# Political correctness will be our bane



## tingo (May 12, 2013)

From the January - March 2013 status report:


> Due to some debates around the political correctness of quotes added for the fortune(6) utility, the corresponding data file has been removed from the base system in -CURRENT.


I swear that political correctness will be the end of humanity one day.


----------



## cpm@ (May 12, 2013)

tingo said:
			
		

> I swear that political correctness will be the end of humanity one day.



Given the purpose of the fortune utility is a absurd measure remove it.


> Has anyone realized that the purpose of the fortune cookie program is to
> defuse project tensions?  When did you ever see a cheerful cookie, a
> non-cynical, or even an informative cookie?
> Perhaps inadvertently, we have a channel for our aggressions.  This
> ...


----------



## Crest (May 12, 2013)

But I always run fortune with -o. Otherwise it's no fun at all.


----------



## zspider (May 13, 2013)

tingo said:
			
		

> From the January - March 2013 status report:
> 
> I swear that political correctness will be the end of humanity one day.



It will be, it is one of the most evil things ever conceived by man.


----------



## Crivens (May 13, 2013)

The next step will be this.


----------



## poisonlux (May 13, 2013)

Really? Can anyone explain what was the "offending" file?


----------



## YZMSQ (May 13, 2013)

So we have to own *fortune* from ports in the future?


----------



## sossego (May 13, 2013)

zspider said:
			
		

> It will be, it is one of the most evil thing's ever conceived by man.



You mean by a person?


----------



## kpa (May 13, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> You mean by a person?



http://www.badum-tish.com/


----------



## poisonlux (May 14, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> http://www.badum-tish.com/



person != man

Person includes woman, transgender people and all the other gender identities


----------



## roddierod (May 14, 2013)

poisonlux said:
			
		

> person != man
> 
> person includes woman, transgender people and all the other gender identities



Not true.

man


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 14, 2013)

roddierod said:
			
		

> Not true.
> 
> man



That requires a subscription but Merriam-Webster says:


> a (1) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) â€”usually used in combination <councilman> (3) : husband (4) : lover
> b : the human race : humankind


----------



## ChalkBored (May 14, 2013)

poisonlux said:
			
		

> Really? Can anyone explain what was the "offending" file?


`man fortune`

```
-o      Choose only from potentially offensive aphorisms.  Please,
             please, please request a potentially offensive fortune if and
             only if you believe, deep down in your heart, that you are will-
             ing to be offended.  (And that if you are not willing, you will
             just quit using -o rather than give us grief about it, okay?)
```


The problem seems to lie in that the people who refuse to read man pages because they're not called person pages are the ones most likely to complain.


----------



## kpa (May 14, 2013)

There are Wo Man pages or w/o man pages whatever you want to call them.


http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/WoMan


----------



## sossego (May 14, 2013)

ChalkBored said:
			
		

> man fortune



What? No "woman fortune" nor "person fortune."?

There should at least be a man- I mean people- page for "Here's your damn fortune."





			
				ChalkBored said:
			
		

> The problem seems to lie in that the people who refuse to read man pages because they're not called person pages are the ones most likely to complain.



I do not "complain" about the lack of "people" pages, I merely express my bit-ching and whining in a creative matter that I see fit, damn it!

http://tinyurl.com/cyo75lp Unfortunately, I had to use the tinyurl service because the settings for acceptable language does not allow a non offensive yet expressive use of the verb form of bit-ch.


----------



## roddierod (May 14, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> That requires a subscription but Merriam-Webster says:



I didn't realize it require*s* subscription. Here's *an* image of the page.


----------



## ChalkBored (May 15, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> I do not "complain" about the lack of "people" pages, I merely express my bit-ching and whining in a creative matter that I see fit, damn it!



I didn't word my comment very well. It wasn't about complaining due to the lack of people pages. It was about the advice in the man page going unread by the people who needed it the most because they were boycotting man pages.


----------



## nekoexmachina (May 15, 2013)

Stupid f*cks. I totally hate this behavior of ignorant not-so-good-people up there.

Here in Russia, meanwhile, we have almost the terminal stage of stupidity on correctness & "morale", supported by goverment and church. Our government has even forced network operators to ban dumb ways to die as a part of "child protection from harmful information". (Actually we've got a huge list of pages that 'should be banned' by network operators because of suicide propaganda, homosexual relationships propaganda, drugs propaganda, that sorts of crap).


----------



## sossego (May 15, 2013)

ChalkBored said:
			
		

> I didn't word my comment very well.
> It wasn't about complaining due to the lack of people pages. It was about the advice in the man page going unread by the people who needed it the most because they were boycotting man pages.



Dude, I was joking with you. Fortune comes wrapped in a warning.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 28, 2014)

Does anyone know the context of this change? ie. who complained about what exactly?

The worst part of this is probably:


```
> fortune -a
Warning: file "/usr/share/games/fortune/fortunes-o.dat" unreadable
Show me a man who is a good loser and I'll show you a man who is
playing golf with his boss.
```

There are two obvious problems here:
1. You get an error message
2. As a golf player, I find this fortune is offensive. A formal complaint will be lodged.


----------



## sossego (Jan 29, 2014)

+1 for @Carpetsmoker


----------



## Glauco (Jan 30, 2014)

Political correctness is false moralism morality cross-dressed in an untouchable truth uniform.

It's the main fashion in which most modern political and alternative activism is manifested.


----------



## protocelt (Jan 31, 2014)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> 2. As a golf player, I find this fortune is offensive. A formal complaint will be lodged.



I did find myself laughing a bit out loud at that.  :beergrin


----------



## zspider (Jan 31, 2014)

Glauco said:
			
		

> Political correctness is false moralism crossdressed in an untouchable truth uniform.
> 
> It's the main fashion in wich most modern political and alternative activism is manifested.



It's also toxic to pretty much anything it comes into contact with.


----------



## protocelt (Feb 1, 2014)

This is the first thing that came to mind first time seeing this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc


----------



## scottro (Feb 1, 2014)

How many of you are not white males?  
I don't know how old most of you are, but when I was in high school, in the 60's, even in sub zero weather, females were told that they had to wear skirts.  Eventually (those were the days of protest) about 20-30 of them came in pants.

In some countries, females aren't allowed to drive, and in many cultures, are often considered partially to blame if raped.  If I were a woman, (or Black, or Asian, or any of the many targets of racial/sexual humor), I'd probably be more conscious about political correctness myself.  I'll agree it can be overdone and abused, and have seen that too---but the things that caused it in the first place are probably worse problems.


----------



## c083d4 (Feb 7, 2014)

Whites are now a minority. And in 2014, women are only openly discriminated in islamic countries.


----------



## protocelt (Feb 7, 2014)

c083d4 said:
			
		

> Whites are now a minority.



Looking at pure numbers, probably. From a political and social standpoint, I do not believe so.


----------



## CreativeGPX (Feb 7, 2014)

> If I were a woman, (or Black, or Asian, or any of the many targets of racial/sexual humor), I'd probably be more conscious about political correctness myself.


But there are many people in all of those categories who make politically incorrect jokes just as often. Actually, in my personal experience from people I know I'd say those groups are more likely to make politically incorrect jokes.

Besides, fear is not a universal reason that such jokes are bad. Some people, in fact, use humor specifically about issues they are uncomfortable with because it helps make those things less scary and more approachable. Cutting off humor to any topic can make that topic heavier, darker and less approachable. So, you may be hurting just as many people by refusing a joke as you are by making it.

Being politically correct in humor has nothing at all to do with what your stance is on the issue being joked about. It has to do with what true world effects you think a joke must imply.

And, no, being a white male does not mean there are less politically incorrect statements at your expense. For example, guys are thoroughly the target of jokes that make them out to be idiotically sex-crazed.


----------



## nakal (Feb 7, 2014)

Wait... I could understand it as an offense, when you say "if I were a female/black/asian". What do you mean by that? Does it mean that you consider the groups you mention worth less than other groups? (Sorry... I just wanted to show you how to escalate things...)

(btw... I also consider it offensive to say to a white male that he discriminates against someone... this is quite rude in my opinion, if you don't know this person very well... and basically this offense would not happen if you really know someone)

The problem is that when you are intimate with someone you can say the worst things about his "race"/nationality etc, (s)he wouldn't get mad. My wife is asian and I joke about her eyes sometimes... but she knows that I truly love her (and her eyes).

I also understand that people have a hard life because of their appearance. You know that sight is our primary sense and you CANNOT DAMMIT DENY that you SEE someone else and look at his outer appearance... you are simply lying to yourself and are a hypocrite when you tell otherwise. You know what is best... to have a clean and innocent mind of a child. The child points at the subject and says (without prejudice) "Look, a black man!" or looks with big eyes at someone looking differently from others. Does the child discriminate? Of course... dammit YES it DOES! And WHO CARES? Such a child does not have any evil things in mind.

And by the way... you offend ME if you think I don't respect others. I also don't believe in this minority bs, because I approach people differently. Of course, I know who is an annoyance in my life and it (of course!) depends on the appearance (I try hard not to do it, but we still have eyes that judge, see above... and those eyes are trying to recognize patterns in your life to keep the world without stress and fully structured).

All in all... I consider people who are (generally, pro-actively or without a direct reason to do so) protecting "those poor groups who cannot care for themselves"  and incredible annoyance... far more than people who really discriminate, because those people mostly stay out of your life (the majority avoids you) and the others just exist to tell you HOW to live.

Also... you cannot insist on someone being a sincere person towards you. Politeness is not sincerity. Don't mix this two up... it is really dangerous to think so! It saved my life not to be this naive.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Feb 7, 2014)

nakal said:
			
		

> when you say "if I were a female/black/asian". What do you mean by that? Does it mean that you consider the groups you mention worth less than other groups
> [...]
> consider it offensive to say to a white male that he discriminates against someone
> [..]
> And by the way... you offend ME if you think I don't respect others



Scott never said any of these things, not even close. You're twisting his words into something else, this is dishonest and not required to disagree with someone. Its called a straw man.

All he did was gently point out that other people's viewpoint & feelings may be very different from your own, if you read his post _carefully_ you will notice he didn't even take any definitive position.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 7, 2014)

Something to keep in mind, offence can never be _given_, it can only be _taken_.


----------



## CreativeGPX (Feb 7, 2014)

I think the considerate thing to do would be to redefine fortune -a, but not fortune -o.

It's about being aware of your audience. If you were broadcasting your inappropriate humor to people in a way that they'd likely encounter it unintentionally, then your heavy role in the causation makes you bear responsibility (i.e. fortune -a). However, if you are putting that humor in a place that people knowingly choose to act as the audience (i.e. fortune -o) then they bear the responsibility because without their informed action, the offense could not have occurred.

If they still wanted it gone, they want to stop something that offends them even though they have to work (i.e. adding '-o') to expose themselves to it. This means that it's not enough that they just not be offended, but that even people who are not offended get treated as though they were. (Mark Twain's slightly offensively worded, "like telling a man he can't have steak because a baby can't chew it"). In this case, they are not offended by being the audience of the joke, but by knowing that other people are allowed to go on enjoying a joke they don't like. The fact that they'd be permitted to make such an imposition on others implies that their sense of appropriateness and correctness deserves to override that of the others, which is quite offensive to others. The existence of this thread shows that there are people who are offended by the corrective action, which was intended to respond to offense. The cure to offending one group is to offend another group.

Additionally, the fact that the whole conversation labels these things as "politically incorrect" or "inappropriate" is presupposing that the latter group is wrong. The way the argument is phrased in the first place wrongly forces the people who oppose the censorship to defend "inappropriate" things as appropriate when perhaps they don't think they are inappropriate in the first place.


----------



## c083d4 (Feb 7, 2014)

protocelt said:
			
		

> c083d4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


USA now has a black president


----------



## CreativeGPX (Feb 7, 2014)

The point stemmed from the idea that people who went through certain hardships may be justified in being sensitized to them. In that framing of things, the group is already predefined for you. Group 1 is people who had such hardships and group 2 is people who didn't. Those groups are 100% accurate by definition. But then, rather than being content with having two groups that by definition are 100% accurate for the sake of the argument, people always seem to immediately dispose of those definitions and talk about the argument in gross generalizations. It's not even as though those groups (people who had a certain extent or type of hardships) is some abstract non-existent group. It's a real group. The debating, logic-loving side of me dies inside when people throw that out and redefine the problem to use less accurate information than they started with.


----------



## kpedersen (Feb 7, 2014)

Surely digital preservation is a much higher priority than political correctness. We are UNIX users... not Facebook cretins for God's / Allah's / Spaghetti Monster's sake!


----------



## protocelt (Feb 7, 2014)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> Surely digital preservation is a much higher priority than political correctness. We are UNIX users... not Facebook cretins for God's / Allah's / Spaghetti Monster's sake!



+1


----------



## tingo (Feb 13, 2014)

protocelt said:
			
		

> This is the first thing that came to mind first time seeing this thread.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc


Ah! That was a good way to explain it.


----------

