Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 23:56, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:18:48AM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> wrote on 20/11/2022 at 22:14:35+0100:
> >
> > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 21:42, G. Branden Robinson
> > > <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thank you for, perhaps inadvertently, compelling me to review some of
> > >> the content of the package. I can now say that I am certain there is
> > >> material of worth in the fortunes-off package and support its retention
> > >> in the Debian distribution. A review process for individual entries
> > >> that are incompatible with the project's values is manifest in the BTS.
> > >>
> > >
> > > rational approach vs cancel culture: 1 vs 0
> > > <3
> >
> > Cancel culture would be shaming those having done the content/package,
> > trying to hide it so that no one could see it (it's on GitHub and no one
> > here plans on having it removed from there) and burn on a bench anyone
> > asking for it to be back.
> >
> > The mere thing I did is to state that it's garbage to me and it should
> > be thrown out from the archive because we have better stuff to do with
> > our free time.
> >
> > Your answer: "cancel culture".
> >
> > I guess it's supposed to be a "rational approach"? This is rich.
>
> I think the bit of "rational approach" is to see *why* the package was
> called "offensive" (because $DPL-of-a-long-time-ago decided that certain
> subjects are offensive and they shouldn't be in the "regular" package),
> and whether it actually results in a net positive (answer: probably not,
> depending on your point of view).
>
> If the "offensive" package were, in fact, mostly nazi and other such
> similar content then you would have a point; but I in fact used to have
> "fortune -o" in my .bashrc file, and, no, it really isn't. You might get
> personally insulted occasionally, but that's about it (and if you can't
> stand that, then, well, don't install the "offensive" package and/or
> don't use the "-o" parameter to fortune -- I mean, there are *two*
> barriers!).
>
> Perhaps if there is something in the "offensive" package that we can
> point to and declare really problematic, we can file bugs about that?
> But just removing the whole package because "oh no" feels like the
> baby/bathwater story and, yes, cancel culture.
>
Considering that "offensive" is a definition that greatly changes
along history time and geography space, there is no reason to abandon
a package that after all is an example of what - today and in our
culture - we consider offensive. As stated above there are two
barriers that prevent the common user from getting exposed to that
material: the installation of the package and the use of the -o
option. Take in consideration that many people consider offensive
statements pro-LGBT+ for example. So, those statements should also be
moved into the "offensive" package? (I don't even know if there are
such statements, just for example).
At its extreme consequences the cancel culture brings to the
consequences profetized by Dostoievski: "Tolerance will reach such a
level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not
to offend the imbeciles′′ - opss - SORRY - I cited a Russian authors!
LOL
Think about it, even twice... :-)
Best, R-
Reply to: