psycotica0

As an unfortunately pedantic person, it really bothers me that blacklist and whitelist get caught up in all this. Like, yeah, I can see why people think it's related to skin colour, and I can see the argument that even if it wasn't originally about skin colour, it leaves an impression of "white good, black bad" regardless of its original intentions. But fuck do I wish we didn't call white people white and black people black. It's not accurate, and would solve a whole bunch of these "colour-related phrases becoming racial" problems. We should just stop using colours to refer to people! But that ship has long sailed, and its harder to advocate in that direction, so I guess I'm fine with it. But I can dream 😛

Also "master" has other uses, like a Master Sculpter making a masterpiece, and more relatedly things like the "master tape" being the tape other tapes are copied from, a la "remastered". But I concede it's pretty hard to make that argument when DBs and BIOSes have "masters" versus "slaves" 😬😅

That said - is it really important to defend "stupid" as a word choice? Does rewording it, maybe to "senseless" or "ignorant", create some huge negative impact for a user? It seems like kind of a minimal effort solution that can accommodate users, so why make it a big deal?

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.

Yeah, this one feels like an overreach to me. Calling a person stupid is bad, fair, but that's because the word is negative, and calling a person a negative word isn't nice.

But in this case, "replies_are_stupid" has nothing to do with a person. They're inanimate. So calling replies stupid is labelling replies negatively, but that's fine because they're inanimate. I'm not sure "loweffort" is better or even applicable. I guarantee someone will have a problem with "loweffort" in the future. Maybe "ill-advised" would be better in this context?

And before I get strawmanned by someone saying "would it be the same if they called it replies_are_gay" or something, I think that is different, because that's implying gay is bad, which is the actual problem with that usage. It's inaccurate to the problem, and only makes sense if gay people catch strays.

If you read "replies_are_stupid" and felt attacked, you need a better therapist, because "stupid" isn't an identity you should feel for yourself or those you love.

This isn't shit, you're shit!

~Muhfuckin shitpost my ass...~

I know it's kinda off topic, but what I find even weirder are bands that are "one hit wonders" in one country, but have like 10 hits and a long career in another country.

They'll have a whole wikipedia article of awards they've won you've never heard of, and tours they went on, and you're like "they wrote more than one song!?"

Maybe we're LONG LOST TWINS!!! 🙀

My understanding, though it could be mistaken because I am not a scholar, is that the Germanic peoples were going through and replacing the Roman gods with Norse equivalents. But then they got to Saturn and were like "Hmm, there's not really a good 1-to-1 match here, so I guess he stays"

That might be fully untrue though. 😅

I've just invented it from no sources, but I've taken it to mean "intending to inform and correct a future misunderstanding, without correcting the present statement"

I don't have my IPA memorized, but in my accent I propose "high-annu-boyn-ism", in case anyone wanted to use it out loud.

Fair, but I think in the context of an etymology thread it's fair to say a word that came from nowhere, that someone thought they were inventing anew, is "less real" than all the origins at work here. But I appreciate the relativism, descriptivism, and hyanuboinism.

Me too! 😛🫡

In the end a lot of this is taste but:

Indent based flow control is a massive fail right from the start.

By some metrics, Python is the most popular programming language in the world and has been for a long time. So the thing that's a massive fail right off the bat to you, is actually the lowest a barrier of entry gets. Simple GDScript starts out as basically a Python variant.

I've been a professional programmer for 20 years (not in Python) but I've never used C# and all the bits of it I've seen seem awful, like Java which I have used and hated every time. If Godot had been a C# system it would have been harder for me to get into it and enjoy it. Personally. I think the only reason they offer it at all is to try and appeal to Unity migrants.

GDScript was meant to be a gentle introduction. You've got a thing on the screen, and you want to just quickly move it when the cursor moves and it takes a few lines of code, every one of which is just about that intent. The way it has built-in syntax for addressing the hierarchy of nodes specifically encourages their use and incentivizes their design philosophy. I love functional programming typically, but I don't think I've ever missed having a lambda in GDScript, because I'm making a videogame, not transforming a data pipeline.

Things like class and class_name are a smidge confusing, sure, but both are essentially advanced features. The normal way to make a class is to make a file, and the normal way to refer to it is to include it in your node hierarchy, or by filename in a weird case.

So the GDScript is meant to be "progressive", like a scripting language, where it's a few lines to add a bit of interaction to something, where every line is there for a reason rather than boilerplate, and there are more advanced features if you need them, but they're not front and centre most of the time. I think most of the problems you've mentioned are just baggage you've brought from your other languages, but aren't needed here.

So anyway, it's taste. But fundamentally, I think the thing we disagree on most is "we don't need more languages, we need better languages". I get that, but disagree. I love a domain specific language, I love a purpose-built feature, and would much rather see a garden of variety rather than have everything be Java and C#.

Maybe I'm expecting too much from a shitpost... or maybe it's an accent thing, but for me "cope-in-hay-again" doesn't sound a lot like how I say Copenhagen...