Follow

re: defining "gimp" 

@rey
Why is it relevant? Was it created at Berkeley? (I don't know, just curious). So, the name is bad because creators were likely to aware it's bad.

Should have Windows Vista been renamed because it's a funny name in Latvian?

My point is, that on the international scale it's likely that a name will mean something less than appropriate for some group of people somewhere on the Earth.

@ekaitz_zarraga @grainloom @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@rey @ekaitz_zarraga @grainloom @hirojin

Also there is a football player Nasri, which in Russian sounds similar to a phrase "go and shit" which actually means "don't give a fuck". It's unrealistic to expect the guy to actually change his name.

The naming issue a freedom of speech issue. We've got a group of people that created something and decided to name it's the way it's named.

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin GIMP was intended to have a, well, for lack of a better term, politically incorrect name
after all, it used to be called "the GIMP" for quite a while. you know. after the sex slave character from an internationally famous movie.
and it's not a personal name either. you are drawing false equivalences.

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom
That's a good point.

I want to focus more how the name is perceived, not on it's origin. In this case, I think, to comparisons are relevant.

Languages are powerful. Ambiguity is one of the basic phenomena. "Pussy" will mean different things in a kindergarten and in a high school.

I can't see how outsiders can force the core team to change the name.
@rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin
Which is why the core team sucks. They should listen to people. The very problem is that some people _cannot_ become core members because of the name. (and the attitude of the current core team)

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom

Yes, but this is what they've created the way they wanted. If they don't listen to this argument, it's their choice.

@rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin
True. I hope the fork gains traction.

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom

I see two arguments.

The first is that most of the words are ambiguous and it's meaning is resolved given the context. In IT context, GIMP means an image editor.

@rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

The second is that gimp is toxic speech that hurts people. To make this argument one needs to show that GIMP as a project has enough power to qualify as hate speech.

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

* "Free Speech in the Digital Age" edited by Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber

* "Speech and Harm" edited by Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan

These two books are good starting point. Lynne Tirrel's work goes in deep details.

re: defining "gimp" 

@grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

I find the argument that the name of a project is hate speech weak, because one needs to show that it has power over the oppressed group.

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel Who are you to define the argument. It is that gimp, as a name, is toxic enough to dissuade people from feeling comfortable using or participating in the project. It is exclusionary. (While that isn't directly oppressive, it does play into social structures of oppression, so I find the argument that it facilitates oppression strong, and the argument that isn't oppressive weak.) @grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel Stop flaunting your ability to be rational and be, actually, rational. Listen to what people are saying and, trust that the argument they put forth is the argument they mean? That is, have these conversations in good faith, and respect the people you're trying to have a reasonable conversation with? Not only are you wrong about this issue, but your way of talking about it comes off as juvenile. @grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@emsenn
Of you want to go personal, I'm nothing and my opinion doesn't worth anything. I don't use GIMP and neither find it's name offensive.
@grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel I'm not getting personal, I'm telling you: you are misconstruing the argument of those you are disagreeing with. That is a logical fallacy; it's most commonly called "strawmanning;" I forget the latin.

Since we're discussing it personally; I don't use GIMP because people have used that term as a slur toward me and the software name reminds me of it. Beyond that, I don't like letting people who don't respect me make my tools. @grainloom @rey @ekaitz_zarraga @hirojin

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel Since you honestly might not know (in which case you should've stayed quiet and self-educated) here's the (now-deleted) issue: webcache.googleusercontent.com

Note how it doesn't say anything about the name being hate speech. It just says it's an insult, and a colloquial reference to a kink. Other issues are acronyms are hard to remember, and that GIMP doesn't make it clear what the software does! There's four reasons, one about hate speech!

Listen to what people say.

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel Like I don't mean to harp on but, come on, if you're gonna engage in online discussions about stuff, do your basic research. That means primary sources, not your inference from reading fifty hot takes. ESPECIALLY if you're butting into a conversation that doesn't involve you.

Doing any less is just... really disrespectful to the people you're talking to; I hope you can see why I say that.

re: defining "gimp" 

@emsenn
I find the hate speech poimt the most important.

I don't see renaming the project as a universal solution, because of the examples I've provided: Pajero/vista/Nasri/pussy.

I believe that language is powerful enough to minimise the hurt of this name given that we on the day to day basis operate with ambiguous words.

Words to change their meanings, for example the word gay.

re: defining "gimp" 

@emsenn

I don't defend anyone. I see how the word is problematic, but I don't (yet) see how the core team can be forced to change the name.

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel No one is suggesting the can be forced ot change the name. We're just saying they're assholes for how they handled the situation, regardless of their conclusion. Again, you're just... saying that things are the problems that aren't the problems. No one except you is bringing up hate speech as a legal claim to force them to change the name. That's a fictitious agenda you have either been falsely given, or made up.

re: defining "gimp" 

@pixel At this point you're either ignoring the primary sources or claiming you know better, and either way is, again, a really shitty and disrespectful way to conduct a conversation with someone. You're not right, and you're being an asshole.

Show more
Show more

re: defining "gimp" 

@emsenn @pixel @grainloom @rey @hirojin Note: they aren't doing YOUR tool. They are making a tool and you are allowed to use it.

I understand the argument but I don't have the same experience. I've been called many things (sadly, none good) and I don't hate the words themselves.

re: defining "gimp" 

@emsenn @pixel @grainloom @rey @hirojin That's one of the points I want to understand.

The problem I'm seeing here is people is asking me to trust or to do what they do. I want to understand it. I want to understand also what I would do.
But nobody is interested on that.

re: defining "gimp" 

@ekaitz_zarraga @emsenn @pixel @grainloom @rey @hirojin People are explaining, time and time again, you're just not listening.

listening 

@pettter Nope.
I may be used to a different kind of conversations.

Saying that I'm not listening is also insulting and can feel offended by that and ask you to reword your message.

What is happening here is:
- I don't have an opinion on this
- I want to form one
- As nobody is giving me good arguments like: "i do this for this and it means that because this and that" my position is moving around trying to find them

I still don't have an opinion and still don't have any explanation.

listening 

@ekaitz_zarraga Let's start with what "this" is, then? Also, what would qualify as a "good argument"?

Because I've seen a lot of people trying in vain to explain a lot of things to you where you have been completely unwilling to accept what they're saying.

listening 

@pettter TBQH, I lost the interest on this bullshit. I've never had it, my original message is from some days ago and the only thing I wanted to do yesterday is to discuss some philosophical stuff with @grainloom (who rejected my invitation LOL).

I don't care.

You *all* can do whatever you like. It's your fucking life and *I'd never call out anyone for doing something I don't like*. Maybe that's why I don't understand.

listening 

@ekaitz_zarraga @grainloom > *I'd never call out anyone for doing something I don't like

That's literally what you do you in your first post right back in the start of this whole thread.

Show more

FOSS discourse 

@ekaitz_zarraga @emsenn @pixel @rey @hirojin
That's a bit too individualistic. Maybe a bit more than a bit.
The idea is that free software should benefit people. If all they do is scratch their own itch, they aren't better than paid proprietary software. They are possibly worse, even, since a company at least has to listen to its customers.

FOSS discourse 

@grainloom The other day I had to remind someone what free software is. I said free software is also free for developers.
Many people cheered my explanation.

Do I need to do it again? :)

Free software is not for benefiting people. It's just software. Developers have no obligation with the user.

It's better than proprietary in a practical sense -> can be extended and since it's made it becomes part of humanity's knowledge. Nothing else.

FOSS discourse 

@grainloom Also, since it's free it's automagically benefiting people because it can be forked, studied or whatever. It's software you don't need to write by yourself. That's all that free software means.

Ethical software or people oriented software is something else we shouldn't mix. That was the *real* reason for my first message.

Free software community has many things to fix.

re: FOSS discourse 

@grainloom @ekaitz_zarraga @emsenn @pixel @rey @hirojin

what鈥檚 the point of freedom if you have to do as your told by 鈥渢he people鈥?

re: FOSS discourse 

@xj9 @hirojin @emsenn @pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga
"stop telling me to clean my room, mom!"

re: FOSS discourse 

@grainloom @hirojin @emsenn @pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga

my mom can't tell me what to do, i'm an adult. i have the right to have a messy room and the responsibility to deal with the consequences, whatever they may be.

re: FOSS discourse 

@xj9 @hirojin @emsenn @pixel @rey @ekaitz_zarraga
What you have a right to do and what is actually good for you and others are not the same thing.

Show more
Sign in to participate in the conversation
3dots.lv Mastodon Instance

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!