Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <helen_ml_faulkner@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> > I think that is the main issue here. I would like to believe that
> > Debian is capable of showing more respect for other people than
> > including hotbabe in the distribution would indicate.
>
> First, I'm not saying that I personally feel that hotbabe should be
> part of the Debian, but I think that hotbabe demonstrates a larger
> issue.
>
> The problem is that Debian is about freedom of speech. If we start
> dropping packages just because they are offensive to somebody, we are
> compromising that ideal. Should we drop the Bible packages because
> they are offensive to quite a few Islamists? Should we refuse to add a
> Koran package as it is offensive to some Christians? Remove the
> fortunes-off because it offends probably quite a large group of
> people?
>
The Christian Bible ought to be OK by most Islamic scholars - it's the
Crusader history that has caused most of the problems - but you
shouldn't add a Koran. As I understand it, the Koran should not be
translated as it is authoritative only when in Arabic as received by the
Prophet (pbuh) but I may be very wrong here. It's worth remembering that
Debian is a worldwide OS: to keep a sense of proportion, however, it's
also worth remembering that no-one _has_ to install a bible-kjv,
dhammapada, anarchism faq fortunes-off or the proposed hotbabe -
it's not as if they are part of the base install.
There is no imperative to package everything just because we can,
however.
> Yes, hotbabe is sexist (at least in it's current incarnation - if it
> included a male theme then it would only be sexually offensive to
> some) and as such should probably be an extra priority package. Even
> though we shouldn't exclude offensive packages we have the right to
> make moral judgements and try to keep the higher priorities
> content-neutral.
>
See endless flamewars in the archives, not least over a package called
purity - a "purity test" and the related package purity-off. Or, indeed,
over deity - which became APT precisely because of this sort of issue -
dig up Bruce's posts from the archive and my compromise naming
suggestion :) Moral judgments are a mine-field.
[<OT> Any use of anti-personnel mines which injure non-combatants is
entirely immoral and unjustifiable IMHO - mine-fields are immoral -
but that is purely a personal opinion and doubtless there are others
who will disagree </OT>]
Respect is the cardinal principle here: no-one should seek to be
gratuitously offensive/sexist/racist - but mutual respect goes both
ways. People who are offended by <insert problem here> have a right to
be offended but should also stand up for the right of <insert problem
group here> to offend. If you want to be included in the world wide
community, then you have to be inclusive to some degree. Debian can't
include Nazi/neo-nazi symbology - because that causes problems in
France/Germany - and should not include race hatred: one of the (very)
few instances I can think of where the Project has taken a stand was
when we removed posts from the mailing lists and archives which came
from a (??Finnish??) extremist on precisely these grounds. Again,
revisit the archives and see if you can find the interesting thread on
"who is a typical Debian user" from a couple of years back. The breadth
of users was amazing - _someone_ could potentially be problematic over
almost any contentious point, but luckily few people push it.
Andy
Reply to: