While I sympathize with this sentiment--I agree a lot of people today overreact and fail to suspend judgment in the absence of hard evidence against someone--this isn't likely to go anywhere or do a lot of good because it lacks a solid philosophical foundation. It's only based on a sentiment, effectively: "we don't like xyz", instead of a moral or philosophical statement: "we oppose xyz because [good, solid, coherent reasons]".
Don't get me wrong: I think there are very good reasons to support the general sentiment (though how this page expresses it is inflammatory and unfortunate), but in their absence there's little discussion to be had (and personally, I'm not interested in bringing them up here).
Yeah, this is either terrible marketing by people that support standing up to the mob; Or brillant marketing by the mob to get their opposition to label themselves as POOP.
Sorry, but if you publicly make ignorant statements on social media about a group of people then you and your project/community/whatever deserve to be called out for not being inclusive.
If you want to foster an environment of inclusion and collaboration I'd recommend not making statements that prove the exact opposite.
I appreciate the marketing, though. It'll help me know what projects to avoid.
Why do people post that quote like it's a physical law rather a personal opinion? I doubt you or most people who do would actually die to defend any and all speech with which they disapprove.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument against what I said, but free speech does not insulate you from criticism or consequences. Go ahead, be homophobic/transphobic/racist/whatever in public (really, feel free!), but don't be surprised when people don't like you and don't want to support your project or community.
There is a difference between saying "some things are offensive, and we should not do them" and "anything that one person says offends them should be stopped"
I think you're both offensive for centering negative ("don't be"), male ("a dick") attributes in this discussion. We should instead be positive and also center female genitalia ("Be a cunt").
Also, I am offended that I wrote that, because it centers imperialist socially constructed genitalia syntax, and leaves out non-binary and trans-binary genitalia. I have therefore cancelled myself.
Genuinely curious, what is "oppressive puritanism"? For example, would you add this to your repo if you decide you won't change of a product like Rubocop to remove references to "cop", because:
> Apologize or give penance for perceived moral transgressions, especially those involving nothing more than words.
You know how all those famous people did that open letter against Cancel Culture recently, and the majority of them backed away from it realizing it made them look dumb?
This is the exact same thing, but for programmers. Stop doing this and just accept your deserved criticism when you include slurs in your code comments.
The cases of backout that I saw were because they didn't like being on the same side of an issue with people they otherwise disagree with [1]. Nothing to do with the statement.
Unfortunately, statements are intrinsically tied to their usage, as a natural result of the concept of context, and proponents govern usage. If I say "it's OK to be white" in some totally innocent way, and then suddenly realize that 90% of the people saying the same thing are using it to express hatred, I am not unprincipled or hypocritical to rescind, clarify, and find a different way to say what I was originally trying to say. This is unavoidable in communication and rational to account for.
Don't get me wrong: I think there are very good reasons to support the general sentiment (though how this page expresses it is inflammatory and unfortunate), but in their absence there's little discussion to be had (and personally, I'm not interested in bringing them up here).