Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
Rimu
What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
Kicking from all Matrix PieFed rooms
Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rimu has been manufacturing non-stop drama for weeks. He ignores multiple offers from multiple parties to de-escalate, and now he bans someone for trying to promote non-discriminatory language. He has also now cut off a PieFed admin from any and all support and ability to contribute to the software.
Oh and the real kicker ? Rimu did all this after his big grand post about how he is stepping back from drama and hiding away from users.
I know I'm wandering through a nest of bees here, but this cuts both ways, I think. No, this particular word isn't important, and changing it is fine. Any one word can be fine. But similarly why did this user show up asking it to be changed? Is it a huge negative impact to leave it for the majority of users either? It feels like someone pulled a dictionary of newly bad words off a blog and grepped through the source with the perceived mission of contributing to the healing of the world, as a most charitable assumption on their intentions.
I think no one is worried about any one word, or any one PR. The concern is that the goalposts seem to change from words that 95% of people agree are bad, to words 60% of people agree are bad, to words like this that maybe 1% of people feel are bad, and there's a grey area here on what level of badness is bad enough for all of us to change to accomodate one or two people's sensitivities, and to what level those people should be responsible for their own sensitivities.
This is a civilization and cultural level spectrum which has "change for your society" and "society bends to you without change" at its ends, and different people fall at different points on this spectrum, which will put that at different points on the "how bad does a word need to be for me to be a bad person for typing it in my own code" spectrum. And for me, I feel "stupid" is over my line and is a noisy change that might beget other more petty changes with no benefit to the vast majority, despite how simple it is. But you clearly feel more strongly, and I can tolerate that too.
All that having been said, I have no opinion or context about this particular user being banned from this particular chat, unrelated to the ethics of the PR.
They were looking at the code and noticed it? I don't think there is much more to it than that.
As of now, I can't see how. And if it did, it can be changed again. Its easy to revert as well. So why would an unlikely unknown factor in?
This one isn't exactly new.
Think about a word that 95% of people agree is a really terrible word. How far back until that same word would have 60% consider it bad. How far back do you go before its a word used and considered completely acceptable and appropriate language to use? How were things for the people that word was applied to?
Just saying, maybe the percentage doesn't matter too much. Maybe if its a change with only a net positive impact, then its not worth worrying about - now or some imaginary future where every adjective is banned. Maybe if just a few people are hurt by something, and the choice is between doing nothing (and them being hurt) and saying "no worries, send the change" and not hurting a few people, we can just... Not hurt them? Seems straightforward.
Again, I don't understand why a "line needs to be drawn" based on some imaginary attack on the English language. What's the threat here? That someone submits a change while saying the word "aardvark" is offensive? Just reject that pr and move on.
(Unless "aardvark" becomes some sort of racist slang or something, then, of course, accept it)