On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:51:39PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > I keep trying to make the point that if people would just quote the > specific darned fortunes that they have a problem with, we could focus > this discussion immensely. > But no one has, as yet, in either of these threads as far as I can > recall, identified more than one objectionable fortune. I pointed out in November that there were entire groups of fortunes within the source package categorized (by filename) as racist, homophobic, and misogynistic. You appeared to agree[1] that fortunes deserving of such a label were not appropriate to present to users. You expressed an interest in adopting the package to restore the fortunes-off binary package, in cleaned up form. Exactly nine months have passed, and nothing has changed. The package is unmaintained. No one has stepped forward to provide editorial oversight of the fortunes files. Instead, we're back here again arguing about whether it's *acceptable* for Debian to drop contents from the archive that no one wants to maintain, and you're trying to push the burden of proof on those who stand for the principle that we shouldn't ship content that promotes bigotry and discrimination against people of marginalized identities. Some of us have moved on from Debian as a debate club. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2022/11/msg00056.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature