[erlang-questions] Coon - new tool for building Erlang packages, dependency management and deploying Erlang services

[Zachary Kessin]

I would like to second what Fred said. I just went through something
like this in a different context and I have to say
"its not reasonable that <Group> is offended" is a pretty bad apology.
ᐧ

Zach Kessin - CEO Finch Software
I boost sales with retail chatbots for fashion and cosmetics
+972 54 234 3956 / +44 203 734 9790 / +1 617 778 7213
Book a meeting with me <https://calendly.com/zkessin/chatbot>

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Fred Hebert <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:29 AM, <zxq9@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>> On 2018年2月12日月曜日 10時16分51秒 JST Fred Hebert wrote:
>> > Intent does not matter.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Fred, I have enormous respect for you and have gone several rounds with
>> you on several subjects, each time having learned something for my own
>> part. On technical subjects, anyway.
>>
>> But... INTENT
>>
>> You are demonstraby wrong already. Just stop. You will not win against
>> the weight of history.
>>
>
> I am not wrong in not wanting to ever introduce this library in my god
> damn workplace. Because I know and have worked with people who do find this
> kind of shit offensive.
>
> I'm happy you live in a place and in a context where everyone is fine with
> that. This has not been the reality of the people I have spent time with
> both professionally and personally.
>
>
>>
>> This is becoming some SJW ridiculousness already, not because you care
>> about that but because of the ambient temperature. I know SJW flippancy is
>> not your intent, but that is the only place this winds up going these days.
>> That is not a small failure -- it quickly becomes a systemic one, not just
>> in a concurrent software system of ephemeral importance, but a concrete
>> socio-economic one of critical importance that pays for all the other
>> parties we enjoy.
>>
>
> I'm surprised that you find the idea that using a term that can very
> reasonably be construed as racist is *SJW flippancy*.
>
> Let's take a quick look by looking at first definitions on Urban
> Dictionary for a game. I picked random animal names or short terms:
>
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coon
>    Insulting term for a black person
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doggo
>    An alternate term for a dog used on meme pages to express the meaning
>    of the picture. Usually found in captions.
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cat
>    The definitive pet.
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog
>    Not a cat
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fox
>    A beautiful and attractive woman
>    - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whale
>    noun; a wealthy patron to a casino, gets paid special attention by a
>    casino host so the patron will feel comfortable to gamble more money.
>
>  Oh hm. Sorry I guess the usage is really forgotten for that one.
>
> *Intent does not matter* is not me saying that the author of the lib is
> racist or ill-intended. It's me saying that no matter the original intent,
> the consequences will be the result of the reader's interpretation. Look
> this is even a principle in literary review called *The death of the
> author* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author):
>
> In his essay, Barthes argues against the method of reading and criticism
>> that relies on aspects of the author's identity—their political views,
>> historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical
>> or personal attributes—to distill meaning from the author's work. In this
>> type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a
>> definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, this method of reading
>> may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed:
>> "To give a text an author" and assign a single, corresponding
>> interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text".
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and
>> textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations",
>> drawn from "innumerable centers of culture", rather than from one,
>> individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the
>> impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the
>> writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins", or its creator, "but in
>> its destination", or its audience.
>>
>
> The whole point is that you cannot reasonably expect the author to be
> around to give meaning and maintain these things. What the author intends
> is not relevant in the long run because the interpretation can get away
> from it. It's like in satire: good satire/irony/sarcasm must be visible and
> enough in your face that it won't be construed as supporting the system you
> are attempting to criticize.
>
> Intent does not matter.
>
>
>
>> Riddle me this:
>> If we cannot undersand enough about the software systems that WE WRITE
>> OURSELVES that we need the "let it crash" mentality, how is it that we
>> somehow understand to a manifest degree the economic and social value
>> systems (which are profoundly more complex than our petty software systems)
>> that we can dictate value within them? By what restart mechanism is this
>> all brought back to a "reasonble default"?
>>
>> I am sincerely desirous of an answer here, because I have a profound
>> respect for your intellect but cannot imagine that you have properly
>> considered the alternatives or where this path of discourse winds up
>> eventualy going.
>>
>
> I very much stand by *intent does not matter*. It matters to me in this
> context and I do not yet judge Valery negatively, I trust that *raccoon*
> was indeed the original name intent. It does not mean that other people
> will do the same. Expecting other people to do the same is downright absurd
> and foolish. If your entire position relies on explaining every single
> person the origin of the name for things to go well, you have taken the
> losing battle of tilting at windmills. This is the hill you die on. What
> I'm doing here is giving a really fucking serious warning of how much
> windmill tilting you'll get into.
>
> If you want me to go by the *Let it Crash* maxim, the idea of *let it
> crash* is to not try to handle all the errors and letting them fail early
> and often. Start from a clean slate rather than trying to correct corrupted
> state. What I'm doing here is trying to crash this stupid ass project name
> as early as possible so the author doesn't get stuck trying to handle every
> error coming their way in the near future. Look at it this way. You even
> have a bunch of terms for it in this single thread: *SJW Flippancy.* Loic
> brought up *identity politics*. Roman is trying make a tally of who is it
> who's offended in the first place as if that made any difference the moment
> this gets out of here.
>
> If you can't see that as a warning sign when this discussion is taking
> place within mailing list regulars, what will be a reasonable waning sign
> to you?
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180212/7bc83f99/attachment.htm>