> There we disagree. The hurt feelings of someone who attaches their identity > to a text should not restrain our discourse.
Yes, we do. > That would eliminate just about every joke: a huge range of jokes *depend* > for their humour on connecting seemingly-unrelated ideas. So by your logic, > we don't get to make those jokes here. I didn't have much logic. I just don't think it's nice to do things that hurt other people, and if we can, we should avoid those things. Avoiding them is pretty easy here. > But whoever takes that joke and says it's deliberately hurtful is being > presumptuous and censorious and unreasonable. If they then castigate the > joker for supposedly hurting someone's feelings, it's at that point the > atmosphere turns hostile to discussion. I don't really care about the "joke". I honestly I didn't understand it as a joke, which would drive most of my disagrement. I don't think it should have been made, yes. I take major issue with the anti-Christian rant that appeared afterward, but I haven't really taken much opportunity to attack it because it doesn't matter. All I'd like is for people to be a little more friendly, if you please. I also didn't reprimand anyone, except maybe Steven. But anyway, no, we don't agree on what it means to be friendly or what a hostile atmosphere is. I've noticed that people tend to be a lot harsher here than what I'm used to, so perhaps your attitude to it is more common on mailing-lists and I should just adapt. Devin On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > On 29-Sep-2011, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: >> >> This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not >> >> necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere. >> > >> > I disagree. It was not an attack on any person nor group of people. If >> > we are to be required to avoid jokes not directed at people, then *that* >> > is an atmosphere hostile to open friendly discussion. >> >> Well. It wasn't directly an attack on people exactly. It did mention >> believers directly. > > It did not. It mentioned only a pair of texts: the bible, and the Zen of > Python. Texts are not people, and we should not go out of our way to > protect them from jokes or criticism. > >> It could certainly be _interpreted_ as an attack (and was interpreted >> that way), and that's really all that's necessary for a hostile >> environment. > > Nonsense. *Any* joke could be interpreted as an attack; the issue is > whether it's reasonable to do so. Anyone who is so confused as to take a > joke about a book as an attack on people is being quite unreasonable, and > we should not restrain our jokes for the sake of that. > >> I'm not saying we should censor ourselves exactly. I've always been >> opposed to harsh _rules_ about what's appropriate and what >> isn't. But I do think it's important to consider others' feelings. > > Agreed. But only to the extent that attacks *on those people* are > concerned. Peoples feelings about ideas are not a consideration when > discussing ideas, and certainly not when joking about ideas. > >> Just because it isn't an attack, doesn't mean it can't hurt peoples' >> feelings, and I think hurting peoples' feelings is something worth >> going out of your way to avoid. > > There we disagree. The hurt feelings of someone who attaches their identity > to a text should not restrain our discourse. > >> Anyway, if it was a joke before, it isn't when somebody starts calling >> some "group of people" "organised conspiracies to support and protect >> child molesters". > > The group of people to whom that refers, the administrative hierarchy of > the Catholic Church, have been doing exactly what the quotation says. > > I agree that's not a joke; it's a matter of fact, and relevant in the > context where it was mentioned. > >> Is it OK to make fun of arbitrary ideas as "jokes"? I don't think so. > > Yes, a thousand times yes. Ideas are not people, have no rights, and get no > exemption from criticism or dismissal or attack or ridicule. > >> It seems, again, hurtful. Especially when the idea is totally unrelated. > > That would eliminate just about every joke: a huge range of jokes *depend* > for their humour on connecting seemingly-unrelated ideas. So by your logic, > we don't get to make those jokes here. > >> It's like we're having a discussion about dynamic typing and somebody >> blurts out "Hahaha, static typing is almost as dumb as Cartesian >> Dualism". The best case outcome is that nobody cares. The worse case >> outcomes go down to hurt feelings and flame wars from dualists. > > And the joke would still be okay, and it would be silly for anyone to take > it as hurtful. > > You can call such a joke off-topic, and I'd agree. You can say it's not > very funny, and I'd agree. You can say it's undeserving of a flame war, and > I'd agree wholeheartedly. > > But whoever takes that joke and says it's deliberately hurtful is being > presumptuous and censorious and unreasonable. If they then castigate the > joker for supposedly hurting someone's feelings, it's at that point the > atmosphere turns hostile to discussion. > > -- > \ “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is | > `\ able to think things out for himself, without regard to the | > _o__) prevailing superstitions and taboos.” —Henry L. Mencken | > Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au> > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
