide!) ...' Greg: Another email spent entirely on mockery: """If we're going to object to "slave", we should object to "robot" as well, since it's derived from a Czech word meaning "forced worker".""" * There is a difference between discussing whether it is a troll post and flippantly stating it as fact. The first brings up a relevant concern. The second says, "No one can reasonably believe what you claim to believe, so I won't treat you as a rational person." Jacco: - This is completely disrespectful and way over the line. Don't try to make a psychological evaluation from two emails, especially when it's just someone having an idea you don't like. """However, if merely the word ugly being on a page can be "harmful", what you really need is professional help, not a change to Python. Because there's obviously been some things in your past you need to work through.""" - Mockery. """If we have to ban "Ugly" for american sensitivities, then perhaps we need to ban a number of others for china's sensitivities. Where will it end ?""" There are people making serious arguments against the idea, including the people above. But those arguments could have been made without the above examples. The above quotes don't treat the OP or the OP's ideas as worthy of a serious and mature response. P.S.: I read Poe's Law not as a warning against falling for trolls, but as a warning about confirmation bias. If I keep falling for poes of group G, it's probably because I'm too far too willing to believe negative things about G, and don't care to understand them.
Yeah, right. You know, when I was pointing out Calvin not being very brave by attacking a bunch of people without giving names, my aim was to merely point out how dishonest and disrespectful his attitude his. *Not* to encourage someone to turn his post into more of a clusterfuck of personal attacks. Regards Antoine. On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 23:39:22 -0400 "Franklin? Lee" <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
You have missed the use of *reductio ad absurdum* in my comment and several others. This argument structure is one of the fundamental forms of good logical reasoning, and shows nothing dismissive or insulting. The specifics book titles I used were carefully chosen, and you'd do well to think about why those specific books (and read all of them, if you haven't). On Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 11:40 PM Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/09/2018 10:45, David Mertz wrote:
For the ultimate "reductio as absurdum" it is possible to argue that one (1) is elitist and zero (0) is nihilist therefore to avoid offence we should scrap the entire binary system and with it digital computers - then the whole argument becomes moot until someone implements python on an analogue computer. ;-) -- Steve (Gadget) Barnes Any opinions in this message are my personal opinions and do not reflect those of my employer. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:14 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Please give an example of an attack I made above. I see accusations, made against adults, regarding actions. On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 05:45 David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
You have missed the use of *reductio ad absurdum* in my comment and several others. This argument structure is one of the fundamental forms of good logical reasoning, and shows nothing dismissive or insulting. The specifics book titles I used were carefully chosen, and you'd do well to think about why those specific books (and read all of them, if you haven't).
Reductio ad absurdum and mockery are not mutually exclusive. Mockery can be thought of as a natural (though often fallacious) form of reductio ad absurdum: the position (or person) should not be taken seriously because the consequences are absurd. The examples I chose were not simply coldly rational arguments, so we can look at the extra choices made. I'm sure you can see the difference between these two logically-equivalent arguments: - "Assume there is a largest prime. Then we can construct a large number which is not divisible by any prime. But that's impossible, so there is no largest prime." - "Since you believe there is a largest prime, we have a large number not divisible by any prime. I'll start on that pull request to change INT_MAX to the largest prime." For granularity, let: "disrespectful" := Negative respect, such as an insult. "unrespectful" := Without proper respect, but not as bad as "disrespectful". Other than mockery, there can be disrespectful argumentum ad absurdum. Often, the difference between a respectful and an unrespectful argument is how much logical effort is needed to reach the absurdity, because that is the effort that wasn't put in, or incorrectly put in. (Thinking off the top of my head, a slippery slope argument is often unrespectful.) While people often make small logical mistakes when new to a subject or idea, or miss immediate consequences, there are many cases where the person has clearly thought about their position before, and a logically-obvious one-line counter is an insult to their effort, if not their intelligence. If you do think you have an obvious one-line counter, even after considering whether you misunderstood the original argument, then putting it as a question is more respectful than stating it conclusively, which is more respectful than making it sarcastically. More generally, a respectful argument aims to convince your opponents, while an argument made with the audience in mind can be unrespectful, and an argument which mostly appeals to those that already agree is usually disrespectful. In your specific case, you used sarcasm, a one-liner argument (listing a few titles without elaborating on their relevance), slippery slope, talked about book-burning when the OP was suggesting a change for future work, and focused on the word "beautiful" where the OP focused on "ugly". Was your post crafted to convince the OP, or for the sake of a laugh? Do you believe that your post could convince any of your opponents? Would you have said it that way in a room where no one was already on your side?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 13:32:26 -0400 "Franklin? Lee" <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
Why would I? As you admit, you are not countering arguments, but accusing people. I have better to do than to waste my time in this kind of game. This mailing-list is not supposed to be a playground for angry people. Regards Antoine.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:04 PM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
I made accusations and explained them. You accused me of making personal attacks, but won't back it up when challenged, saying that it'd be a waste of time. If it's not important, why make the accusation in the first place? I have thought about making arguments and explanations, but erased them because it could distract from this point. I'm far less concerned about the proposal (in either direction) than about the treatment of a new user and a controversial proposal. The harm of that is here and now.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 09:40, Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
Please can we drop this line of discussion. It's neither productive nor helpful, and it's skirting very close to what I'd consider to be in violation of the CoC. Paul
On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Franklin? Lee < leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be most relevant to interpret the poem as it is: culled from various writings of the community. What do we need to remember? Our criticism can hurt fragile feelings and egos; which we need to check at the door. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation (time spent disambiguating) Python is primarily an online community; where words are our appearance. "Most reasonable people would understand that" we're *clearly* talking about engineering design aesthetic. Not body dysmorphia. Objectively, Compared to C, Python is fat and slow. It's not fast, but it's pretty, and that's all it has going for it, In this crazy world. Mean losers, T-shirts. Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On Sunday, September 16, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Python community,
We should strive to be concise. "I don't like it because it's ugly" is not a helpful code review. Subjective assertions of superiority are only so useful in context to the objectives (e.g. reducing complexity)
That's subjective Compared to C,
C has different objectives for a different market.
Python is fat and slow.
Python is plenty fast for people all over the world who are solving problems for others.
It's not fast, but it's pretty, and that's all it has going for it,
Python has lots of things to be proud of and confident about (i.e. helping others and paying bills).
Attention seeking AND problem solving
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
I think it's meant to be ironic? Why would that be the first sentence of a poem about software and the Python newsgroup/mailing list community? A certain percentage of people might be offended by changing the first line (the frame of) of said poem; to "I'm better than you". Dominance and arrogance are upsetting to a certain percentage, so that shouldn't occur. (Though arrogance tends to be the norm in many open source communities which are necessarily discerning and selective; in order to avoid amateurish mediocrity). So, in a way, "Beautiful is better than ugly" was the CoC in the Python community for many years; so, now that the CoC is in place, the best thing to do may be to just remove the Zen of Python entirely; rather than dominate the authors' sarcastic poem until it's devoid of its intentional tone. On Sunday, September 16, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
Op ma 17 sep. 2018 om 16:40 schreef Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>:
I always considered the Zen to be about code only. I don't think I ever read the CoC, and just assumed "at least pretend to be a decent person". I don't think the CoC has anything to do with your code, right ?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:50 AM Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
PEP 20 makes it sound like it's for the design of Python itself. The original post was from a metadiscussion about Python's design, not about its users' code. https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-June/001951.html By "CoC", Wes is referring to the Zen. The official Community Code of Conduct is not just about being nice, but about being nice for the purpose of improving Python. https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ If you're a jerk to Python users in other contexts (maybe even in python-list), the Code doesn't care. Your code is (usually) also outside of the community. The Code of Conduct is about the people, while the Zen is about the design, and PEP 8 is about the style, but all three are about potential improvements to Python, not your personal/professional life (though you could still apply them if you want). (It irks me for no real reason that something called the _Code_ of Conduct has nothing to do with code, but that's the fault of the mathematicians and early computer scientists for overloading an existing word.)
Op zo 16 sep. 2018 om 05:40 schreef Franklin? Lee < leewangzhong+python@gmail.com>:
Sure, I'll take your bait.
Is it, though ? Even more because in order for it to apply to any one person's aesthetics, you need to pull it out of context first. You need to be looking for it. Being triggered by a word this simple is not exactly a sign of mental stability. I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?
Well, on the internet, the word "nigger" is already basically banned for american sensibilities, while the version in dutch, my language, is "neger", which doesn't really have any racist connotation, probably because the amount of slaves that have ever been in what's currently the netherlands, has been negligible. However, it's use is effectively banned because some other culture considers it offensive to use. Why should your culture be my censorship ? And it's no coincidence I used china there - it's notorious for it's censorship. If merely labeling a word as "offensive" is sufficient to ban it, I daresay they'd mark a whole lot more words as offensive. And why would their opinion be any less valid than yours ? Don't think you're special - you're not. If you want to give yourself the power to ban words for offensive, you're giving that same power to everyone. And since offensive is subjective, it means anybody could ban any word, since you couldn't tell the difference between real or fake offense. Therefore, it is a disastrous idea and I'll predict the end of Python if we go down that route.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:17 AM Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
Is it disrespectful to give a psychological diagnosis in a discussion? Usually. It is dismissive (it's inarguably an ad hominem), potentially insulting (because it's often intentionally used that way, so the listener might interpret it that way even when it isn't intended), and it is based on very little information. I think it's safe to assume that you're not a trained professional, or even a well-read amateur, since you would otherwise know how much information is fed into a proper diagnosis, so it is also as inappropriate as giving lawyer advice without a disclaimer, or stating your quantum telepathy ideas as scientific "fact". But unlike the other fields, making psychology claims about your opponents during an argument is harmful, and not just theoretically harmful. It's a personal attack, and tries to invalidate their right to even be in the discussion by saying that they're fundamentally irrational. That's harmful to both people and the discussion. Look at how upset people get in any argument where someone accuses them of bias, which is a weaker claim than mentally unstable. We can go deeper. Your diagnosis is based on a single factor: If a person is harmed by the use of the word "ugly", they need psychological help. Even if that were true, you go further: Don't change Python for those people. Python should not accommodate them. We should not be inconvenienced by the needs of the mentally ill. Let's say something in Python harms people with a certain mental illness. They are getting treatment, or they don't know they need treatment, or they declined treatment. Should Python change (patch, document, maintain a change) to accommodate them? Or, on the other extreme, should Python tell them, "Go away, and come back when you're healthy"? What should they do in the meantime? (On-topic: I think the only reasonable answer is, "It depends." There's no slippery slope. There should be a weighing of the chance of harm, the amount of potential harm, and the cost of the change. I think it is not reasonable to accommodate everyone no matter the cost (and literally no one here has argued for that; I checked), and I think it is not reasonable to reject any accommodation if it's of a certain type (which people here have at least argued for, though I believe they're just not bothering to state their nuances).) I don't think you are unsympathetic to the mentally ill. I think the people you don't want to accommodate are actually the people who _claim to fight_ for the mentally ill. Question: If someone proposes an alternative that people think is better than the original, would you still be against making a change? Will you think of it as giving in to censorship or to the PC/SJW group?
I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?
It's complicated. Different people respond differently to different situations. And people have differing experiences, even if those experiences have the same label. It is hard to extrapolate from a handful of examples, because the mind and the real world are both complicated.
(Arguably, the equivalent of "neger" is "Negro", which is today considered somewhat offensive in America, but is still used on official forms because it's preferred by some older black Americans. That's an interesting example of human culture.) No one argued that others can't also object, so I don't know if they'll see a problem with your slope. (I know of an example: "Laputa" was a prominent name in a Miyazaki film, but it was derived (through Jonathan Swift) from an offensive Spanish word, which the filmmakers didn't know. One could ask if we should censor the word in foreign localizations of the film, whether they land in Spanish-speaking countries or not.) But my objection wasn't that the argument was invalid, but that you wrote it as mockery. Let me try to rewrite the same argument without mockery. """You want us to remove "ugly", but isn't that only a problem to Americans? I am not an American. Do you believe Python should accommodate non-Americans objecting to common American words? What groups should we listen to, and which ones can we ignore? One group that comes to my mind is the Chinese government.""" This invites the speaker to outline the limits of their slopes, and explain themselves further. It opens discussion, instead of trying to close it. It respects their input, and asks for more.
if (out.of.subject).pingpong: time to let the thread go Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer Mauritius
Hi everyone, on behalf of the moderators… please, let’s stop discussing who accused whom of what, and either stick to the discussion at hand or be silent. If you can’t make a point without aggression or name calling, then it’s not a point you should be making. (That’s a general statement about this list and this thread, not about any one particular recent e-mail.) thanks, —titus
I love the Zen of Python and I occasionally cite one in a commit. Usually it's either flat/nested or the one about namespaces. I have never used beautiful/ugly. I think it would be incredibly conceited to cite it at any commit or code review. I don't think it serves anything. However I would welcome a serious attempt of rewording it (I don't have any suggestions myself though). -----Original Message----- From: Python-ideas [mailto:python-ideas-bounces+omar.balbuena=scm.ca@python.org] On Behalf Of C. Titus Brown Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 08:50 To: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <arj.python@gmail.com> Cc: python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause Hi everyone, on behalf of the moderators… please, let’s stop discussing who accused whom of what, and either stick to the discussion at hand or be silent. If you can’t make a point without aggression or name calling, then it’s not a point you should be making. (That’s a general statement about this list and this thread, not about any one particular recent e-mail.) thanks, —titus
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
The below email was reported to the PSF board for code of conduct violations and then passed on to the conduct working group to decide on an appropriate response. Based on the WG's recommendation and after discussing it with Titus, the decision has been made to ban Jacco from python-ideas. Trivializing assault, using the n-word, and making inappropriate comments about someone's mental stability are all uncalled for and entirely unnecessary to carry on a reasonable discourse of conversation that remains welcoming to others. On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 00:18 Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
On 20/09/18 19:56, Brett Cannon wrote:
Not a challenge to the ban in any way, but I feel the need to repeat what I said about banning words. The moment you create that taboo, you give the word power. That's the exact opposite of what you want to do. It's the intent with which the word is used that matters. I've heard all sorts of words used as insults -- "special", anyone? -- and many of the same words used innocently or affectionately. Banning bad or insulting behaviour is fine. Banning words is a bad path to go down. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
The main clause differentiating bad, weaponizable CoCs from good ones is "Assume good faith" Everything will be OK if good faith can reasonably be assumed (E.g. when someone uses a word which is only offensive based on context) On the other hand, e.g. obvious racial slurs never have a place on a discussion board about a programming language. How can one possibly say them in good faith? Rhodri James <rhodri@kynesim.co.uk> schrieb am Fr., 21. Sep. 2018 um 15:46 Uhr:
Hi, For the record I was surprised to see the word "slur" pop up quite often recently, while I'd only heard "insult" before. I looked it up and it doesn't help that the French translation seems to be the same in both cases (it's "insulte"). Then I came upon this thread where someone pretty much asks the same question: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/6bjgwq/slur_vs_insult/ and the comments there are interesting as to how complicated and difficult to grasp the cultural landscape of linguistic taboos really is. Regards Antoine. On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:55:10 +0200 "Philipp A." <flying-sheep@web.de> wrote:
Kinda OT, but I believe the connotation is that slur is use of the word, whereas an insult is use directed at someone. For instance, if someone is having a conversation where they use the n-word, it's a racial slur. If they directly call someone that, it's an insult. On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 9:45 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
-- Ryan (ライアン) Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else https://refi64.com/
On 21/09/18 16:23, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
Kinda OT, but I believe the connotation is that slur is use of the word, whereas an insult is use directed at someone.
According to Chambers online, a slur is "a disparaging remark intended to damage a reputation" while an insult is "a rude or offensive remark or action" (at least in the meanings we are talking about). They have overlapping meanings but aren't identical. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
English is not straightforward and is constantly evolving. -- H On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 08:45, Rhodri James <rhodri@kynesim.co.uk> wrote:
-- OpenPGP: https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFEBAD7FFD041BBA1 If you wish to request my time, please do so using bit.ly/hd1AppointmentRequest. Si vous voudrais faire connnaisance, allez a bit.ly/hd1AppointmentRequest. Sent from my mobile device Envoye de mon portable
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 16:56 Philipp A. <flying-sheep@web.de> wrote:
Here's how: as a demonstration that words that are considered slurs in certain contexts (such as the word "Negro" in America) might be considered perfectly legitimate day-to-day words in another context. Even if the example was incorrect, it is still legitimate. Your question should be directed against the OP in the discussion, bringing up an issue completely unrelated to programming languages (probably trolling, as several people before me have pointed out). Elazar
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:52 AM Elazar <elazarg@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't report him, and I don't agree with the ban, but I assume I'm missing something if they felt the need to act so strongly, days after the discussion died down. Some words are KNOWN to be considered taboo by some. Using the word (instead of a euphemism), especially while discussing the taboo, is an intentional political act against those people. Compare with "Voldemort" in the well-known series "Harry Potter". The protagonists use the name in the presence of other, superstitious, characters, when they intend to change the status quo. If they wanted to have a polite conversation about it, they would use the common euphemism for that name, because you don't want to ADD emotions to such a conversation. (I'm intentionally using a positive example, to keep people from feeling slighted by a negative one.)
Your question should be directed against the OP in the discussion, bringing up an issue completely unrelated to programming languages (probably trolling, as several people before me have pointed out).
I'm one of those who believe the OP was a troll. But you're saying that the post was also off-topic. Where would you rather have it go? The proposal was about changing the Zen of Python. If ANY proposed change in the Zen goes through, I'd expect to see a discussion on python-ideas. On the other hand, discussing taboo words in general society is less on-topic. Tie it back to Python and how it hurts Python to ban these words.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Franklin? Lee wrote:
Hi folks, we have a committee-based process for making these decisions, so it necessarily takes some time. Brett and I can make urgent decisions but everything goes through the process. best, --titus
Chris Barker via Python-ideas writes:
"Sam" at yandex.ru did not even do that. She just took it out of context. The post was a troll, whether she is or not. So put it back in context. PyCon 2017 had the whole python -m this on the back of the shirts. If somebody *ever* complains about that, I'll bite my tongue and ignore them.
Either way you're ignoring their actual sensitivities, so it's at root the same (the former manifests as patronizing, the latter as rude). On the other hand, sometimes there are better terms to use. It's one thing to pull "beautiful is better than ugly" out of a poem in which most of the lines follow that same pattern of "<positive adjective> is better than <negative adjective>", breaking the symmetry. It's another when replacing "master/slave" comes up, and it's pointed out that there *are* more precise terms, such as "original/replica", in some contexts. I'm of two minds as whether it's worth the churn, but if others are willing to do the work ;-) of finding all the uses, proposing replacements, and submitting the PRs, I'd be willing to review and add my $.02 as to whether there's actually an improvement. I would also disagree with Greg Ewing's take on "robot". It may have meant "slave" in the original Czech, but in English it has strong connotations of "automaton" and an inherent lack of autonomy, quite different from a human slave's flexibility to perform any command, and the way a human slave's autonomy is stripped by force, respectively. If Czech-speakers want to offer their opinions, I'm listening, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that their consensus opinion in 2018 to be that the English usage of robot is more prevalent than the Czech original meaning. Steve
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 4:34 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Robot doesn't mean "slave" in Czech, but rather "serf." Serfdom was/is a terrible institution, but nothing best so terrible as the Atlantic slave trade of the 15th-19th C which is what modern usage tends to indicates. Moreover, the morpheme "rōb" is commonplace in Slavic languages to mean "work" in a more general sense. Wikipedia: Karl Čapek's fictional story postulated the technological creation of artificial human bodies without souls, and the old theme of the feudal robota class eloquently fit the imagination of a new class of manufactured, artificial workers.
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 22:09 +0200, Davide Rizzo wrote:
This illustrates that by taking something out of context, it can (appear to) get an entirely different meaning. This can happen on purpose or (as in this case, I assume) by accident. It doesn't say anything about the complete text of the “Zen of Python” (which to any layperson probably looks quite like unintelligible gibberish). The lesson to be learned is: “be careful when taking something out of context”. -- Jan Claeys
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:09:06 +0200 Davide Rizzo <sorcio@gmail.com> wrote:
What this merely shows, IMHO, is that writing programming slogans or jokes on clothing you wear in public is stupid. Most people who see them won't understand a word of them, and in some cases may badly misinterpret them as your example shows. I used to think I was the only one for whom conference t-shirts could only serve as pyjamas, but then I read online that others feel the same... That was quite reassuring: there are other sane people out there! ;-) Regards Antoine.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Indeed is *is* subjective -- as is "Pythonic", or "elegant", or other concept of that nature -- that is intentional. "efficient is better than inefficient" kind of goes without saying... What this merely shows, IMHO, is that writing programming slogans or
well, I see them as my "geek cred" t-shirts, and part of the point is that only those those "in the know" will get it. So I don't think this says anything about wearing clothing that refers to a particular group is bad, but that one shoudl be caefule about whicj slogans you display out of context. If teh shirt said" "beuatiful code is better than ugly code" I don't think there would be an issue. As to the OP's point: We now have anecdotal evidence that "beautiful is better than ugly" can be offensive out of context. Other than that, we have people "suspecting" or "imagining" that some people "may" find it offensive in context. I try never to speak for others when saying whether something is troublesome to a community, but if we have exactly zero actual cases of someone finding it personally offensive (in context), I think we'd be going a bit overboard in making any changes. Is it any better to make a change that has not been asked for by imagining other's sensitivities than it is to ignore others' sensitivities? -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
Chris Barker via Python-ideas wrote:
"efficient is better than inefficient" kind of goes without saying...
Perhaps we should just replace the entire Zen with "Good is better than bad." Insert your own subjective ideas on what constitutes "good" and "bad" and you're set to go. :-) -- Greg
I am very disappointed with the responses to this thread. We have mockery, dismissiveness, and even insinuations about OP's psychological health. Whether or not OP is a troll, and whether or not OP's idea has merit, that kind of response is unnecessary and unhelpful. (While I lean toward OP being a troll, the fact that the OP's name is the same as a Canadian actress is insignificant. Chinese surnames are single-syllable, there are only so many one-syllable surnames, and "Samantha" is a common-enough name.) Since Antoine challenged Calvin to name names, I will name names. If the thread devolves into one-on-one fights, then you'll know why Calvin didn't do it. Antoine: - Accusing the OP of not being open-minded for proposing (not "insisting on"!) the idea at all. "You ask others to be open-minded, but fail to show such an attitude yourself." - Labeling the OP's position as reactionary, and intolerant. "And, as a French person, I have to notice this is yet another attempt to impose reactionary, intolerant American politics on the rest of the world (or of the Python community)." David Mertz: Sarcastically suggesting that we burn programming books if they use "beautiful" in their titles. Chris Angelico: This implied accusation: "Not everyone assumes the worst about words." Oleg: - Dismissing the whole post as a troll.* "Nice trolling, go on! :-D" - Calling the OP's idea stupid, and calling a different (settled) decision stupid. (One can argue Oleg isn't really calling anything stupid, but I preemptively say that's a stupid argument.) "Removing master/slave is almost as stupid as ugly/beautiful." - Dismissing the stance as oversensitive offense-taking. "People shouldn't try and take personal offense to things that haven't been applied to them personally, or, even worse, complain about a term applied to anything/anyone else in a way they perceive to be offensive." - Mockery: The entire email with this line is spent on mockery: 'I also propose to ban the following technical terms that carry dark meanings: "abort", "kill" and "execute" (stop the genocide!) ...' Greg: Another email spent entirely on mockery: """If we're going to object to "slave", we should object to "robot" as well, since it's derived from a Czech word meaning "forced worker".""" * There is a difference between discussing whether it is a troll post and flippantly stating it as fact. The first brings up a relevant concern. The second says, "No one can reasonably believe what you claim to believe, so I won't treat you as a rational person." Jacco: - This is completely disrespectful and way over the line. Don't try to make a psychological evaluation from two emails, especially when it's just someone having an idea you don't like. """However, if merely the word ugly being on a page can be "harmful", what you really need is professional help, not a change to Python. Because there's obviously been some things in your past you need to work through.""" - Mockery. """If we have to ban "Ugly" for american sensitivities, then perhaps we need to ban a number of others for china's sensitivities. Where will it end ?""" There are people making serious arguments against the idea, including the people above. But those arguments could have been made without the above examples. The above quotes don't treat the OP or the OP's ideas as worthy of a serious and mature response. P.S.: I read Poe's Law not as a warning against falling for trolls, but as a warning about confirmation bias. If I keep falling for poes of group G, it's probably because I'm too far too willing to believe negative things about G, and don't care to understand them.
Yeah, right. You know, when I was pointing out Calvin not being very brave by attacking a bunch of people without giving names, my aim was to merely point out how dishonest and disrespectful his attitude his. *Not* to encourage someone to turn his post into more of a clusterfuck of personal attacks. Regards Antoine. On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 23:39:22 -0400 "Franklin? Lee" <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
You have missed the use of *reductio ad absurdum* in my comment and several others. This argument structure is one of the fundamental forms of good logical reasoning, and shows nothing dismissive or insulting. The specifics book titles I used were carefully chosen, and you'd do well to think about why those specific books (and read all of them, if you haven't). On Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 11:40 PM Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/09/2018 10:45, David Mertz wrote:
For the ultimate "reductio as absurdum" it is possible to argue that one (1) is elitist and zero (0) is nihilist therefore to avoid offence we should scrap the entire binary system and with it digital computers - then the whole argument becomes moot until someone implements python on an analogue computer. ;-) -- Steve (Gadget) Barnes Any opinions in this message are my personal opinions and do not reflect those of my employer. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:14 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Please give an example of an attack I made above. I see accusations, made against adults, regarding actions. On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 05:45 David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
You have missed the use of *reductio ad absurdum* in my comment and several others. This argument structure is one of the fundamental forms of good logical reasoning, and shows nothing dismissive or insulting. The specifics book titles I used were carefully chosen, and you'd do well to think about why those specific books (and read all of them, if you haven't).
Reductio ad absurdum and mockery are not mutually exclusive. Mockery can be thought of as a natural (though often fallacious) form of reductio ad absurdum: the position (or person) should not be taken seriously because the consequences are absurd. The examples I chose were not simply coldly rational arguments, so we can look at the extra choices made. I'm sure you can see the difference between these two logically-equivalent arguments: - "Assume there is a largest prime. Then we can construct a large number which is not divisible by any prime. But that's impossible, so there is no largest prime." - "Since you believe there is a largest prime, we have a large number not divisible by any prime. I'll start on that pull request to change INT_MAX to the largest prime." For granularity, let: "disrespectful" := Negative respect, such as an insult. "unrespectful" := Without proper respect, but not as bad as "disrespectful". Other than mockery, there can be disrespectful argumentum ad absurdum. Often, the difference between a respectful and an unrespectful argument is how much logical effort is needed to reach the absurdity, because that is the effort that wasn't put in, or incorrectly put in. (Thinking off the top of my head, a slippery slope argument is often unrespectful.) While people often make small logical mistakes when new to a subject or idea, or miss immediate consequences, there are many cases where the person has clearly thought about their position before, and a logically-obvious one-line counter is an insult to their effort, if not their intelligence. If you do think you have an obvious one-line counter, even after considering whether you misunderstood the original argument, then putting it as a question is more respectful than stating it conclusively, which is more respectful than making it sarcastically. More generally, a respectful argument aims to convince your opponents, while an argument made with the audience in mind can be unrespectful, and an argument which mostly appeals to those that already agree is usually disrespectful. In your specific case, you used sarcasm, a one-liner argument (listing a few titles without elaborating on their relevance), slippery slope, talked about book-burning when the OP was suggesting a change for future work, and focused on the word "beautiful" where the OP focused on "ugly". Was your post crafted to convince the OP, or for the sake of a laugh? Do you believe that your post could convince any of your opponents? Would you have said it that way in a room where no one was already on your side?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 13:32:26 -0400 "Franklin? Lee" <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
Why would I? As you admit, you are not countering arguments, but accusing people. I have better to do than to waste my time in this kind of game. This mailing-list is not supposed to be a playground for angry people. Regards Antoine.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:04 PM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
I made accusations and explained them. You accused me of making personal attacks, but won't back it up when challenged, saying that it'd be a waste of time. If it's not important, why make the accusation in the first place? I have thought about making arguments and explanations, but erased them because it could distract from this point. I'm far less concerned about the proposal (in either direction) than about the treatment of a new user and a controversial proposal. The harm of that is here and now.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 09:40, Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
Please can we drop this line of discussion. It's neither productive nor helpful, and it's skirting very close to what I'd consider to be in violation of the CoC. Paul
On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Franklin? Lee < leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
It may be most relevant to interpret the poem as it is: culled from various writings of the community. What do we need to remember? Our criticism can hurt fragile feelings and egos; which we need to check at the door. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation (time spent disambiguating) Python is primarily an online community; where words are our appearance. "Most reasonable people would understand that" we're *clearly* talking about engineering design aesthetic. Not body dysmorphia. Objectively, Compared to C, Python is fat and slow. It's not fast, but it's pretty, and that's all it has going for it, In this crazy world. Mean losers, T-shirts. Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On Sunday, September 16, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Python community,
We should strive to be concise. "I don't like it because it's ugly" is not a helpful code review. Subjective assertions of superiority are only so useful in context to the objectives (e.g. reducing complexity)
That's subjective Compared to C,
C has different objectives for a different market.
Python is fat and slow.
Python is plenty fast for people all over the world who are solving problems for others.
It's not fast, but it's pretty, and that's all it has going for it,
Python has lots of things to be proud of and confident about (i.e. helping others and paying bills).
Attention seeking AND problem solving
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
I think it's meant to be ironic? Why would that be the first sentence of a poem about software and the Python newsgroup/mailing list community? A certain percentage of people might be offended by changing the first line (the frame of) of said poem; to "I'm better than you". Dominance and arrogance are upsetting to a certain percentage, so that shouldn't occur. (Though arrogance tends to be the norm in many open source communities which are necessarily discerning and selective; in order to avoid amateurish mediocrity). So, in a way, "Beautiful is better than ugly" was the CoC in the Python community for many years; so, now that the CoC is in place, the best thing to do may be to just remove the Zen of Python entirely; rather than dominate the authors' sarcastic poem until it's devoid of its intentional tone. On Sunday, September 16, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
Op ma 17 sep. 2018 om 16:40 schreef Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>:
I always considered the Zen to be about code only. I don't think I ever read the CoC, and just assumed "at least pretend to be a decent person". I don't think the CoC has anything to do with your code, right ?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:50 AM Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
PEP 20 makes it sound like it's for the design of Python itself. The original post was from a metadiscussion about Python's design, not about its users' code. https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-June/001951.html By "CoC", Wes is referring to the Zen. The official Community Code of Conduct is not just about being nice, but about being nice for the purpose of improving Python. https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ If you're a jerk to Python users in other contexts (maybe even in python-list), the Code doesn't care. Your code is (usually) also outside of the community. The Code of Conduct is about the people, while the Zen is about the design, and PEP 8 is about the style, but all three are about potential improvements to Python, not your personal/professional life (though you could still apply them if you want). (It irks me for no real reason that something called the _Code_ of Conduct has nothing to do with code, but that's the fault of the mathematicians and early computer scientists for overloading an existing word.)
Op zo 16 sep. 2018 om 05:40 schreef Franklin? Lee < leewangzhong+python@gmail.com>:
Sure, I'll take your bait.
Is it, though ? Even more because in order for it to apply to any one person's aesthetics, you need to pull it out of context first. You need to be looking for it. Being triggered by a word this simple is not exactly a sign of mental stability. I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?
Well, on the internet, the word "nigger" is already basically banned for american sensibilities, while the version in dutch, my language, is "neger", which doesn't really have any racist connotation, probably because the amount of slaves that have ever been in what's currently the netherlands, has been negligible. However, it's use is effectively banned because some other culture considers it offensive to use. Why should your culture be my censorship ? And it's no coincidence I used china there - it's notorious for it's censorship. If merely labeling a word as "offensive" is sufficient to ban it, I daresay they'd mark a whole lot more words as offensive. And why would their opinion be any less valid than yours ? Don't think you're special - you're not. If you want to give yourself the power to ban words for offensive, you're giving that same power to everyone. And since offensive is subjective, it means anybody could ban any word, since you couldn't tell the difference between real or fake offense. Therefore, it is a disastrous idea and I'll predict the end of Python if we go down that route.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:17 AM Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
Is it disrespectful to give a psychological diagnosis in a discussion? Usually. It is dismissive (it's inarguably an ad hominem), potentially insulting (because it's often intentionally used that way, so the listener might interpret it that way even when it isn't intended), and it is based on very little information. I think it's safe to assume that you're not a trained professional, or even a well-read amateur, since you would otherwise know how much information is fed into a proper diagnosis, so it is also as inappropriate as giving lawyer advice without a disclaimer, or stating your quantum telepathy ideas as scientific "fact". But unlike the other fields, making psychology claims about your opponents during an argument is harmful, and not just theoretically harmful. It's a personal attack, and tries to invalidate their right to even be in the discussion by saying that they're fundamentally irrational. That's harmful to both people and the discussion. Look at how upset people get in any argument where someone accuses them of bias, which is a weaker claim than mentally unstable. We can go deeper. Your diagnosis is based on a single factor: If a person is harmed by the use of the word "ugly", they need psychological help. Even if that were true, you go further: Don't change Python for those people. Python should not accommodate them. We should not be inconvenienced by the needs of the mentally ill. Let's say something in Python harms people with a certain mental illness. They are getting treatment, or they don't know they need treatment, or they declined treatment. Should Python change (patch, document, maintain a change) to accommodate them? Or, on the other extreme, should Python tell them, "Go away, and come back when you're healthy"? What should they do in the meantime? (On-topic: I think the only reasonable answer is, "It depends." There's no slippery slope. There should be a weighing of the chance of harm, the amount of potential harm, and the cost of the change. I think it is not reasonable to accommodate everyone no matter the cost (and literally no one here has argued for that; I checked), and I think it is not reasonable to reject any accommodation if it's of a certain type (which people here have at least argued for, though I believe they're just not bothering to state their nuances).) I don't think you are unsympathetic to the mentally ill. I think the people you don't want to accommodate are actually the people who _claim to fight_ for the mentally ill. Question: If someone proposes an alternative that people think is better than the original, would you still be against making a change? Will you think of it as giving in to censorship or to the PC/SJW group?
I know a girl who's been raped more than she can count - but the word doesn't trigger her like this(only makes her want to beat up rapists). If people can do that, then surely a playground insult wont reduce you to tears, right ?
It's complicated. Different people respond differently to different situations. And people have differing experiences, even if those experiences have the same label. It is hard to extrapolate from a handful of examples, because the mind and the real world are both complicated.
(Arguably, the equivalent of "neger" is "Negro", which is today considered somewhat offensive in America, but is still used on official forms because it's preferred by some older black Americans. That's an interesting example of human culture.) No one argued that others can't also object, so I don't know if they'll see a problem with your slope. (I know of an example: "Laputa" was a prominent name in a Miyazaki film, but it was derived (through Jonathan Swift) from an offensive Spanish word, which the filmmakers didn't know. One could ask if we should censor the word in foreign localizations of the film, whether they land in Spanish-speaking countries or not.) But my objection wasn't that the argument was invalid, but that you wrote it as mockery. Let me try to rewrite the same argument without mockery. """You want us to remove "ugly", but isn't that only a problem to Americans? I am not an American. Do you believe Python should accommodate non-Americans objecting to common American words? What groups should we listen to, and which ones can we ignore? One group that comes to my mind is the Chinese government.""" This invites the speaker to outline the limits of their slopes, and explain themselves further. It opens discussion, instead of trying to close it. It respects their input, and asks for more.
if (out.of.subject).pingpong: time to let the thread go Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer Mauritius
Hi everyone, on behalf of the moderators… please, let’s stop discussing who accused whom of what, and either stick to the discussion at hand or be silent. If you can’t make a point without aggression or name calling, then it’s not a point you should be making. (That’s a general statement about this list and this thread, not about any one particular recent e-mail.) thanks, —titus
I love the Zen of Python and I occasionally cite one in a commit. Usually it's either flat/nested or the one about namespaces. I have never used beautiful/ugly. I think it would be incredibly conceited to cite it at any commit or code review. I don't think it serves anything. However I would welcome a serious attempt of rewording it (I don't have any suggestions myself though). -----Original Message----- From: Python-ideas [mailto:python-ideas-bounces+omar.balbuena=scm.ca@python.org] On Behalf Of C. Titus Brown Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 08:50 To: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <arj.python@gmail.com> Cc: python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause Hi everyone, on behalf of the moderators… please, let’s stop discussing who accused whom of what, and either stick to the discussion at hand or be silent. If you can’t make a point without aggression or name calling, then it’s not a point you should be making. (That’s a general statement about this list and this thread, not about any one particular recent e-mail.) thanks, —titus
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
The below email was reported to the PSF board for code of conduct violations and then passed on to the conduct working group to decide on an appropriate response. Based on the WG's recommendation and after discussing it with Titus, the decision has been made to ban Jacco from python-ideas. Trivializing assault, using the n-word, and making inappropriate comments about someone's mental stability are all uncalled for and entirely unnecessary to carry on a reasonable discourse of conversation that remains welcoming to others. On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 00:18 Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:
On 20/09/18 19:56, Brett Cannon wrote:
Not a challenge to the ban in any way, but I feel the need to repeat what I said about banning words. The moment you create that taboo, you give the word power. That's the exact opposite of what you want to do. It's the intent with which the word is used that matters. I've heard all sorts of words used as insults -- "special", anyone? -- and many of the same words used innocently or affectionately. Banning bad or insulting behaviour is fine. Banning words is a bad path to go down. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
The main clause differentiating bad, weaponizable CoCs from good ones is "Assume good faith" Everything will be OK if good faith can reasonably be assumed (E.g. when someone uses a word which is only offensive based on context) On the other hand, e.g. obvious racial slurs never have a place on a discussion board about a programming language. How can one possibly say them in good faith? Rhodri James <rhodri@kynesim.co.uk> schrieb am Fr., 21. Sep. 2018 um 15:46 Uhr:
Hi, For the record I was surprised to see the word "slur" pop up quite often recently, while I'd only heard "insult" before. I looked it up and it doesn't help that the French translation seems to be the same in both cases (it's "insulte"). Then I came upon this thread where someone pretty much asks the same question: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/6bjgwq/slur_vs_insult/ and the comments there are interesting as to how complicated and difficult to grasp the cultural landscape of linguistic taboos really is. Regards Antoine. On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:55:10 +0200 "Philipp A." <flying-sheep@web.de> wrote:
Kinda OT, but I believe the connotation is that slur is use of the word, whereas an insult is use directed at someone. For instance, if someone is having a conversation where they use the n-word, it's a racial slur. If they directly call someone that, it's an insult. On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 9:45 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
-- Ryan (ライアン) Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else https://refi64.com/
On 21/09/18 16:23, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
Kinda OT, but I believe the connotation is that slur is use of the word, whereas an insult is use directed at someone.
According to Chambers online, a slur is "a disparaging remark intended to damage a reputation" while an insult is "a rude or offensive remark or action" (at least in the meanings we are talking about). They have overlapping meanings but aren't identical. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
English is not straightforward and is constantly evolving. -- H On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 08:45, Rhodri James <rhodri@kynesim.co.uk> wrote:
-- OpenPGP: https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFEBAD7FFD041BBA1 If you wish to request my time, please do so using bit.ly/hd1AppointmentRequest. Si vous voudrais faire connnaisance, allez a bit.ly/hd1AppointmentRequest. Sent from my mobile device Envoye de mon portable
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 16:56 Philipp A. <flying-sheep@web.de> wrote:
Here's how: as a demonstration that words that are considered slurs in certain contexts (such as the word "Negro" in America) might be considered perfectly legitimate day-to-day words in another context. Even if the example was incorrect, it is still legitimate. Your question should be directed against the OP in the discussion, bringing up an issue completely unrelated to programming languages (probably trolling, as several people before me have pointed out). Elazar
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:52 AM Elazar <elazarg@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't report him, and I don't agree with the ban, but I assume I'm missing something if they felt the need to act so strongly, days after the discussion died down. Some words are KNOWN to be considered taboo by some. Using the word (instead of a euphemism), especially while discussing the taboo, is an intentional political act against those people. Compare with "Voldemort" in the well-known series "Harry Potter". The protagonists use the name in the presence of other, superstitious, characters, when they intend to change the status quo. If they wanted to have a polite conversation about it, they would use the common euphemism for that name, because you don't want to ADD emotions to such a conversation. (I'm intentionally using a positive example, to keep people from feeling slighted by a negative one.)
Your question should be directed against the OP in the discussion, bringing up an issue completely unrelated to programming languages (probably trolling, as several people before me have pointed out).
I'm one of those who believe the OP was a troll. But you're saying that the post was also off-topic. Where would you rather have it go? The proposal was about changing the Zen of Python. If ANY proposed change in the Zen goes through, I'd expect to see a discussion on python-ideas. On the other hand, discussing taboo words in general society is less on-topic. Tie it back to Python and how it hurts Python to ban these words.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Franklin? Lee wrote:
Hi folks, we have a committee-based process for making these decisions, so it necessarily takes some time. Brett and I can make urgent decisions but everything goes through the process. best, --titus
Chris Barker via Python-ideas writes:
"Sam" at yandex.ru did not even do that. She just took it out of context. The post was a troll, whether she is or not. So put it back in context. PyCon 2017 had the whole python -m this on the back of the shirts. If somebody *ever* complains about that, I'll bite my tongue and ignore them.
Either way you're ignoring their actual sensitivities, so it's at root the same (the former manifests as patronizing, the latter as rude). On the other hand, sometimes there are better terms to use. It's one thing to pull "beautiful is better than ugly" out of a poem in which most of the lines follow that same pattern of "<positive adjective> is better than <negative adjective>", breaking the symmetry. It's another when replacing "master/slave" comes up, and it's pointed out that there *are* more precise terms, such as "original/replica", in some contexts. I'm of two minds as whether it's worth the churn, but if others are willing to do the work ;-) of finding all the uses, proposing replacements, and submitting the PRs, I'd be willing to review and add my $.02 as to whether there's actually an improvement. I would also disagree with Greg Ewing's take on "robot". It may have meant "slave" in the original Czech, but in English it has strong connotations of "automaton" and an inherent lack of autonomy, quite different from a human slave's flexibility to perform any command, and the way a human slave's autonomy is stripped by force, respectively. If Czech-speakers want to offer their opinions, I'm listening, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that their consensus opinion in 2018 to be that the English usage of robot is more prevalent than the Czech original meaning. Steve
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 4:34 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Robot doesn't mean "slave" in Czech, but rather "serf." Serfdom was/is a terrible institution, but nothing best so terrible as the Atlantic slave trade of the 15th-19th C which is what modern usage tends to indicates. Moreover, the morpheme "rōb" is commonplace in Slavic languages to mean "work" in a more general sense. Wikipedia: Karl Čapek's fictional story postulated the technological creation of artificial human bodies without souls, and the old theme of the feudal robota class eloquently fit the imagination of a new class of manufactured, artificial workers.
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 22:09 +0200, Davide Rizzo wrote:
This illustrates that by taking something out of context, it can (appear to) get an entirely different meaning. This can happen on purpose or (as in this case, I assume) by accident. It doesn't say anything about the complete text of the “Zen of Python” (which to any layperson probably looks quite like unintelligible gibberish). The lesson to be learned is: “be careful when taking something out of context”. -- Jan Claeys
participants (22)
-
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer -
Antoine Pitrou -
Brett Cannon -
C. Titus Brown -
Chris Angelico -
Chris Barker -
David Mertz -
Davide Rizzo -
Elazar -
Franklin? Lee -
Greg Ewing -
Hasan Diwan -
Jacco van Dorp -
Jan Claeys -
Omar Balbuena -
Paul Moore -
Philipp A. -
Rhodri James -
Ryan Gonzalez -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Barnes -
Wes Turner