Glibc abortion joke removed; Stallman reportedly unhappy about it
Other urls found in this thread:
stallman.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
lwn.net
twitter.com
>Carlos O'Donnell, a senior software engineer at Red Hat, suggested that trying to wring humor out of abortion "could be a trigger for certain individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.
It's all so tiresome.
When will Trump finally nuke sanfran?
Isn't stallman a BDFE?
25.7.4 Aborting a Program
...
Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program.
This is the exact type of unfunny autistic humor I've come to expect from RMS. I'm not even offended by the joke, but I support its removal on the grounds that it stinks.
>The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I first wrote it. Please do not remove it.
Yes, removing an unfunny joke hidden in obscure technical documentation is a real blow to the fight for abortion rights.
>I support censorship of things I disagree with
Well one guy put it back so its all good, all hail GNU/King stallman
>gnuclear
>Yes, removing an unfunny joke hidden in obscure technical documentation is a real blow to the fight for abortion rights.
It's about censorship you retard
>68708867
(you)n't
>unironically supporting nazi SJWs to censor your speech because you happen to agree with them on one topic
Fuck off. This is about censorship and SJWs gone mad trying to remove everything they find "triggering". I'm sorry an abortion joke offends you, but this is about free speech.
> O'Donnell recommended avoiding jokes altogether
Damn corporate drones. Yes, drones.
> trying to wring humor out of abortion "could be a trigger for certain individuals
(TRIGGER WARNING: abortion)
Yes, why not kill the abort call altogether (wait, isn't kill offensive too? Can I say it?)
I may rant about it, but nothing will come out of it, so... whatever.
I don't agree with removing the joke, but this is not censorship. Thinking some part of something you maintain, and you decide to remove it has nothing to do with censorship. Nobody is going to jail, nobody had government agents at their door to have a chat with you about being a decent american citizen.
The joke itself is about censorship and the need to remove it to not offend/trigger people is in fact rather ironic you numbnut.
wait this is joke that is clearly against right wing jesus freaks trying to ban abortion nationwide.
how can a "SJW" be against this albeit funny or not?
why is Carlos, on behalf of RHD, trying to remove it? really. can someone explain to me why anyone cares, and what's his course of action if RMS doesn't budge (which he won't)?
what I'm asking is, if Carlos is to mobilize and use papers like TheRegister and HackerNews to push an agenda, who is he trying to get to listen and attack "the enemy"?
>1. IBM as a strange EEE plot?
>2. College kids who can't even spell linux?
>3. Governments that use Linux for mission critical work and don't care?
>4. Businesses w/ "a conscious" that can't even spell Linux and outsource IT?
It reminds me very much of that strange time a year or so back where people were dead bent on removing statues for vague reasons. Maybe carlos, on behalf of redhat and IBM, is attempting to see how much he can influence FSF/RMS/GNU through outrage? I just don't understand my boomer head is dizzy.
retard
>(((stallman)))
>pushing a pro abortion joke
kek
this makes no sense, I would have thought that abortion is every wamens right and coc and sjw would push for it and constant use of it, but now the concensus was reached to remove it and the jew boy stallman disapproved it (only thing that makes sense here)
> jew boy
> stallman
He fights for you freedom.
Reminder that rms literally believes it's evil to have children
>stallman.org
>how can a "SJW" be against this albeit funny or not?
They are sensitive to anything that might trigger anyone, even rape victims or whatever that had to go through with an abortion.
he is not wrong
Jow Forums is pro abortion
You too.
Removing the joke is still not censorship. Are spelling errors censorship too? Removing a section of what you maintain because you personally don't like it is as far from censorship as you can get. You can disagree with the maintainer all you want, but the maintainer is still the one that gets to decide. If you don't like it, you can ofc fork glibc and maintain your own version with abortion and censorship jokes intact. Nobody will stop you, people might disagree, but you will never be censored.
Came here to post this. Stallman is pretty based, he fights for your freedom.
No, he's advocating that getting children isn't suitable for everyone. And he's fucking right. We wouldn't have overpopulation if Africans and Indians and Chinese cut back on their excessive breeding.
but only for africans and non whites
Still pro abortion
>Jow Forums is pro abortion
Depends on the race.
He removes it because he doesn't like it, it was made clear in that article. "waah jokes are bad they made influence someone".
It's bloat. It's not relevant to the code.
Still pro abortion
>I don't agree with removing the joke, but this is not censorship
>removing something for ideological reason
>not censorship
Found the snowflake
And that is his opinion. His own free will, his own sense of morals. Because you find a certain joke tasteful or funny, does not mean others must tell the joke for you.
>Removing the joke is still not censorship
Wojack posters should actually be censored.
Am I offending you, should I censor myself?
its not simply for or against, abortion, just like any kind of murder, extermination, gassing etc is degeneracy but sometimes it is necessary and has to be done for the greater good.
>based Stallman demanded it be put back in
To say you are not pro abortion or are anti abortion and also want to use abortion to remove undesirables is doublethink.
what is eee?
What is Stallman's political affiliation? I know most faggots here will say communist but he has to be more than that, maybe anarchist? Has he ever said, I checked his website and couldn't really find an exact answer
Is an editor removing certain passages from somebody's book for moral reasons not censorship? It's not self censorship, because that would imply the author did it himself. So how is it not outright censorship?
No, he has explicitly written against anarchy because the big corps would form armies and control everything and so on (don't ask for a link).
I'd say he's a democrat/liberal in the modern sense or a democratic socialist.
He’s a democratic socialist if anything.
just because I am anti something doesnt mean I will not use if necessary
He is definitely not a communist since he often uses ussr and china as a boogieman
>getting mad that a bad autistic '''joke''' gets removed from technical documentation
>my autistic joke is "even more important now"
rms has been nonstop huffing his own farts for 30 years, but what's Jow Forums's excuse?
> just because I am anti something doesnt mean I will not use if necessary
Well, that means your beliefs mean nothing.
I don't think it is. The author is free to choose their editors and publishers, and publishers are free to choose what they want to publish. If they demand changes to be made, the author and editor can choose to provide, or gtfo. There are plenty of other publishers to choose from.
beliefs do mean nothing, its ones actions that have meaning
By this logic literally nothing except state mandated censorship is censorship, it's an absurd position that almost no acttual civil liberty, free speech, and anti-censorship groups take
Now you’re just copping out and trying to act like your blatant contradiction doesn’t exist.
> actions aren't based on beliefs
it may or may not be contradiction (at least I dont think it is) but it doesnt really bother me. If all blacks aborted their kids that would be degeneration times several billion, but if it benefits whites then go ahead and do it
embrace, extend, extinguish
en.m.wikipedia.org
>remove undesirables
Every newborn post 2000 is undesirable.
We knew very well what would happen if we let humans have children en masse, for atleast 70 years now.
We took no actions to control birthrate and we now sit at 7 billions.
It makes me laugh to see poors trying to fight against our "leaders", why the fuck can't they realized we're too many for strict equality of everyone alive to be sustainable for more than 1 month?
We technically, logistically can't deal with so many people with only one planet.
The only solution is to deal with more than half the world population and it sure as hell won't happen from human hands, the nature will do it and it will be a nightmare for the ones still alive at this time.
We're all part of the problem, either we drastically change our lives or we let time enforces the changes.
No.
It's really easy to understand-
Author removes a passage from their own work = not censorship
Author being forced to remove a passage from their book under some kind of thread (to life, freedom, wealth, face, reputation, etc) = censorship
Someone other than the author removing a passage from a book for any reason = censorship
> statues
I, too, am confused why the Hitler and Stalin statues were torn down. They're just history. Heritage, not hate.
You can say whatever you want, just not on my private property. What you say on public city managed land, and what you say on your own private property, that's your business. I might shake my head at your silly opinions, but I cannot and will not stop you. I feel this preserves the liberties of everyone.
I use musl.
As examples of the three:
George Lucas making Han shoot first is NOT censorship
Trey Parker and Matt Stone being forced to remove Mohammad from South Park IS censorship
Stanley Kubric's Eyes Wide Shut having scenes removed by Warner Bros after his death IS censorship.
Removing Stallman's joke without his permission, IS censorship.
>Author removes a passage from their own work = not censorship
self-censorship is still censorship.
imagine this:
You release a game with crude language and people like it as it's major part of the experience.
It's a success and you get a fanbase with diehard fans. Maybe it's niche but still.
You release a sequel but you remove the crude language part as you try to appeal to a broader audience.
The original fanbase considers it a treason. What you did is self-censorship.
>I, too, am confused why the Hitler and Stalin statues were torn down.
>Hitler
"Denazification" was an attempt to destroy ANYTHING related to the German Worker's Party including Hitler. It's a historical anomaly what happened in post-war Germany.
>Stalin
There are MANY statues of Stalin still up, and Russia is adding more as I type this. There have fascist tributes to Mussolini still up in Italy, equivalent tributes up in Japan, etc.
>They're just history. Heritage, not hate.
So yes, unironically it is about history and heritage, and most people who aren't looking to be offended recognize this.
That's definitely not censorship.
>"it's insignificant, it's doesn't matter..."
a little bit here and a little bit there...
Yay, another episode of "Jow Forums doesn't understand the disconnect between censorship and free speech." You DON'T have a right, anywhere on the planet Earth, to go completely uncensored. You DO have a right, in certain countries, to be protected from persecution for any form of expression. If you can't see the difference between censorship and persecution then you're a tremendous retard, and you need to go back to the third grade.
Nobodies saying it's illegal to be an SJW tyrant. Kill yourself retard.
wrong
thanx
no fun allowed in open source!
Look dummy, censorship is an act against the tangible form of the expression itself. Persecution is an act against the person who expressed it. Ideas cannot be censored, as they are intangible. What Jow Forums and Jow Forums cry about is exposure, and nobody owes anybody else any degree of exposure. Entitled crybabies are going to cry just like birds are going to chirp, I guess.
>erasing something created by someone else that isn't you and that didn't give you permission to do this on the sole basis that it may offend other people is not censorship
Yes, because removing an unfunny joke hidden in obscure technical documentation is a real win to the fight against hate speech and surely abortion victims worldwide will rejoice
>Take over as maintainer of a building with a massive mural on the side. Paint over it because you think it is ugly.
It is not their job to represent other people's opinions. If they think something is lame, they have every right to remove it. If you don't like that they have opinions and preferences, you have every right to make a fork.
Can someone explain the joke to me?
I'm not American so federal censorship sounds strange and English ist not my first language.
Is it a censorship joke about censsorship?
So abortion is something traumatic? Then why do the want something so bad to be legal?
That's not news.
He's a bernie bro, he hates hillary
>Future Change Warning: Proposed SJW censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program.
It is, pleb. It was news, stallman said 'no', faggots waited for the dust settlement and niw they tried again.
If I understand those degens correctly, I think he means rape. As in, rape is traumatic (and happens all the fucking time apparently) and abortion is (apparently) a necessary consequence of rape.
Might be wrong
RMS is a sort of a classical communist, aka not a marxist.
its traumatic for the living baby inside the roasties belly
Stallman is nothing if not autistic, how did they get it past him this time?
>be rape victim
>you are now unable to develop using glibc because the docs will traumatize you
What a nightmare, wouldn't wish this on anyone
Look at the article OP posted.
>9 May 2018
>>be rape victim (aka roastie)
>>you are now unable to develop using glibc
(and that's a good thing, here's why!)
Yeah, OP news is old, but the new attack started in November:
lwn.net
quit being such a sensitive faggot, grow a thicker skin
>linux kernel mailing list
>see one of first comments:
>At what time does RMS become too toxic for GNU to exist and as a result the entire thing is forked?
Why am I not surprised.
Stop talking about abortion rights. You may traumatized womyn who had an abortion, asshole.
What I take from it:
- The author of the post is a SJW.
- RMS is the 2016's Jordan Peterson of free software.
here why:
roasties dont code, not glibc for sure,
that joke was healthy for actual programmers and it was boosting their morales. glibc will now be pure sadness and devs will abandon improving it. dont reply to me if you dont have at least one roastie thats involved in glibc development
>Stallman, however, pulled rank and insisted that the joke was both funny and appropriate
>roasties dont code, not glibc for sure,
That's because the environment is toxic and "roasties" aka women are not included but rather shunned. Your post using "roasties" is proof of that in and of itself.
And that's a good thing
>Being openly hostile based on sex, literally sexism is a good thing
so you dont have any? you think theres none because of some joke that they didnt even know about it? what did i say about replying to me you stupid whore?
>RMS is a sort of a classical communist, aka not a marxist.
Oh, so he's a fan of Robert Owen?
>you think theres none because of some joke that they didnt even know about it?
As I've already stated: It's not the joke but the community/developers themselves. Why would one contribute to a community that's openly hostile towards oneself for free?
>what did i say about replying to me you stupid whore?
Thanks for proving my point, also free website :^)
except they havent contributed anything and removing that joke will not change anything