I don't understand how censoring something because "it's offensive to someone" came to be acceptable in the first place. Nearly everything is offensive to someone, it's simply too low a bar.
I'm certainly not campaigning for more use of the terms "retard" and "retarded". On the other hand, I've experienced first hand the very common, reflexive and thoughtless use of these words. Whenever it's used in my presence I make a point to express my distaste for the term and I encourage others to stop using it. I've gone through these motions with countless co-workers and two people higher up on the management chain, including my direct supervisor. But where I live, it's practically a regional colliquialism.
In this case, perhaps removal or correction is reasonable and Github is acting responsibly; I've already established that I have problems with these terms and do find them offensive. Still, I am uncomfortable with the whole episode and I don't feel at all confident that the next time this happens, it will seem as reasonable. On the contrary, I expect that the next time this happens, it will end up being more about ideology as it seems more and more people conflate "I am offended" with "I disagree".
What's going on at Github is rather perverse. And it happens to be around the word "Meritocracy".
Because of the "feels", the word meritocracy is a 'disempowering word'. It makes people with less skill feel 'less valuable'. So the impetus is to raise your skill? No. It's to devalue others who call you on it, or disregard your uninformed opinion.
What this accumulates to is the Github rug in the headquarters. "The United Meritocracy Of GitHub".
As quoted,
"GitHub's Julie Ann Horvath, a designer who also founded the company's all-female lecture series Passion Projects, said the rug first became a problem when photos of it made their way into feminist discussions online.
The tech industry isn’t still predominantly white and male because white men are better at their jobs than everyone else, it’s because many white men have had more opportunities to succeed than their minority and female counterparts."
Yep. Because of patriarchy, meritocracy really isn't. Oh, and throw in a bash to Paul Graham. Because 'patriarchy'.
And of course, there are also allegations that the Feminist Hackerspace DoubleUnion denied a GH employee because of the rug. Some equality, huh?
So, the same cancer that hit Reddit (free speech -> 'safe space') is coming to other companies, unsurprisingly. And we have feminism to blame.
This isn't the real problem. Github's earlier obsession with the word "meritocracy" isn't even relevant. Horvath isn't relevant here either. Feminism isn't relevant here. Paul Graham isn't relevant here. Reddit isn't relevant here. You're all over the place with stuff that isn't relevant.
The issue is that Github's content policing has been turned up to 11 so that it's not just harassment or even seriously offensive content anymore, it's repos with words for "dumb" or "stupid" in the code that are getting ultimatums. This is not really different from banning repos for taking the Lord's name in vain, or writing offensive words like fuck and shit. So Github has become an unsafe space for average programmers, who sometimes cuss or call something stupid or even take the Lord's name in vain. And that is no good, because Github's whole purpose is to host code for people.
That's important and should be addressed. But you are only screwing us over by associating us with GamerGate, anti-feminism and all that crap.
> The issue is that Github's content policing has been turned up to 11 so that it's not just harassment or even seriously offensive content anymore, it's repos with words for "dumb" or "stupid" in the code that are getting ultimatums.
And that's the effect in "cause and effect".
The cause is feminism's creep into the boardroom as a group to appease. And the policies are as inane as arguing that "meritocracy" is an evil male word. Meritocracy is also considered a 'micro-agression' by similar said feminists because it "makes them feel bad".
So, youre right that the problem right now is Github content policing. Why? My comment explains it.
I disagree that the "meritocracy rug" story at GH is irrelevant.
It is another example of political correctness taking place (at GH, and elsewhere), but with a strong feminist-driven aspect to it. Fervent feminism absolutely tries to ride the PC wave and uses its methods - word censorship and name calling "if you don't agree with me, you are a misogynist".
>The issue is that Github's content policing has been turned up to 11
Stop here. Ask yourself "Why is GitHub dialing up to 11?"
Answer: A group known for being responsible for over-zealous political correctness and internet-mobbing is being over-zealous about their political correctness and internet-mobbing.
GitHub's answer to over-zealous politically correct internet mob? Cave in to their demands so they go away. "Turn it up to 11".
Do you blame GitHub for being pressured the internet mob - or do you blame the internet mob for pressuring GitHub?
A certain over-zealous politically correct internet mob made GitHub get rid of the word "meritocracy". A certain over-zealous politically correct internet mob was also responsible for the other things mentioned including the issues at Reddit. All of this stuff is related to the over-zealous politically correct internet mob.
The problem isn't with GitHub. It's with the over-zealous politically correct internet mob pressuring GitHub.
Thank you for providing this link. Even though the rug story happened last year (somehow I missed it), it is relevant to this thread (and a scary read).
Taken together (the attempt at censorship and the rug story) indicates to me that Github seems to be overly preoccupied with political correctness and not keeping their eyes on the ball. If this continues, watch for decreased quality/innovation coming from them as we go.
Feminism is not to blame. Feminism is wonderful and empowering ideology.
There is a distinct difference between the ideology of feminism and the behavior of a specific group of feminists. Lumping the two together like that is like blaming Islam for terrorists.
Words aren't legos fella, and they have more than one meaning.
"Sexism" is a good example. It can mean any discrimination by gender or sex. It also refers to a socio-political structure under which it is impossible for a woman to effectively discriminate or oppress a man. Which meaning you choose to wield says a lot about your biases.
You will accept that a large chunk of modern history saw women deprived of basic rights. Recent legislation may have made a dent, but hundreds of years of behavior and social structure do not vanish overnight. In this light, feminism emerges as a mode of analysis that seeks to understand how male-supremacy operates in society to elevate men and denigrate women. It is also a form of activism that seeks to correct the imbalance.
It means other things too. But since you clearly have an unsubtle and unsympathetic viewpoint, your point of view is frankly not relevant. You don't get to define it. Instead, consider talking less and listening more. Start by asking a woman feminist what feminism means to her, and see if you can actually keep your mouth shut while she's talking.
No, my point is that the rest of the world doesn't care what feminism "means to a single person": you.
You sit around and trash the work of thousands of committed people cuz "waah my fave internet site did something i didn't like". Go back to brogramming shitty ruby apps.
Insults aside, there is a glimpse of sunlight in one thing you say:
I look at what's happening using "feminism" and its abhorrent.
If you say you are objecting to censorship in the name of feminism, this can actually be articulated from a pro- (or at least neutral-to--) feminist viewpoint. There is nothing about feminism that implies or demands censorship. Someone clamoring for censorship in the name of feminism can be reasonably opposed on the grounds of defending free speech, etc.
Now: companies are allowed to prohibit whatever speech they want on their site. If they think it will make their customers or shareholders happy, or solve whatever bullshit internal politics are at play, nothing can stop them. Risk-aversion leading to all sorts of ridiculous bureaucracy is rampant in corporate america and it ain't just about PC, it's also why corporate music sucks, etc.
The problem with you is your incessant trolling of feminism itself. It's ignorant and insulting, especially rolling out the repulsive "SJW" slur. People are going to fight for their rights, you can stand in the way and get run over, or you can seek to achieve a higher understanding.
Etymology and definition are two different things, and the latter can not be reliably inferred from the former.
Your argument presumes an inference of the definition from the etymology, which would perhaps not be an unreasonable approach if you were a future archeologist stumbling on the fragmentary remains of our society and the only information you had for interpreting the modern English word "feminism" was an idea of its linguistic roots.
But it is unreasonable when you actually have access to the modern world in which it is used.
> Feminism, by its very name, is a sexist philosophy. And according to feminists, sexism (mainly patriarchy) is bad. Unless it's feminism.
That seems to imply that you don't think sexism is bad. Did you mean to imply that?
Feminism, is by definition, anti-sexist. There are sexists who claim to be feminists, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
While the term 'feminism' does come from the root 'feminine', it refers to an umbrella of ideologies that includes many advocates of equal rights for men as well as for women.
However, if you do believe in the value of sexism, I can definitely understand why you would dislike feminism.
Feminism, by definition, is sexist. MRA, by definition, is also sexist.
Both are centered around their own sex and "leveling the playing field" for their own gender. Feminists do not give a rat's ass about paternal child custody issues or "men's mental health" (particularly the much higher rates of suicide). Because those aren't issues where women are under-privileged. MRA's don't really care about women's issues. That's because both of these ideologies are sexist.
If you want equality that isn't sexist, try "egalitarianism". Equality for both genders (not sexist) and not only a single gender (sexist).
>Just because a movement/ideology is focused on advancing particular issues, doesn't mean they support discrimination against others groups, which is what sexism/racism/etc actually is.
White-pride groups that sing the praises of white people while not mentioning POC at all would be totally fine in your book, since they aren't supporting discrimination of POC? I think you're in the minority opinion here...
Don't get me wrong - I think that sexism/racism is about malevolent actions intended to harm or belittle or otherwise negatively discriminate against another group. But I'm of the minority opinion. Benevolent actions are considered sexist/racist nowadays, chivalry is extremely sexist. Always opening the door for women - but not always for men - is sexist.
Advocating for women's rights but not equally advocating for men's rights is therefore just as sexist as chivalry. One is an egalitarian if they're actually practicing behavior focused on equality. They can mislabel themselves as a feminist all the want, though I will call them out on promoting sexist ideology.
And yes - I've met a few "actually egalitarian but call themselves feminists". Most of them agree that egalitarian defines them better and they'd rather separate themselves from the extremely sexist "militant feminists" by labeling themselves as an egalitarian rather than a feminist.
In today's political climate, being an MRA and a feminist at the same time is like being a KKK member who's a member of the Black Panther Party.
> Don't get me wrong - I think that sexism/racism is about malevolent actions intended to harm or belittle or otherwise negatively discriminate against another group. But I'm of the minority opinion. Benevolent actions are considered sexist/racist nowadays, chivalry is extremely sexist. Always opening the door for women - but not always for men - is sexist.
Same here. There are actions that one can take that are overly sexist. Kitchen comments are common, as are "make me a sandwich", and the like.
There's also the class of subtle insults like "I didnt know you could program". They're harder to correct, but with some self discipline, they aren't that hard.
Then as you said, there's the "Not an insult at all, not even a subtle insult". I've been yelled at by a raging feminist for opening a door for her. Next time, I let it slam in her face, whilst leaving it open for her boyfriend.
I would also define myself as a staunch egalitarian. Aside pregnancy and birth, there are no differences between what a man and a woman can do. Even breastfeed....
>There's also the class of subtle insults like "I didnt know you could program". They're harder to correct, but with some self discipline, they aren't that hard.
No. Just. No.
Context matters extremely for this - and the assumption that they thought you couldn't program because of you gender is on you not them. That's why it's called an "assumption".
It's about perception. People who want to see negativity in it will and others won't. What if they're just genuinely surprised you can program because you've never talked about programming or shown you can program and it shocked them you were capable of it? How is genuine surprise an insult?
To illustrate my point:
"Your life is like a blank book."
1) You're free to write about whatever you want, to create your own decisions, and to decide what your book is going to be about. You have the ability to be anything you want to be - nobody has already written your book for you. It's yours to decide. (The common, positive perspective when this saying is used.)
2) You've done absolutely nothing in your life such that you've written nothing in the book. You're completely worthless and have accomplished nothing. If you had managed to ever accomplish anything in your life, your book wouldn't be empty. (Unnecessarily negative perspective that assumes an ill-intent where none was.)
Sexism in all of its forms is bad. That includes feminism AND masculinism.
> While the term 'feminism' does come from the root 'feminine', it refers to an umbrella of ideologies that includes many advocates of equal rights for men as well as for women.
Many (most?) definitions of feminism are along the lines of "supporting equal rights for men and women" or "equality between the sexes".
Feminism is an umbrella term for a group of ideologies, some of who do not agree with either of those definitions. In that sense my statement is not accurate. However it is still far more accurate that your attempt to use the latin root of the word to define its meaning while ignoring its use and history.
> Citation needed for italicized text
Here's one:
I am a feminist and I support equal rights for men as well women.
> Feminism is an umbrella term for a group of ideologies, some of who do not agree with either of those definitions. In that sense my statement is not accurate. However it is still far more accurate that your attempt to use the latin root of the word to define its meaning while ignoring its use and history.
In other words, you just keep moving the endposts so nothing is really "Feminism" unless you agree to it. Got it.
> Here's one: I am a feminist and I support equal rights for men as well women.
Repeat after me: The plural of Anecdote is not 'Data'
Feminism only sees to female rights in reference to 'leveling the playing field'. Any other "but they really also do ..." is just being disingenuous and deceitful.
If you support equal rights for men and women, that's egalitarianism.
> In other words, you just keep moving the endposts so nothing is really "Feminism" unless you agree to it. Got it.
That is the opposite of what I did. What I did was to acknowledge that the term feminism is used to include ideologies that I disagree with.
> Repeat after me: The plural of Anecdote is not 'Data'
Right, 'Data' is the plural of 'Datum' and I provided you with two of them. I did not make a sufficiently statistical claim that requires a representative sample to validate.
Most relevantly: "While equality feminism was the dominant perspective of feminism during the 19th and 20th century, the 1980s and 1990s brought about a new focus in popular feminism on difference feminism, or the essential differences between men and women."
> Feminism only sees to female rights in reference to 'leveling the playing field'.
I'd ask to you cite that, but I understand the impossibility of proving non-existence (especially given that I have disproven that non-existence).
> If you support equal rights for men and women, that's egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is a different broader umbrella term with an even looser range definitions. I am amused that in defending your anti-PC rant you end up trying to control what language I use to define myself in a very PC fashion.
You are free to call yourself an egalitarian and not identify as a feminist.
I am personally proud to share the label 'feminist' with a large number people who have individually done more to promote equality in the world that you ever will. I don't mind also sharing it with a some assholes from the internet who do nothing to promote equality.
Nope. And yes you can blame a doctrine that people follow that succinctly makes recommendations to violence for being a cause of violence. Perfectly acceptable and so far quite accurate.
First of all, I said "terrorism", not "extremist islamic terroism". This isn't splitting hairs in because the parent is taking about forms of PC that do not directly relate to gender and blaming feminism for them.
> And yes you can blame a doctrine that people follow that succinctly makes recommendations to violence for being a cause of violence.
The ability to blame something for something does not mean that one is actually an effect of the other.
You can also blame western dependence on oil, cultural imperialism, the fall of the ottoman empire, human nature and many other things for islamic terrorism.
While all of these things do exist in the chain of effects that lead to islamic terrorism, that does not mean that blaming them is helpful nor particularly accurate.
Generally when assigning blame you should look for a reasonably proximal and changeable item in the change of effects. The level of violence expressed in a religious text is neither proximal to the level of violence perpetuated in its name nor is it changeable. Thus blaming it is not particularly useful.
Of course, you are free to blame whatever you want. I hope it works out well for you.
"No True Scotsman" isn't a good way to defend Feminism; continuing to be an example of an empowered feminist is.
In this case, though, you shouldn't even feel the need to defend it because feminism has nothing to do with the OP topic. It was dragged into the discussion because kefka blames feminism...because feminism.
I think Github is itself mostly white guys. Also, most of the people being labeled SJWs on the relevant Github issue are white guys. So this isn't about whether you are a white guy or being defensive about being a white guy.
Why should race or sex even be a part of the equation of "Hire or Not?"
But don't worry. Github hired a bunch of women for their women-only area, Passion Projects. They only hire women, so it's a "Safe Space".
... and it appeases the feminists so that we don't have to hold to high standards of programming. They do the frilly 'social media' productions because you know "women are good at social".
Edit: And that's the problem with specialized woman-only hiring procedures. They look good from a PR aspect as well as an appeasement angle, but the message they deliver is "Women aren't as good as men, so we have 'special' programs for them."
I never thought I'd see the day when HN's tide of hatred would turn from government surveillance towards the social justice boogeymen of Redditdom. You're arguing that feminism and "social justice warrior garbage" are the direct causes of Github censoring repos. It's not. If Github was pressured by people on Tumblr to use a regex to change the word, it would be a different story.
They have good intentions, but the way they chose to implement it is completely unacceptable. You cannot censor the internet. This furor wouldn't really have occurred if they'd just sent the sap an email politely asking them to replace the word with something more sensitive.
As someone pointed out in the thread on Github, the term "Git" is also an offensive term. Who's going to start the petition for Github to change its name?
Slippery Slopes Indeed.
From Wikipedia: "Git is a mild[1] pejorative with origins in British English for a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person.[2] It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than wanker, arsehole or twat.[1][3][4]"
That's not the same thing though. Calling someone a git is just calling them stupid, calling someone a retard is saying they're so stupid they're mentally disabled and they should feel ashamed for it. It's pretty insulting towards people with mental disabilities.
Even Linus has said he named git after himself because he's so egotistical.
Stupid, Git, Retard, Idiot, Dimwit etc.. In the context they are used all have very similar intentions to put someone down for not being smart.
There is one really important point to keep in mind, when someone is offended about something someone else says or writes that is their decision and it is their problem not the one who did the offending.
I personally don't generally use the term "retard" I also don't generally put slurs of any kind in my code. However I do take issue when someone says that I can't.
"Whoever is the stupid fucking idiot who made this dimwitted decision should go get their brain checked."
That's no less offensive then using the word retard and it's anyones right to down vote the comment on that basis or to just ignore me. Thus my point has been made.
No, they really don't. Retard has historically been used to classify the mentally disabled, it literally was a definition. Using it to call someone mentally disabled as an insult is more offensive to the mentally disabled than calling someone stupid. That's the issue.
You're free to use retard in your code as much as you want, apparently not on Github though. They, as a private company, are allowed to pick and choose what they want on their site.
Ditto for a lot of the words we use as synonyms for "stupid".
There's actually an entire ranking for those with disabilities - just below a "normal" person was the "feeble-minded", which ranked ahead of a "moron", which was more functional than an "imbecile" which was the last step before an "idiot".
This was all common parlance in the 19th and 20th century.
So explain to me again why retard is specifically offensive.
The reason "retard" is more offensive to people with mental disabilities (even when not used directly as a slur) is that its use in that context is more recent than the use of "idiot" or "imbecile".
That is all. Really. Give it a few decades and we wouldn't be having this discussion because no person with mental disabilities would feel offended by anyone using it as a mere synonym for "dunce".
Of course so-called Internet feminists might still demand your head on a silver platter even then, but (in stark contrast with actual feminists) nobody should be paying attention to them to begin with, even if they make it hard not to.
Just switch back to imbecile for the next 100 years? Problem solved? Clearly not, the underlying issue has nothing to do with the word but meanings that people attach to them and that is something that will not be fixed by outlawing the word as the meanings attached will shift to a new word.
It's insulting to some perhaps due to their own self-perception but the definition of the word and its word origins are separate from how somebody feels about the way a word may have been co-opted over a period of time. Retard is interesting because its meaning is pretty clear and innocuous. The word is also quite useful.
If you say a material is fire retardant, you not only are free to say this, it would be ridiculous to have to invent or supplant a new word because one was co-opted over time and personified, turned into a noun. People will disagree, but it takes mental gymnastics to be offended by things like that.
That's why people have developed the SJW social justice warrior moniker and I think it fits well. Because it's an imaginary problem and working within that framework these kinds of people will eat themselves to death. So why engage or contribute to it at the expense of time, logic, and a reduction in cohesion of everyone else working towards goals.
You have to give people the power to use words like this where a true meaning well defined is absent of insult and if used as insult, if not specifically directed at someone, you can't allow another person's claim of offense to affect the conversation thats apart from them.
this is my biggest problem of a lot of the narrative spread by certain people and the media. maybe it's a thing with modern society where foolish people misidentify real problems and instead use their valuable time on things like microaggressions thereby taking focus (sometimes on purpose) off actual aggressions. And so far it's recipe for a failed state. Christopher Hitchens said it well. "The fact that you’re offended has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter"
The sad thing, the very sad thing is the media do better on these kinds of controversies because they generate views. I have chosen to participate here on this in hopes it might actually set somebody straight. The people who claim this kind of censorship are the same people who purport that there is strength in diversity. But unfortunately they don't really know what diversity really looks like in terms of diversity of ideas. They imagine it means comfort but they are wrong. Understanding diversity means bearing with discomfort and dealing with the imperfections of speech, perception and letting go of this idea that you can break down useful frameworks and infrastructure and it will make things better. That's not how one becomes a valuable participant in anything and they make communities suffer.
SJWs are tilting at windmills. Except the windmills in this case are actual people.
The term "rebel without a cause" comes to mind. Except this time around it's borrowing a jargon that makes it sound legitimate enough to infiltrate everything.
The word they are looking for isn't "diversity", it's "gleichschaltung". For all their supposed grasp of academia, they're not very good at establishing cause and effect before getting their pitchforks ready.
Have people with mental disabilities actually spoken out against this use of the word (i.e. using "retard" to describe someone as "extremely stupid")? If the answer is "yes" the discussion is over.
We like to get offended on other people's behalf. This is incredibly disrespectful -- it's no different from male feminists speaking on the behalf of women.
If at least some people with actual mental disabilities find the use of the term (as a substitute for similar phrases like "idiots" or "dummies", not as a direct smear against people with mental disabilities) inappropriate and hurtful, I fully agree that we shouldn't be using it.
The reason we don't use the "N-word" (even outside the context of "black person") isn't that it's offensive, it's that a significant share of black people find its use in any context extremely hurtful. If it was just white people complaining, we shouldn't change a thing.
Outside of the use as a slur against people with mental disabilities, the only difference between "retard" and "idiot" is how long it's been since the term was considered appropriate when describing people with mental disabilities in medical texts. This in itself is not sufficient.
This is actually a big problem with self-identifying feminists on the Internet (read: leaking from tumblr) today. Instead of empowering the actual victims they get offended on other people's behalf or just plain insist they themselves uniquely have the right not to be offended (but nobody else does because whoever disagrees with them is wrong, even if they self-identify as feminists, too).
You're telling us a lot more about how you use speech in an attempt to shame other people and a lot less about how shaming and insulting 'stupid' is relative to 'so stupid'.
The problem is the historical usage of "retard" toward the mentally disabled and the trend to use the word to call not mentally disabled people mentally disabled as an insult. The "mentally disabled as an insult" part is why people don't want "retard" to be used.
I don't use either of the words because I'm an adult who isn't British.
Problem solved! Instead of calling someone who is not mentally disabled "retard" as an insult we should all now call them "mentally disabled".
So next time someone who is not mentally disabled cuts you off in traffic just yell out "You're a mentally disabled individual!"
The underlying issue has nothing to do with the word but the meaning, you can kill the word but the meaning will be attached to something else. People who don't have respect for the mentally disabled will not be changed by censoring a word.
#sigh
Note: I don't endorse actually calling anyone mentally disabled, retarded, slow etc.. We should try to be better humans then that and treat people with the respect they deserve.
So is "idiot" as bad as "retard" then? What about "imbecile"? What about "moron"? And what about "cretin"?
If "medical description of a person with mental disabilities" was a sufficient criterion, all of these would be equally inappropriate (even in an informal / vulgar context). But even tumblr will find it hard to get outraged about the use of the word "cretin" (outside the use as a direct slur against someone with mental disabilities).
Context is important and context is not just about the original meaning and use of a word but also time. We generally find archaic insults humorous -- this isn't because the phrases were harmless at the time they were in widespread use but because they haven't been in widespread use (in their original meaning) for a significant amount of time.
The problem with "retard" isn't merely its historical usage. The problem is that that historical usage is fairly recent.
I think that's not giving Github enough credit. They are clearly thinking very deeply about professionalism in a social coding frame, and I really doubt they will begin addressing every single complaint they receive.
If they do, again, there are existing alternatives or the people are free to build their own.
The alarmism over this "incident" is mind boggling. That people don't simple let Github conduct their business is incomprehensible to me. If I owned a Chipotle and someone came in yelling "retard" or any term I found offensive I would feel fine kicking them out. If the Chipotle down the street thought that was fine, they might get my business, but there is always choice.
Github's actions are entirely understandable - I agree. They are just trying to survive as a business.
But I don't agree that the resultant alarmism is mind boggling. Folks are becoming increasingly anxious at the ever increasing signalling costs being applied to innocent discourse; applied by people who have little to no institutional authority, and who certainly aren't recognised by folk AS authorities.
In response - folk are responding instinctively by upping their own application of signalling costs in retaliation. So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day.
What I personally find interesting is that I'm not seeing much discussion about what the real causes of these rising signalling costs are. I kind of expected Hacker News to be interested in that sort of thing - but here, as everywhere else, everyone is just getting caught up in the fever. We are all human I suppose.
My favourite explanation is one predicted by various game theoretic models about punishment in human groups. Game theory predicts that as human group sizes increases more people become "punishers" and apply higher signalling costs. I can link to research papers if people request.
With the internet - of course - group sizes have increased massively. Furthermore - the economic costs of signalling have dropped dramatically. So we are collectively applying much higher social signalling costs to compensate.
I haven't been able to find research that specifically tries to confirm this hypothesis - but various related hypotheses, as well as the game theoretic models that generated them, have obtained significant confirmation. Hence I set high credence for this particular hypothesis of mine (though it does need a much more rigorous formulation).
> So you see folks saying things like: I'll never use GitHub again if they do this, instead of just remarking to themselves privately - gee, that was a bit harsh of Github, and moving along with their day.
First of all, I assume that most people DO move along. After all you don't hear of those who don't say anything.
Secondly, perhaps those who do feel compelled to speak do so because they are afraid of being part of a silent majority and thus some group A imposing their standards on everyone because that group A is in conflict with group B.
Something like "I don't agree with B's behavior, but I don't agree with A's demands either. I just want to do whatever I do my own way. Please be tolerant, even of things that might offend someone out there".
Nobody is running into anywhere and "yelling 'retard'", the equivalent of which would be more akin to posting "RETARD" on comment threads all over GitHub. If that's what was happening, most would regard it as spam and would probably agree that the user should be banned (at least temporarily). That's not what happened.
So, while I agree that using "retard" in a lighthearted manner is offensive, and I wouldn't do it myself, I don't decide what others are allowed to say, because I don't want others to decide what I'm allowed to say[1]? Instead, I'll make a choice about who I want to be friends with.
I'm certainly not campaigning for more use of the terms "retard" and "retarded". On the other hand, I've experienced first hand the very common, reflexive and thoughtless use of these words. Whenever it's used in my presence I make a point to express my distaste for the term and I encourage others to stop using it. I've gone through these motions with countless co-workers and two people higher up on the management chain, including my direct supervisor. But where I live, it's practically a regional colliquialism.
In this case, perhaps removal or correction is reasonable and Github is acting responsibly; I've already established that I have problems with these terms and do find them offensive. Still, I am uncomfortable with the whole episode and I don't feel at all confident that the next time this happens, it will seem as reasonable. On the contrary, I expect that the next time this happens, it will end up being more about ideology as it seems more and more people conflate "I am offended" with "I disagree".