Hacker News Reader

Comment by gkbrk | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the problem. Do you think all sex should be a paid transaction with cash, or are you just opposed to people using the word?

View on HN

And could said transaction be paid for with free software instead?

You do understand the problem but have taken a hard stance. I mean at this point what is crossing the line? Would we all be up in arms if the developer decides to say: "Butt f*ck your best friend"

The point I'm making is that there are lines to be crossed and if you don't understand that you have simply taken a hard stance on some aspect of this.

That all being said, YES I totally agree the dev should have full rights to say that in his software - but we can have an opinion too.

Well, there are places that certain words (e.g. sex) appearing on a screen will get you in trouble with management because it could fall under HR's harassment policy. I know folks don't give a damn, but some people have to worry about such things.

We have notepad++ in a corporate environment. So it seems it it easy to disable the message.

If it can be installed with chocolatey, it can be installed in an unattended way.

Or most people don't stand around reading installer installer dialog boxes on other employee's screens all day.

Only takes one idiot. I get the feeling a lot of folks on HN don't have to deal with the fun of the terminally offended.

I think the problem is likely stigmatizing sex workers as less desirable which is sort of narrow-minded and perhaps dehumanizing. There's a large imposition of morality that isn't necessarily shared by everyone.

You're all overthinking it. I just don't like to hear about sex when I'm writing software. Is that so hard to imagine?

Is it hard to imagine that a single sentence in the installer about sex offends you so much that you refuse to use the software? Yeah that's kinda hard for me to imagine.

In a world of many, many alternatives, I feel like someone's preferences can be as arbitrary as they want them to be. It's less a statement about the magnitude of the offense and more of a statement of "I have all of these options. Why would I pick one that annoys me, even slightly?"

To use a hypothetical example - a cereal company puts some tasteless comment in an unobtrusive corner of the box. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to - you can turn the box, or put the cereal into another container, or just not read the box that closely. But why would you want to when there are 45 other brands of cereal on the supermarket shelf?

It's in the installer not the splash screen for christ sake. You'll see it a grand total of one time, maybe have a more easygoing friend install it for you?

I aim to be pragmatic and principled.

What exactly is the principle at play here?

"Principled" is a rather neutral designation. All it means you have strict rules. As to whether those rules are at all useful is not included in that designation.

The funny part is, he's already seen it and been offended. Cancelling the installation and deleting it is not preventing any future offense.

I don't think that's what is being said here. Sex is better when it's free, because then it's likely enriched with some kind of emotional bond (even if not love), whereas in case of paid sex you're just getting a service. Regardless of what the N++ developer(s) think, the statement doesn't criticize prostitution.

Your statement is valuing one form of sex over another. The point is that value isn't held by everyone, and asserting it as fact is diminishing someone else's entirely legitimate perspective.

Conversation is pointless as OP has now responded saying he simply doesn't like hearing about sex.

Yes, I shared my opinion, I'm aware it was subjective. If sharing one's opinion is diminishing someone's perspective and that's bad, then why did you just do the same? On a similar matter, if conversation is pointless, why did you bother to write your message? :D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com