Matthew Garrett ([info]mjg59) wrote,
@ 2008-04-23 01:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:advogato

Oh, and for the love of christ. Australian cultural norms are the correct standard for determining what's acceptable for posting on a site that has clear guidelines against offensive content? Baby Jesus cries with as much pain as if he'd been suddenly violated in an utterly inappropriate way.


(Post a new comment)


[info]womble2
2008-04-23 01:24 am UTC (link)
How dare you speak on behalf of cute little deities!

(Reply to this)
Well obviously
[info]jldugger
2008-04-23 01:29 am UTC (link)
We should be using a more British standpoint for interpreting moral guidelines like "We also have the right to move clearly offensive content". It's funny that I was going to hunt down an entry of yours that would have pointed out the pressure and politicization taking place around the initial post that might explain why he'd left rather than fight, and you're already on the scene.

If you're still angry about offensive content on Planet Ubuntu, can I suggest that we at least direct some quanta of that outrage at fixing the typo I left intact in the quote above? It's not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but I don't feel it would be appropriate to change something like that without getting permission by the people ultimately responsible for what that page does and doesn't say.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: Well obviously
[info]mjg59
2008-04-23 01:41 am UTC (link)
Mm? I'm not angry about offensive content on Planet Ubuntu per se. I'm angry at the repeated efforts to tell people who take offense that they're wrong to do so. The onus shouldn't be on the offended to justify themselves - the onus should be on the original authors to attempt to understand why they've caused offense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Well obviously
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 02:07 am UTC (link)
It's an interesting theme you've pointed out -- being offended is a highly emotional response and telling someone to not be offended has about as much effect as telling someone to not cry. But in light of this the phrase "clearly offensive" means what now? How do you argue for inclusion of content most people don't find offensive but has the potential to offended one person? We both know this came around to bite another contributor unfairly.

But I do feel a bit sorry for a guy who's going to be placed on an CC agenda after anonymous complaints, and reading sabdfl say that he might have posted that link himself. Maybe it's a good old boys club in action, I donno.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]perligata
2008-04-23 04:34 am UTC (link)
That is why all of my Planet Debian posts are about Vegemite.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]sneakums
2008-04-23 06:41 am UTC (link)
It's amazing how offended Marmite partisans get when Vegemite is mentioned.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]gravityboy
2008-04-23 04:50 pm UTC (link)
Russel Coker is the very definition of a New Media Doucebag. I'm still waiting for him to do something for Debian other than blog and talk about how he'll get to fixing up SELinux support someday.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…