Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wrote,
...

Leaving aside the obvious failure (asking women to classify themselves into those who are happy to have their breasts groped and those who aren't - and yes, that is the effective choice, since refusing to participate will result in people making conclusions about which of those categories you fit into), there's the whole "open-source breast" thing.

Creating copyrightable works is a choice. Having breasts is not[1]. Attempting to equate the two is not reasonable. Applying "open-source" to things that are not directly comparable to copyrightable works is like applying "Darwinism" to things that are not directly comparable to natural selection operating upon living things. Discussing Darwinistic politics is likely to result in people concluding that you're either a libertarian fuckloon or blame atheists for the death of your cat. Discussing open-source breasts is likely to result in me stabbing you in the fucking eye. Don't make the baby Jesus cry when he sees your horribly mutilated face. Just accept that open source is a useful licensing model, not an entire way of life.

Or: get your hands off my adjective or you'll find my hands on things you really don't want groping, whether you're wearing a badge or not.

(And yes, I realise that this is not the offensive aspect of things. This says it better than I could)

(Previously)

(Previously previously)

[1] There's a set of basically uninteresting exceptions. And by "uninteresting" I mean "If you are trying to argue over this, then you are missing the fucking point"
Tags: advogato
  • 41 comments
  • 41 comments

Comments for this post were locked by the author