On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:55:40 +0200 "Giampaolo Rodola'" <g.rodola@gmail.com> wrote:

This is simply ridiculous. I'm not sure if this is political correctness pushed to its limits or just trolling.

Indeed she might be trolling. Though the fact we're hesitating on the diagnosis shows how far reality has come on the matter... Regards Antoine.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the general response here. I was taking it seriously because, well, that's how far it's going everywhere.

The first line from "import this" is The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters I suggest we put this discussion on hold, until Tim Peters (copied) has had a chance to respond. -- Jonathan

If I were to change anything, I'd drop the reference to "Zen". That wasn't part of the original, and was added by someone else. If, e.g., a Zen Buddhist objected that this use trivializes their beliefs, I'd have real sympathy with _that_. But I'd be greatly surprised if a Zen Buddhist exists who objected to wordplay ;-)

I just happen to be a Zen Buddhist! And you’re right. The worst reaction you are likely to get is an eye roll. / Kankyo (aka Anders)

Possibly off topic - but it is about beauty. Anders wrote

I just happen to be a Zen Buddhist! And you’re right. The worst reaction you are likely to get is an eye roll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Naht_Hahn is a Zen Buddhist. He has said To be beautiful means to be yourself. You don't need to be accepted by others. You need to accept yourself. I wonder if this is related to the beauty in "The Zen of Python". -- Jonathan

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 13:10 Koos Zevenhoven <k7hoven@gmail.com> wrote:

If you can't tell inclusivity/diversity from political correctness, or dirty words from dirty bytes or from unfriendliness and intolerance, you'd better go fuck yourself.

That language and tone is entirely uncalled for and you have been participating here long enough to know that it isn't. Due to the severity of the language and the fact that I have received previous reports of negative interactions I am implementing a 2 month ban for you, Koos. After two months you can submit a request to have your posting abilities restored.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:32:43 +0200 Oleg Broytman <phd@phdru.name> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:22:14PM +0200, Jacco van Dorp <j.van.dorp@deonet.nl> wrote:

...

I'm pleasantly surprised by the general response here. I was taking it seriously because, well, that's how far it's going everywhere.

1. I couldn't believe it could be serious.

2. I was sure it was trolling on the trail of https://bugs.python.org/issue34605

3. The name of a Canadian actress combined with Russian free email service made the suspicion more obvious.

Good point. I don't know much about actresses and gmane hides the provider part of e-mail addresses. Regards Antoine.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:16 PM, João Santos <jmcs@jsantos.eu> wrote:

One important difference between master/slave and beautiful/ugly is that the first pair are concrete concepts that typically applies to people, and the second are abstract concepts that always applied also to objects and abstract concepts.

You may or may not be right about "slave", but "master" is frequently applied to objects - the document from which other copies are taken, the template from which a cast is formed, etc. Even when applied to people, it doesn't have to be paired with slavery - a "master" of a skill is, well, someone who has mastered it. Excising the word master from all documentation is likely impossible, and pointless. And yes, I'm probably going to be slaughtered for saying this. But I grew up around photocopiers, so to me, the "master" was the good quality print-out that we stuck into the top of the copier, as opposed to the "copies" that came out the front of it. Not everyone assumes the worst about words. ChrisA

Jacco van Dorp wrote:

You can have master and slave devices - for example, if I have a PC that tells a robot what to do, my PC is the master and the robot the slave.

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". https://www.etymonline.com/word/robot -- Greg

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:51 PM Oleg Broytman <phd@phdru.name> wrote:

2. I was sure it was trolling on the trail of https://bugs.python.org/issue34605

Wow! I find it a bit excessive that #34605 was not discussed first and got checked in so quickly. I hope there won't be similar initiatives about terms such as killing, abortion, daemon, termination, disabled, etc. If somebody gets offended about these terms being used in computer science it's entirely their problem. Trying to make such individuals happy is useless and a waste of python-dev time. -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com

M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

For me, it refers to a general feeling of consistency, pureness and standing out on its own. It's abstract and doesn't have anything to do with humans.

Yep. And the proposed replacement "clean/dirty" doesn't even mean the same thing. It's entirely possible for a thing to be spotlessly clean without being beautiful or elegant. -- Greg

[Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com>]

"Elegant" is the *only* word I think it would be appropriate to replace "beautiful" with.

And I can't think of an elegant replacement for "ugly" to pair with "elegant". "Awkward" would probably be the best I can think of, and "Elegant is better than awkward" just feels kinda awkward ...

I already made clear that I'm opposed to changing it. But, if fashion dictates it must change, then the only worthy alternative would be:

Elegant is better than inelegant. Which illustrates all by itself why inelegant sucks ;-)

[Tim]

...

I already made clear that I'm opposed to changing it.

[Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>]

To me, this settles the issues. As author, you own the copyright on your work. The CLA allows revision of contributions, but I don't think that contributed poetry should be treated the same as code and docs.

I don't care about legalities here. If people want to change it into something it never intended to say, so it goes. It wouldn't be the first time A Prophet's words were bastardized to suit political fashion ;-)

The free verse form reminds me more of Hindu-Jain-Buddhist sutras, with a bit of Monty Python tossed in, rather than of Zen writing. I presume that 'Zen' refers more to the method of composition, and the lack of post-production editing, than to the content.

As I noted before, "Zen" wasn't my word. Somebody else dreamed up that to give it "a title". In real life, it was originally buried in a comp.lang.python post talking about what guided Guido's _language_ design decisions. I presume "Zen" came to their mind because it's brief, and a critical reading reveals a number of seeming ambiguities and contradictions, yet it nevertheless _appears_ to say _something_ ;-) It has those aspects in common with any number of (English translations of) Zen koans.

If the text were up for grabs, I would want to change some periods to semi-colons and reconsider some of the other lines.

While I would not ;-)

The 'beauty' line is one of multiple contrasts, and should be judged in that context, not in isolation.

FYI, that line came first because I channeled that what it said was truly fundamental to Python's design: Guido's ineffable sense of aesthetics. Language design isn't a purely deductive science, and Guido never pretended it was. Back then, various proposals elicited encouragement or visceral disgust very quickly. Beautiful or ugly? Indeed, the rest of the aphorisms can be viewed as elaborating on aspects of what "beautiful" and "ugly" _mean_ in this context. That "beautiful" and "ugly" are subjective is essential to the point it intended. Any objectively definable terms instead would miss that point entirely. At heart, Python's design emerged from Guido's sense of beauty (and of its opposite in ordinary language: ugliness).

Discussions like this are always difficult and charged, but I think there's a good opportunity for growth here. I love being involved with the Python community for, among many other reasons, I think Python is quite inclusive, especially as a technical community. However, I know that people often feel excluded from technical communities, and I don't think that Python is an exception to that. Referring to code as ugly doesn't bother me, but I could see how it could bother others. I do also see how it's useful shorthand. I think that there's some sort of balancing test that corresponds to making the decision on not just this case, but others like it. I know that this kind of decision is made all the time, however, I don't see a PEP which seems to touch on anything like this. I think we need to document it for the sake of transparency and consistency. Forgetting for a moment the charged context of the conversation itself, does anyone have any opinions on how this would come to be? Thank you for reading and hopefully listening, -Ryan Birmingham On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 23:03, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

On 9/13/2018 7:34 PM, Tim Peters wrote:

...

I already made clear that I'm opposed to changing it.\

To me, this settles the issues. As author, you own the copyright on your work. The CLA allows revision of contributions, but I don't think that contributed poetry should be treated the same as code and docs.

The free verse form reminds me more of Hindu-Jain-Buddhist sutras, with a bit of Monty Python tossed in, rather than of Zen writing. I presume that 'Zen' refers more to the method of composition, and the lack of post-production editing, than to the content.

If the text were up for grabs, I would want to change some periods to semi-colons and reconsider some of the other lines.

The 'beauty' line is one of multiple contrasts, and should be judged in that context, not in isolation.

-- Terry Jan Reedy

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Tim Delaney wrote:

And I can't think of an elegant replacement for "ugly" to pair with "elegant".

There's "inelegant", but it doesn't have the same punch as "ugly". And I think Tim deliberately chose a very punchy word for that line, to reflect that we care a *lot* about aesthetics in Python. -- Greg

пятница, 14 сентября 2018 г., 1:56:58 UTC+3 пользователь Guido van Rossum написал:

Everyone who still wants to reply to this thread: please decide for yourself whether the OP, "Samantha Quan" who started it could be a Russian troll. Facts to consider: (a) the OP's address is ...@yandex.com, a well-known Russian website (similar to Google); (b) there's a Canadian actress named Samantha Quan.

I completely agree with the fact that this discussion should be stopped without starting it. I just want to note that anyone (with this it does not have to be Russian at all) can create an account on Yandex. I would not want this trolling to be considered in the spirit of forging a negative attitude towards the Russians.

Guido van Rossum wrote:

Facts to consider: (a) the OP's address is ...@yandex.com <http://yandex.com>, a well-known Russian website (similar to Google); (b) there's a Canadian actress named Samantha Quan.

Now I'm waiting for the Kremlin to deny rumours that the Canadian actress Samantha Quan is a russian spy... -- Greg

On 13/09/18 14:16, Calvin Spealman wrote:

Samantha,

I came into this thread reading the subject and thinking "over my dead body!" until I read your well-thought reasoning and gave even a little bit of thought to the idea.

You're absolutely right and while I think its very unlikely to get enough support I do think it is a very good suggestion, totally reasonable, and that we *should* change it.

I ask everyone on this thread being rude to please step back and try to look at the issue without your bias and knee-jerk reactions. Even if you can't change your minds, at least be more civil about it.

I couldn't disagree more, and I say that as a card-carrying liberal. First, did you check out Oleg's post about the likelihood that this is a troll? More importantly, this whole idea of banning and/or changing terminology is psychologically and sociologically wrong-headed. The moment you say "You may not use that word" you create a taboo, and give the word a power that it did not have before. It actually becomes more destructive when it is (inevitably) wheeled out, not less. You may claim that it stops everyday usage of the word, and to an extent that's true, but if people want to use the concept as an insult they will just load that intent onto some other previously innocent word. I got to watch this happen when I was growing up. My father was a Disablement Resettlement Officer, which means he found jobs for people with a wide variety of disabilities. I watched as the words that could be used for disabled people changed as the current word was deemed insulting, and even as a youngster I was boggled that no one seemed to notice or care that exactly the same thing happened every time. For a brief moment the new terminology would be all novel and different (and sometimes laughable), but after a short while all the connotations of the previous term would catch up with the new term and bring some new friends they had made on the way (see "laughable" above). So no, I'm not changing my mind. The suggestion to change is the knee-jerk reaction, and we shouldn't fall for it.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:38 AM Samantha Quan <sammiequan@yandex.com> wrote:

...

First, I'd like to express how grateful I am to see more and more technical communities embrace diversity and inclusivity, particularly big tech communities like Python, Redis, and Django.

In the spirit of the big recent terminology change, I propose retiring or rewording the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause for perpetuating beauty bias and containing lookist slur. I realize that Zen is old, but you can't argue that the word "ugly" is harmless, now that society condemns body shaming, and instead promotes body acceptance and self-love. One alternative to that clause I could think of is "Clean is better than dirty", but please do speak up if you have better ideas.

I ask you to give this change serious consideration, even if it seems over-the-top to you now, because times change, and this will be of great help in the battle for the more tolerant and less judgemental society.

I understand that this topic may seem controversial to some, so please be open-minded and take extra care to respect the PSF Code Of Conduct when replying.

Thank you!

- Sam

Some references:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lookism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

-- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 17:15, Mark E. Haase <mehaase@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's assume her proposal was made in good faith.

Certainly. I'm opposed to any proposal to change long-established and common usage wording on the basis that it has the *potential* to cause offense. If anyone is *actually* offended by the wording, let them speak up, and explain why they find it offensive. Otherwise, I'd prefer to assume that people are sensible, and have a certain level of willingness to take others' words in good faith, rather than assuming offense where none is intended. It would be easy for me to claim that the culture of assuming offense where none was intended is itself a divisive and corrosive factor in society at the moment. But if I did so, that in itself would be making unfair assumptions of the intention of people making proposals like Samantha's, so I won't - I'll merely say that I'd like any proposal such as this to be backed by specific evidence of real-world cases that demonstrate that the change is needed, exactly the same criteria as we would use for a proposal for a technical change[1]. For what it's worth, I'd also have preferred it if the recent change to eliminate the (pretty standard) master/slave terminology from the documentation had been subject to the same requirement for evidence of need. Words have multiple meanings. Assuming that a word used in one context automatically brings along context and connotations from a totally unrelated area seems silly to me, to be honest. Language isn't that black and white[2]. Paul [1] I appreciate that questions of what makes good, or even acceptable, prose are very subjective. So concrete evidence is harder to produce. But nevertheless, at least an honest attempt to produce *something* would be better than simple unsubstantiated statements like "you can't argue that the word "ugly" is harmless" (yes I can - and I will, if you insist), or references like "In the spirit of the big recent terminology change" to other controversial changes as if they offered unqualified justification for more of the same. [2] There's an example - in case anyone thought otherwise, the phrase "black and white" referred to contrast between opposites, and not racial stereotyping, or indeed any reference to people as opposed to abstract concepts...

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Mark E. Haase <mehaase@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:49 AM Rhodri James <rhodri@kynesim.co.uk> wrote:

...

More importantly, this whole idea of banning and/or changing terminology is psychologically and sociologically wrong-headed. The moment you say "You may not use that word" you create a taboo, and give the word a power that it did not have before.

Samantha posted this as a *proposal* to python-*ideas*, the mailing list where we purportedly discuss... umm... ideas. Samantha has not banned any words from Python, so let's tone down the hyperbole.

These responses that assume Samantha is a troll are based on... what? Other posters on this list use Yandex e-mails, and nobody called those people trolls. And there are a lot of disagreements about ideas, and most of those people don't get called trolls, either. The Python CoC calls for *respect*, and I posit that the majority reaction to Samantha's first post has been disrespectful.

Engage the post on the ideas—or ignore it altogether—but please don't automatically label newcomers with controversial ideas as trolls. Let's assume her proposal was made in good faith.

It's not just automatically labeling newcomers with controversial ideas – This is a very common tactic that online organized bigotry groups use: invent fake "socially progressive" personas, and use them to stir up arguments, undermine trust, split communities, etc. The larger campaigns are pretty well documented: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/06/16/_endfathersday_is_a_hoax_fox... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/your-slip-is-showing-4cha... https://birdeemag.com/free-bleeding-thing/ https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/femcon-4chan-convention-scam/ http://www.newnownext.com/clovergender-hoax-fake-prank-pharma-bro-martin-shk... Smaller-scale versions are also common – these people love to jump into difficult conversations and try to make them more difficult. That said, in OP's case we don't actually know either way, and even trolls can inadvertently suggest good ideas, so we should consider the proposal on its merits. Applied to people, lookism is a real and honestly kind of horrifying thing: humans who happen to be born with less symmetric faces get paid worse, receive worse health care, all kinds of unfair things. It wasn't too long ago that being sufficiently ugly in public was actually illegal in many places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law But even if we all agree that beautiful and ugly people should be treated equally, I don't see how it follows that beautiful and ugly buildings should be treated equally, or beautiful and ugly music should be treated equally, or beautiful and ugly code should be treated equally. The situations are totally different. Maybe there's some connection I'm missing, and if anyone (Samantha?) has links to deeper discussion then I'll happily take a look. But until then I'm totally comfortable with keeping the Zen as-is. (And I'm someone pretty far on the "SJW" side of the spectrum, and 100% in favor of Victor's original PR.) -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 09:06:53PM +0100, Samantha Quan <sammiequan@yandex.com> wrote:

It's my understanding that master/slave terminology is now deprecated, because these words carry dark meanings, too, and further alienate folks who feel uncomfortable being reminded of them everywhere. That's the idea of inclusivity: to make other people (usually from marginalized groups) feel welcome and safe. By removing/replacing the word "ugly", we could make one additional step towards being more inclusive.

I also propose to ban the following technical terms that carry dark meanings: "abort", "kill" and "execute" (stop the genocide!) Not sure about "terminate". There are also nationalist jokes about Dutchs. That also must be stopped! Let's decide how to replace them and who'll send pull requests about what. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytman https://phdru.name/ phd@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

Calvin Spealman wrote:

I ask everyone on this thread being rude to please step back and try to look at the issue without your bias and knee-jerk reactions.

I've given it some thought, and this is what I think: As has been pointed out, context is important. The reason that shunning people for not having beautiful bodies is distasteful is that people don't have much choice about their physical appearance. But we *do* have a choice about which non-human things we surround ourselves with, especially those things that we make ourselves. Calling for the words "beautiful" and "ugly" to be expunged from the language is saying that we shouldn't be allowed to choose *anything* based on how it affects us aesthetically. That, I think, would make the world a rather miserable place to live in. -- Greg

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Mikhail V <mikhailwas@gmail.com> wrote:

And I don't know what can be really 'beautiful' in _any_ code. Ugly - yes, it's often can be said about the code which is full of redundant punctuation, bad formatting, etc. But this sound strange: "this code is beautiful". Do people really say like that?

Yes. Yes, I do. Not often, because code is seldom beautiful enough to warrant comment, but it definitely does happen. ChrisA