Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we
> > > > consider to be of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility
> > > > with third parties (free software; our users' needs; creating a
> > > > developer community that is welcoming to all people, instead of
> > > > one that mirrors a wider culture which discriminates against
> > > > people based on their identity).
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes
> > > participation by everyone,
> >
> > No. The sentence goes on:
> >
> > "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact
> > constructively with our community".
> >
> > Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
> > count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.
>
> That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].
[… left out speculative case that in my opinion does not add to the
discussion …]
"interact constructively with our community" is about human beings.
Human beings have values, thoughts, feelings. They are not objects, they
are not things. They are commonly called subjects. But the names of the
binaries in the weboob package for my sense seem to suggest that women
would be things with boobs. A pretty good example for objectification if
you ask me.
> What's wrong with looking at boobs? The vast majority of humankind
> (by measuring genital blood flow when viewing such an image, the
> percentage of women is actually higher than that of men) enjoys that.
> Many of them deny that, though, having been forced to believe in a
> "sin".
I think no one said that there is inherently anything wrong with that.
But it appears to be a common argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You_hate_sex
> I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that
> text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M. I
That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were still human beings
killing one another. The book is not responsible for anything. Human
beings are.
So far I never read a text that magically caused me to do a certain
thing without me having a chance to decide differently. If all the books
here in my apartment would suddenly cause me to do all kind of things.
Interesting idea, but so far this did not happen.
> [1]. And I insist on calling it a religion, as it has the hallmarks of
> one.
And judge it by that. Now what is your judgment? Is it a fact? If not,
what is it then?
What is the common notion in our societies to mostly depict or describe
mostly women as "sexual" while both men and women are sexual? That it is
mostly unconscious does not make it any more factual. Binary names in
the weboob package are boob related, nothing about dicks for example. Is
it a religion too? Hey, as a man, I am sexual too! (Of course in case
you see all as expressions of one consciousness, being a man, being a
woman is just identity, not the truth.)
I do not agree with the notion of men and women being the same which
from what I see appears to be floating around in our modern societies,
probably cause someone said it in the name of feminism. They are not.
But they are equal. Which means are to be treated equally fair and with
respect. I do not see that with the weboob package being included in
Debian with binary names unchanged.
I do not even agree with the word feminism. Nor with any other ism. I
agree that from ism to religion is a short path way. I do not agree with
everything that people said or did in the name of feminism or any other
ism.
But I inherently agree with treating women as equal to men. Including
weboob package unchanged in Debian is not treating them as equal to men.
How would a world free from power struggle between men and women look
like? (Or even free from power struggle between any of the expressions
of that one consciousness?)
Thanks.
--
Martin
Reply to: