Slashdot Mirror
GitHub Takes Down Satirical 'C Plus Equality' Language
FooAtWFU writes "Some clowns and jokers over at 4chan thought it would be a funny idea to put together a web page for a programming language named 'C Plus Equality' as a parody of feminism, dismissing OOP as 'objectifying' and inheritance as "a tool of the patriarchy". But this parody was apparently too hot to host at Github, which took down the original Github repository after receiving criticism on Twitter, prompting a backlash and inquiry into the role of free speech and censorship on Github's platform. The project has since found a new home on BitBucket, at least for the time being." Comments on an article describing the research which sparked the parody call the parody's language "fake," and compare it to the 1996 Sokal affair. (It also reminds me a bit of Jesux.)
It seems it was also too hot for Hacker News to discuss.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Why wouldn't they have that power? I have that power on websites that I own and operate. I never understand why people feel that owners don't have the right to manage their own website as they see fit. If you don't like the way they operate use someone else or, better yet, make your own website and host it on your own hardware.
Indeed.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire
Now we know.
Well. Github's Terms of Service clearly identifies that "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable". I assume they used that discretion to find it either "offensive" or "otherwise objectionable". And clearly Github is well within their legal rights to take down this content.
But it does illustrate the limits of Github's commitment to freedom and openness: if it offends Github's staff, or if Github thinks it offends people who could get them in some level of trouble, they'll take down your content. So, you can still use Github as a platform to effect change in the world, but only insofar as Github&co agree with you.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Given this community's gender troubles (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/9772-geeks-drive-girls-computer-science.html), does mocking feminists do anything other than confirm the boy's club. Yes, misapplying feminist critiques of male dominated society to programming languages is amusing, but really lads, time to clean up the house.
What is with everyone bastardizing the quotes of Voltaire and taking them out of their literary and historical context everytime they want to justify something stupid? Yes 'Wonko the Sane' because a US company (particularly one that has nothing to do with political activism and gender-based activism) refuses to be platform for the voices of sexist (or racist or homophobic individuals) means that women, minorities and gay people definitely have *all the power* in the US.
Maybe write a complaint to the female-dominated tech industry and ask them to have some empathy towards your historical experiences of oppression by women and modern discrimination you face by women? Or write a complaint to the female-dominated congress who are trying to curtail your rights and freedom along gender lines? Or no write a comment on the male-dominated website slashdot expressing your concern about how all the women are taking over!
It's not about whether they had a RIGHT to take it down, it's about whether they SHOUULD.
Cinemas have a "right" to not screen movies that are offensive to christians/muslims/jews, but should they? Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
And what does it say about feminists if they're acting like an organised religion?
Considering their platform is mainly closed-source, I'm not sure this is the first place we've spotted that they are not fully committed to freedom and openness. They're a business that sells project hosting space, using the free accounts as a marketing & onboarding tool, not some kind of free-culture advocacy group.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Mostly I was talking about the multiple calls on Twitter to hunt down the people who dared to star the repository on GitHub and seek to get their employment terminated.
Some people clearly can't take a joke, and are enraged that anyone else might, and will punish anyone who doesn't comply with their demands.
Not in California, where GitHub is headquartered. California's constitution says "everyone has the right to free speech" and the Supreme Court of the US has interpreted this to mean that it goes beyond "Congress shall pass no law..." and applies, in some situations, to private entities. The more someone opens their property up to the use of the general public, the more their private property rights are circumscribed by the publics. See Pruneyard vs. Robins. I'm not saying that people certainly have a right to use Github like they way they have a right to pass out fliers at a shopping center or outside a big box store, but to deny that freedom of speech applies to private businesses/property in California is wrong.
I don't see where it mentions anything about a house.
THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
I have much experience in dealing with the topic at hand, and feel obliged to warn you of the inherent danger of your snack selection preference in this instance.
The social justice warrior will insist you be eating all the popcorn whether it pops or not. After all: Should not all the kernels be treated equally? You're not a popist cornsagonist furthering strict kernel roles, are you?
Others observant of finer detail than applying the label popist or not based on eating preference will note that all the kernels were treated equally: They were given a chance to pop, but some did not choose to be popped and digested by the system. Indeed there could be physiological predeterminations for the unpopped vs popped variety of kernel, and it would be equally wrong to pressure the eater to consume those that are incompatible with digestion as it's wrong to shame the unpopped kernels for not entering the food cycle; Certainly it would be moronic to claim the plight of the popped ones is a privilege.
The social justice warrior will then declare that the popped or not state can't be determined at kernel creation, it's the environment that has a bias for exactly what types of corn are suitable for popping and creates repressive constraints on which kernels are allowed to pop. They'll demand a more fair popping system be devised, but not actually outline any exact plans for such a system so you'll know when it has been achieved, and they'll ignore how the popping system may affect the popped corn itself.
Others with a knowledge of botany and thermodynamics will point out that kernels of certain genetic predispositions have known traits, and that there are many systems for popping, which all yield different types of popped corn and unpopped kernels. Air popping gives kernels more time to pop, but creates a drier popcorn that's not suitable for everyone's tastes. Kettle popping creates a more traditional flavour, and yields more unpopped kernels. The most unpopped kernels are produced via microwave environment due to the heat being applied to already popped kernels which limits the duration of popping time and kernel batch size, it's also more likely to produce artificial flavors; However, nuked kernels have utility in being compact and accessible to more eaters. It's too simplistic to blame the eater for the kernels or popping environment available, or the environment for the consumer's preference, or either of these for the physical properties of individual kernels or how the laws of thermodynamics and genetics work. Neither the eater nor the popper are being cornsagonist against kernels; To them all the kernels are given equal opportunity to pop and enter the digestive system.
At which point the social justice warrior will leverage a collection of statistics on the types of popping and evidence of past abuse of corn, burning, neglect, being feed to lesser animals, etc. They'll point to select occurrences of popping gone horribly wrong. If one's not careful to interject quickly it will turn into a gish gallop.
While admittedly the tragic popping can't be ignored, one must examine the frequency of such occurrence and the attention that society does give -- A slew of firemen may arrive to deal with a single bag of over nuked corn; It's clearly not cornsagony. The scientific minded observer will point out that past abuses do not reflect current corn popping culture and that anecdotal evidence is not really evidence; They'll note that the statistics only show a trend, not a causal link to cornsagony, and that sections of the studies have gone ignored: The uneaten popped kernels. If the study was performed by the social justice alliance you'll likely find a bias in the selection criteria (went looking for evidence for a preconceived kernel popping opinion) and there'll be no testing of the null hypothesis, or unequivocal evidence that the conclusion is correct, or that popping trends could not instead be formed by
The problem is that misogyny is seen as offensive where misandry is treated as non-offensive and acceptable behavior for women to have :-/ Whereas it should either be both unacceptable or both acceptable.
What morons - the tweeters, that is. On Github, starring a project means that you want to keep track of it, not that you endorse it. Out of over 100 starrers, at least some of them surely followed it so that they could watch the conversation unfold or even track active participants.
Refusing to hire someone because they're listening to a conversation makes you a world-class moron. Ironically, it may be that they're listening because they have the exact same opinions on it that you do.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Indeed. As I said above, their attitude towards offensive content is basically the same as the attitude of organised religions.
"It offends me and challenges my beliefs, so it must be removed"
At the best of times "everything is a joke, and everyone should never be offended by my joke"
It's not that nobody should ever be offended by a joke. It's that people don't get to have a right to not be offended. If you're not offending someone, you didn't say anything of value. The point of free speech is to cause people to question their deeply held beliefs, which invariably will leads to taking offense, or they wouldn't be deeply held beliefs.
To put it bluntly, if you are not friends with the person, you absolutely should not be joking at them in a way that will provoke a response
As an example, I'm offended by your attitude. It violates my deeply held belief in the value of free speech and the nature of good jokes. Despite my offense, I don't wish you to get you fired, nor think you deserve to be. I just think you're an idiot, and move on with my life.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Here's the thing. Standing up for freedom of speech is meaningful especially when it is speech you disagree with. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (another Voltaire quote). As someone living in France, I hope this means something to you.
Shachar
Yes, women rule over us. That's why they make more money than men, dictate what men must look like with fashion magazines, hold 90% or more of the political positions, and head up most corporations.
Clearly, just because GitHub doesn't want to be associated with this idiotic and vile bullshit, they're being controlled by feminists. Quick, everyone, to the free speech mobile. Let's tell GitHub that it's us who get to tell them what they can use their own web site to say. In the name of free speech, of course.