Being removed for versions 25 to 38… honestly confirms the feminist narrative of some people being idiots, though.
Like, imagine documentation on object oriented programming being removed because it offended some functional programming folks.
Being removed for versions 25 to 38… honestly confirms the feminist narrative of some people being idiots, though.
Like, imagine documentation on object oriented programming being removed because it offended some functional programming folks.
I am not aware of actual code removal but skirting in that direction there was a movement, just a couple years back, to replace words that had become more offensive than they were in the recent past. One example is renaming master to main.
I am not stating any opinion for or against any words or terms in this context.
Somewhat on a tangent, but when people talk about offensive language in the context of cultural criticism they don't mean terms that cause the people who hear them to be offended but things that may diminish the value of some people in the eyes of the people who hear them. I.e. something is offensive, in this sense, to some group X not if people in group X are offended when they themselves are exposed to it but if people who hear it may come to devalue people in group X. Whether it actually does or does not is another matter. In that sense, the discussion of the clitoris in an anatomy book is not offensive in the same way as the term master, but its absence is. Its inclusion could be offensive in the sense of scandalising some people who see it, but it's not the same sense.
There is obviously truth to it but it does not confirm the whig interpretation i.e. it was supposedly _removed_ rather than never present
This might be the first casual reference I've seen to whig history, is that memeplex picking up steam?
I think it communicates maliciousness not idiocy
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
> adequately explained by stupidity
What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.
Keep word: adequately. This is not adequately explained by stupidity.
It does occur to me that you can be both malicious and stupid at the same time.
This gets complicated when the malicious have also read the saying and intentionally feign stupidity, but that's just chaos politics.