The entitled generation is now adult, and they demand safe-for-work cereal names, movies and open source libraries. You must comply lest you be added to the big social media blacklist of people-who-did-not-agree-with-us.
What should be considered offensive is to distract from what really matters right now (the BLM movement) to discuss a stupid name for a code linter. A very daft display of privilege.
What a ridiculous argument to be having in times like this. It's clearly named for the movie Robocop, and even if it wasn't: not all countries suffer from an abusive militarised police force like the USA does.
I can understand the appeal to move away from master/slave and blacklist/whitelist naming conventions, but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think objecting to the name of a project just because it contains the word "cop" is way past that line. We use the term "cop" in a different context in the UK (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...), so why should someone in Bulgaria care about the American usage of the word? Should I be abusing someone to have "fanny packs" renamed because the term could be deemed sexist in the UK?
Regarding whitelist/blacklist I haven't seen evidence that
1. It originates from a racist usage.
2. It is primarily used with reference to racist ideas.
I still think that there may be reason to change it: e.g. allowlist/blocklist may be more easily understood, but whitelist/blacklist may be more easy to recall (since it is more standard terminology).
Interestingly, along the same lines as whitelist/blacklist, certain Chinese and Japanese have historically called Caucasians red-haired peoples, with connotations of otherness. One wonders if in another century someone would argue to change the colors of the red-black tree.
Good that the author did not succumb to such frivolous requests from delicate sunflowers in changing the name when it is only and only based primarily in context to the 'Robocop' film and nothing else.
The spread of the Americans culture worries me, in a lot of countries the police are your friends and they do actually maintain social order yet still people will parrot these and other movements calling out agaisnt the police causing social disorder.
I think some parties are taking the protests and broadening their spectrum; from protests against police violence to becoming against the police entirely.
That last one isn't going to work in practice, regardless of your own libertarian or anarchist ideals.
> I admire the police in my country (Finland). They are professional and courteous.
This is a great point and one that needs to be heard more throughout this debate.
Changing RuboCop's name due to BLM isn't just inserting politics into software, it's inserting _American_ politics into software. "Cop" might be a negative here, but positive in other places. Demanding a name change of an internationally-used tool due to a localized problem is nothing short of cultural imperialism.
Its great that American policing is finally coming under scrutiny and that we're starting to see institutions bend to the pressure of change. But it's critical that we keep a level head during this time and separate the modern culture of American policing (a negative) from the idea of a police force (a positive). I'd love to see a shift in this communication, not just in the Ruby community in a worldwide a community; a shift from "All cops are bad" to "Here is what good cops look like". Places that are proud and admiring of their police forces need to speak up about it and why they feel that way and lead the rest of the world by example.
Please explain to me how renaming a package from "rubocop", which is based on a movie about american police and american politics, to something like "rubyopinion" is "injecting politics"?
The funny thing here is that RuboCop is an obvious pun on Robocop which is a satire of privatized police forces and corporate corruption.
But I'm not here to tell people what they should not be offended by. Telling people "you shouldn't be offended by X" is as bad as "we should keep politics out of software."
Instead of "keeping politics out of software" how about we try to listen to each other and be civil to each other even when we disagree? Which I think this posts articulates the argument for very well. I'm a lefty but this goes for all sides.
No. This attitude of attacking developers because of political insensibilities of clueless people is not acceptable. The author is dead wrong in that article. Not the ruby community has to be better, these people have to be blocked from it. There is no point in being nice to people so unreasonable and just plain in the wrong, this position does not deserve to be heard.
To me "be civil to each other" means don't attack people because of your political perspective. It's ok to have a political idea about say, the name of an OSS package, but if you request a change be kind about it, lay out your reasoning and don't expect that you are going to automatically get what you want.
I do care about all of the BLM movement, I really do. I can't stand racism or any other sort of hate towards minorities or any other group of people.
That being said, can we please keep politics away from software development? We already have good fights to battle, and changing whitelist / blacklist or master / slave isn't really helping to the cause.
This matter obviously is not only related to Rubyists, Rustaceans, Gophers or any other programmer group anyways.
I don't see the point in moving politics to software: if you really want a change you should vote for better leaders and fight in different ways. I don't think anybody will ever be offended by reading "whitelist" or "master". Truth is that nowadays everybody gets offended by anything.
Please, do not answer to this comment if you intend to make the discussion political. I feel that it is right to speak up for your rights, but I feel that it is best if we generally keep the discussions apolitical, whenever possible
In my more paranoid moments I suspect that some of these disputes are false flags meant to discredit the social justice movement. In particular, some of the issues raised seem purpose built to piss people off without hope of achieving real inclusiveness or equality goals.
That I can't tell if that's the case or not is equally alarming.
I offer another option: bad actors that are taking advantage of the disputes to further their own agendas. Only, it's not an option, it's more of a documented reality. And it's even more alarming.
> changing whitelist / blacklist or master / slave isn't really helping to the cause.
These terms amongst hundreds of others build up a mental association between blackness and wrongness.
The word "black", just by itself - look a dictionary definition. In addition to the raw color is used to connote a sad event, anger, or just evil ("it was a black day", "full of anger or hatred", "very evil or wicked").
On the flipside white is used to connote purity and goodness. In the context of America we're talking about a country which favored bleached white foods to anything else for the same reason.
I just don't get how people can't see the harm that is accrued from not the single example but the hundreds collectively.
Also, for the record, I think changing the name of the project verges on absurd.
> These terms amongst hundreds of others build up a mental association between blackness and wrongness.
It would be easier to stop calling brown skin black than to make people not associate black with darkness, uncertainty and danger. Associating darkness (which is pretty much black) with death is much, much older than the US, believe it or not.
People aren't racist because they read about the Black Death and figure "yeah, I guess black people are evil, look what they did to Europe in the 14th century", and you won't make them less racist if you remove the word black from language.
To show a positive example, without word redefinitions: IMHO western society largely managed to end prejudice against left-handiness, while keeping the word "right".
(And this "left -> bad" or "right" -> good (or both) association is as (or more) prevalent in languages of the world as the "dark -> bad" association)
This isn't politics, it is feelings. The word black is a label, which has a history of being used as a racist term. So it is understandable that there may be some ill will about it. Understandable, but not necessarily warranted.
Now the word "cop" is a label we associate with a job, it has been around for decades, it isn't derogative (unless you as a police officer are offended by it). What we have here, is people being offended by what has happened, not by the adjective of the job.
No, saying "don't get politics in software" means asserting that the political influence of the name "RuboCop" is small and not significant to the project (it is significant as a signal to parties in a particular conflict that's not relevant to the project) and any discussion about it would be much ado about nothing that detracts from issues that are actually relevant to that piece of software.
Intent matters. If the name was initially intentionally chosen in order to assert a political position, that would make a difference. But if someone is requiring all the world to join in this current USA internal conflict and pick sides, then that's not a reasonable demand. The RuboCop maintainer is not part of this conflict, he's neither a victim nor a cause in this long-festering USA issue, and it's his moral right to stay out of it if he so wishes.
I have a preference towards the BLM side in this issue due to the appalling examples of police brutality, however, if someone on the BLM side would demand me to be "with us or against us" then I'd consider a profane refusal to be appropriate, I'm not applying for a membership in a tribe; If refusing unquestioning signals of support means that people become enemies of your tribe, well, so be it, that's just an indication of an unreasonable tribe.
I didn’t mention the police, I’m talking about anything that offends minority groups within your community of users. By choosing to be insensitive you contribute to their plight.
I'm sorry, I just can't agree. You shouldn't be intentionally hostile, but the web is so full of young justice warriors who are over-sensitive to everything that you can't account for all the trigger words in existence.
Avoid the general pathologies - misogyny, racism, tribal prejudice - yes. Cater to regional special cases (like this instance the word cop) - no. The world is a big place. You should embrace everybody you can. This means creating a global consensus what is polite to all users. And cleaning up random trigger words because one or other local bru-ha-ha really isn't really helpful.
You don’t have to account for all the trigger words in existence. All you have to do is believe that the people who are raising issues about specific topics are doing so from a place of need. By characterizing them as “over-sensitive”, you are indicating that you cannot or do not believe in the cause, or cannot empathize with their lived experience.
If that’s the root for you, then just say it - “I'm not values aligned with this cause”. That’s totally valid.
Software is political. It’s written by people, it’s used by people, and it has an impact on society. It is impossible for it to be neutral.
"Software is political. It’s written by people, it’s used by people, and it has an impact on society. It is impossible for it to be neutral."
If you take your definition of "political" to mean anything of utility made by people then yes, so it is. And everything else man made as well.
You are not wrong in stating that everything has a political dimension, but as a general guideline it's non helpfull. Everything has some property in many analytical contexts.
I would rather not think about for example the politics of daily consumables like milk and nails unless there is some milk related crisis going on. Or ponder on the metaphysics of gasoline while filling the tank.
Software is just an utility like them.
When it makes sense to observe spefic dimensions is when this observation has specific utility. Otherwise you are either a total nerd or a fanatic. Both of these stances are admirable, but not practical in the general sense.
The link to the ruby library here is that the ruby library was totally unrelated to the political issue at hand in any possibly sane sense. If the ruby library was linked in some direct way to the political cause then taking it into account in relation to it would have made sense.
In this case the links to the political cause were non-existant and the remotely familiar name was used as an excuse by attention seeking people who are too obsessed to do any action of real value. They satisfied their itch of "doing something" by an action that will NOT help the cause in ANY way. Perhaps it made the activists happy for a while but NOBODY else benefitted!
See where this is going? Nerds/fanatics/impractical.
How is requesting to change hurtful or problematic names political? The public opinion on what is and is not hurtful changes over time, and you have to stick with the times.
I mean you'll get fired or punched in the face if you use some of the stuff people mentioned flippantly a century ago.
YOU don't think anybody will ever be offended; that's a personal opinion that you hold, but your opinion doesn't apply when SOMEONE ELSE is offended.
I mean for example I'm not offended if people swear in HN, so say "fuck" and "shit" all you want, I don't care. But I'm not alone here, and there will be people who are offended and would prefer it to stay out of HN.
Like how you want politics out of software development.
Anyway, you say you want to keep politics out of software development, but this isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. It's about what is right and wrong, not what the current political climate is.
> The public opinion on what is and is not hurtful changes over time, and you have to stick with the times.
If you "stick with the times", don't you essentially commit to do whatever the loudest, most extreme people want? Your average person doesn't care if your library is called Darth Vader, but somebody looking for outrage will declare that they are offended and you must now submit to their will because otherwise you're offensive and they will try to ruin your life.
Giving in to those people is like giving in to the demands of terrorists: do it once and you will have them show up again tomorrow with more demands.
> It's about what is right and wrong, not what the current political climate is.
How is the name of a software library right or wrong in general? I'd follow that argument if the name was "fuck you, John Doe" or something like that. But RuboCop? Really?
Are you asserting that "RuboCop" is an inherently immoral name? Are you asserting that it's an inherently hurtful name?
I definitely believe that if there's an objective line between right and wrong, then the name "RuboCop" has not crossed that line.
The name was not chosen as a signal of political support to one side in this conflict. Switching the name would be essentially just a signal of political support to the BLM movement - but IMHO it's not offensive to refuse to participate in this political signaling.
I think the real issue here is that maintaining communities of diverse people is hard work. It's not what a lot of maintainers sign-up for originally. It can be exhausting to try to keep the community aligned to a code of conduct in a way that's fair and allows open discussion. Worst of all, few people want to do this but it comes with the territory of a large open-for-contribution project.
Perhaps the solution is for each community to fund a community manager role. Maybe community management as a service would make sense if each individual project doesn't require a full role itself (a startup opportunity perhaps). Does anyone know of any open source projects that currently employ a community manager?
It's just incredible to me how many people want to introduce churn amongst the entire Ruby community over this. We're talking about thousands of hours at least just to make the change and probably a lot more in following broken links. I could understand if the name was offensive in isolation, but it's not and hasn't ever been. Now suddenly external forces change that? Good luck to the folks who want to fork the project. It's super hard and will drain the life out of you
Nah, just replace it with the community_scribe_of_appropriate_self_hatred. It can be aliased to 'scribe' if it helps, though it loses some of it's power.
What should be considered offensive is to distract from what really matters right now (the BLM movement) to discuss a stupid name for a code linter. A very daft display of privilege.