This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke
On 05/05/2018 09:36 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
very significant part. I did not extend them: the same ethical
imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
use, despite the more widely known focus on software.
I know you spoke of the core values of the FSF, I'm making a case for
making a distinction because they're not the same thing, which makes the
case for a dodgy joke even weaker.
I agree it's not that funny. I agree it might not be that effective, if
it triggers such fierce emotional reactions on GNU libc developers. I
agree it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
printed versions of the manual. I don't agree it dilutes our core
message, in that it opposes censorship of information for practical use;
if anything, it reinforces or informs that our goal is not as narrow as
you purport it to be. That, in turn, makes it relevant to the manual.
I don't think it needs to be a great joke for it to be effective in
bypassing learned mind paths. Perhaps that's exactly what makes it so
disturbing?
My argument is that the joke is vague enough that it can be interpreted
by reasonable people in different enough ways to cause more confusion
than information. The fact that we are having this conversation should
be sufficient evidence. In fact I'm sure that even after all of these
emails there would be many still left with the wrong idea of what that
snippet meant.
All of these arguments can be easily turned around: why do people care
so much about removing it, and claiming the joke is about abortion, or
that the issue is about taking a stance about abortion, in spite of the
self-evident fact that it's just taking a stand about censorship? Such
fierce reaction cannot be explained by rational thought alone. It's so
loaded of emotion, of passion, that there is something else going on
behind the scenes, even if individuals that value rationality so highly
won't admit to it, and might not even be aware of it.
I wasn't one of those offended so I can't explain what they're going
through, but I definitely am one of those confused; it took me a couple
of readings and some US history/current affairs lessons to actually
understand what is being talked about.
I acknowledge that my reaction to what I'm seeing is visceral. I
respond very passionately to what smells and tastes and walks and quacks
like censorship to me.
>
Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a passage
that is as unimportant as you describe it? I struggle to understand it.
Can you offer any theory to explain it?
I do know that a few ill-intentioned individuals are occasionally enough
to induce a flash mob and get otherwise well-meaning people to behave in
very disturbing ways. I don't know that we have that, and I don't want
to assume that we do. The taboo theory suggested by my wife was not
just the one that made the most sense to me, but also that did not
require assuming bad faith on any of the participants, just a
not-entirely-unusual too-strong emotional reaction to a stimulus that is
in some way related with some taboo or an otherwise very emotionally
loaded subject.
The fierce emotional reactions displayed here might suggest that the
presence of the snippet is harmful, if the target audience could be
assumed to react in the same way the developers have. But there is a
non-negligible possibility that developers just fear certain undesirable
reactions from the target audience, and pursue the removal out of that
fear. Some might even advise that certain topics are better left out
from humor, based on such fears.
Maybe the fear stems from the fact that the joke is vague and needs very
specific information to get its intended meaning. Most people in this
thread who read it the first time got the meaning wrong from the looks
of it and that should be reason enough to realize that it has potential
to do more harm than good. The case against that snippet becomes even
weaker if you don't perceive a direct connection with the intended
message and the GNU projects core values and I know we differ there.
I ask you all to contrast that, however, with RMS's display of masterful
use of humor to promote Free Software values, while performing Saint
Ignucius and joking about religion, probably the one topic that would be
most strongly advised against in manuals on politically correct humor,
and even humor in general.
I have seen videos of it and they're kinda funny in an 80's sense but I
wouldn't really call them masterful :) In any case, that bit seems to
come off more as self-deprecating than joking about religion since that
sounds more like he is making fun of himself and his position in the
FSF, more so because he is not that masterful at delivering those lines,
which is fine since he is not a standup comedian.
I hope I didn't get that far; temporary disorientation might be a better
description of the theory that's in my mind, which is supported by the
cognitive dissonance between the fact that nobody claimed to support
censorship (several claimed to oppose it), and the contradictory fact
that this is precisely what's going on with the attempt to mob-impose
the removal of a snippet that the project leader wishes to keep
exclusively in manuals to be printed by the foundation he presides.
If I did get that far, I apologize for not expressing my thoughts and
theories clearly enough, and for the distress my failure to do so may
have caused on any of you.
Having met you in person many times, I know how passionate you can be in
your arguments and also know that there's no malice in there. However
we are currently talking over email (which often loses so much of that
context) so I want to be sure you realize that we are on the same side :)
Siddhesh