On 13/09/18 14:16, Calvin Spealman wrote:
Samantha,
I came into this thread reading the subject and thinking "over my dead
body!" until I read your well-thought reasoning and gave even a little bit
of thought to the idea.
You're absolutely right and while I think its very unlikely to get enough
support I do think it is a very good suggestion, totally reasonable, and
that we *should* change it.
I ask everyone on this thread being rude to please step back and try to
look at the issue without your bias and knee-jerk reactions. Even if you
can't change your minds, at least be more civil about it.
I couldn't disagree more, and I say that as a card-carrying liberal.
First, did you check out Oleg's post about the likelihood that this is a
troll?
More importantly, this whole idea of banning and/or changing terminology
is psychologically and sociologically wrong-headed. The moment you say
"You may not use that word" you create a taboo, and give the word a
power that it did not have before. It actually becomes more destructive
when it is (inevitably) wheeled out, not less. You may claim that it
stops everyday usage of the word, and to an extent that's true, but if
people want to use the concept as an insult they will just load that
intent onto some other previously innocent word.
I got to watch this happen when I was growing up. My father was a
Disablement Resettlement Officer, which means he found jobs for people
with a wide variety of disabilities. I watched as the words that could
be used for disabled people changed as the current word was deemed
insulting, and even as a youngster I was boggled that no one seemed to
notice or care that exactly the same thing happened every time. For a
brief moment the new terminology would be all novel and different (and
sometimes laughable), but after a short while all the connotations of
the previous term would catch up with the new term and bring some new
friends they had made on the way (see "laughable" above).
So no, I'm not changing my mind. The suggestion to change is the
knee-jerk reaction, and we shouldn't fall for it.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:38 AM Samantha Quan <sammieq...@yandex.com> wrote:
First, I'd like to express how grateful I am to see more and more
technical communities embrace diversity and inclusivity, particularly big
tech communities like Python, Redis, and Django.
In the spirit of the big recent terminology change, I propose retiring or
rewording the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause for perpetuating
beauty bias and containing lookist slur. I realize that Zen is old, but you
can't argue that the word "ugly" is harmless, now that society condemns
body shaming, and instead promotes body acceptance and self-love. One
alternative to that clause I could think of is "Clean is better than
dirty", but please do speak up if you have better ideas.
I ask you to give this change serious consideration, even if it seems
over-the-top to you now, because times change, and this will be of great
help in the battle for the more tolerant and less judgemental society.
I understand that this topic may seem controversial to some, so please be
open-minded and take extra care to respect the PSF Code Of Conduct when
replying.
Thank you!
- Sam
Some references:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lookism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
