this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
53 points (94.9% liked)
Open Source
38581 readers
246 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a massive reach.
A massive reach of it being literally the same word? Like obviously they didn't mean it in a racist way but clearly they decided that having a racial slur in the docs there was not something they felt good about.
So does apple, coconut, cracker, gin, barbarian, brownie, skinny, spade, spook, teabag and a whole host of different words.
It should never be about the word itself, but how it's being used. Someone being called a genius doesn't usually mean they are being applauded for their intellect either, for example.
I have realised, upon reflection, what I take issue with with your argument.
It places the onus on the intention, as opposed to the result.
If the result of me doing something particularly mundane, that I could do another way with zero extra effort, is that some people are offended or othered or hurt, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that the action to take is to change what I'm doing. Theres nuance in the wider discussion but you can't judge intentions, since nobody can know what someone else's intentions are. You can judge actions and outcomes.
The action in this case is mundane, and I don't place any blame or hate toward the people who took the action (made the Tycoon joke). The outcome is potentially negative, and I would argue demonstrably negative since people felt compelled to comment about it. It still doesn't mean that the folks who wrote the joke are massive racists or fascists or whatever, but the outcome related to their action is negative. Hence they chose to change the action to change the outcome.
Seems pretty cut and dry that this was a wholly positive thing, no?