Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:44:48PM +0100]:
> Right. Her talk (which I found very interesting and illuminating)
> raised somewhat different issues.
> It would have been impossible for her to deal properly with her
> subject matter without quoting (and showing) some of her primary
> source materials. Without that it would have been very hard to get a
> proper understanding.
> Many of those were very offensive, and if forming part of a talk in
> the ordinary way would have been a grievious violation. The content
> warning was IMO an entirely appropriate way of dealing with this
Biella's use was quoting, I seriously doubt she said any such things
outside the context of quoting what the subjects of her work had
already said (and we were interested in listening to).
But anyway, we _do_ talk that way. I have to adhere to the paragraph
in Russ' initial mail regarding the cultural shift over the
generations. Words that were once bad per se are now to be taken in
context. Because they are words, and because there are not aggressive
and disrespectful by themselves.
Disrespect and aggression can be perfectly stated using "accepted"
words. And that's something we should worry about. But requiring us to
restrict the vocabulary if it's done in a non-harming, non-offending
way? That's clearly overreaching and negative IMO.
And yes, we have kids among our ranks and whatnot. But if the parents
believe their kids (who are completely and legally under their
parents' care) should not listen to "grownup language", they should
take care not to bring them in. Many parents will not mind their child
listening to an occasional swear-word.
And yes, I know this last paragraph of mine might not suit
everybody. But really, I believe that failing to do so will alienate
many among us. Not that we _need_ to use expeltives, but that we
(sometimes strongly) feel there's nothing bad about them.
Debconf-discuss mailing list