<div dir="ltr">The worst part of it that nobody is offended at this very moment, but Fred speaks for people who could be offended, in his opinion. But could they, or could they not nobody knows (except them, but they are not present). Maybe the same people could be offended by other words as well, how do we know? And should we really care (having quite offensive names in the wild already)? Should we run all possible project names through the council of these people?<img src="https://mltrk.io/pixel/LJRny4FB9Bwqhoy5abg5?rid=LJRny4FB9Bwqhoy5abg5" width="1" height="1" border="0"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Zachary Kessin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zkessin@gmail.com" target="_blank">zkessin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:garamond,serif">I would like to second what <wbr>Fred said. I just went <wbr>through something like this <wbr>in a different context and I <wbr>have to say "its not reasonable that <Group> is offended" is a pretty bad apology. </div></div><div hspace="streak-pt-mark" style="max-height:1px"><img alt="" style="width:0px;max-height:0px;overflow:hidden" src="https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aemtlc3NpbkBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=e394e5c2-5986-43a8-b0d7-7f0ffd7c2741"><font color="#ffffff" size="1">ᐧ</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_609975811736525270gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:garamond,serif">Zach Kessin - CEO Finch Software<br><font color="#000000">I boost sales with retail chatbots for fashion and cosmetics</font><br><a href="tel:+972%2054-234-3956" value="+972542343956" target="_blank">+972 54 234 3956</a> / <a href="tel:+44%2020%203734%209790" value="+442037349790" target="_blank">+44 203 734 9790</a> / <a href="tel:(617)%20778-7213" value="+16177787213" target="_blank">+1 617 778 7213</a></span></div><div><font face="garamond, serif"><a href="https://calendly.com/zkessin/chatbot" target="_blank">Book a meeting with me</a></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Fred Hebert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mononcqc@ferd.ca" target="_blank">mononcqc@ferd.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:29 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zxq9@zxq9.com" target="_blank">zxq9@zxq9.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-">On 2018年2月12日月曜日 10時16分51秒 JST Fred Hebert wrote:<br>
> Intent does not matter.<br>
<br>
</span>No.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
But... INTENT<br>
<br>
You are demonstraby wrong already. Just stop. You will not win against the weight of history.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm surprised that you find the idea that using a term that can very reasonably be construed as racist is <i>SJW flippancy</i>. <br></div><div><br></div><div>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:<br></div><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coon" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=coon</a> <br><div class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-meaning">Insulting term for a black person</div></li><li><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doggo" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=doggo</a><br>An alternate term for a dog used on meme pages to express the meaning of the picture. Usually found in captions.</li><li><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cat" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=Cat</a><br>The definitive pet.
</li><li><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=dog</a><br>Not a cat<br></li><li><span class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-"><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fox" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=fox</a><br></span><span class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-">A beautiful and attractive woman</span></li><li><span class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-"><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whale" target="_blank">https://www.urbandictionary.co<wbr>m/define.php?term=whale</a><br></span>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.<br><span class="m_609975811736525270m_1002008896656968835m_5104648509440930194gmail-"></span></li></ul></div><div> Oh hm. Sorry I guess the usage is really forgotten for that one.</div><div><br></div><div><i>Intent does not matter</i> 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 <i>The death of the author</i> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki<wbr>/The_Death_of_the_Author</a>):</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>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".<br><br>[...]<br><br>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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Intent does not matter.<br></div><span><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Riddle me this:<br>
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"?<br>
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div>I very much stand by <i>intent does not matter</i>. It matters to me in this context and I do not yet judge Valery negatively, I trust that <i>raccoon</i> 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.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div>If you want me to go by the <i>Let it Crash</i> maxim, the idea of <i>let it crash</i> 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: <i>SJW Flippancy.</i> Loic brought up <i>identity politics</i>. 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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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?<br></div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org" target="_blank">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/list<wbr>info/erlang-questions</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
erlang-questions mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</a><br>
<a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://erlang.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">With best regards,<div> Roman Galeev,</div><div> +420 702 817 968</div></div></div>
</div>