Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages

Discussion in 'Python' started by Peter Otten, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. Peter Otten

    Peter Otten Guest

    Felinx Lee wrote:

    > I have removed those packages (girlfriend and others) from PyPI forever, I
    > apologize for that.


    The thought police has won :(
     
    Peter Otten, Jan 2, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Otten

    Robert Kern Guest

    On 1/2/12 8:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

    > But, hey, inertia. As long as we're trying to make this dude get rid
    > of the offensive part, might as well get rid of the rest too. Why not
    > make him get rid of everything he's written, too?


    Because that's something that no one desires, nor is it the logical conclusion
    of anything that anyone has expressed here. Please don't invent strawmen.

    --
    Robert Kern

    "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
    an underlying truth."
    -- Umberto Eco
     
    Robert Kern, Jan 2, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > Because that's something that no one desires, nor is it the logical
    > conclusion of anything that anyone has expressed here. Please don't invent
    > strawmen.


    You're right, sorry. I let myself say something dumb. I'll try not to
    do it again.

    -- Devin

    On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Robert Kern <> wrote:
    > On 1/2/12 8:56 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
    >
    >> But, hey, inertia. As long as we're trying to make this dude get rid
    >> of the offensive part, might as well get rid of the rest too. Why not
    >> make him get rid of everything he's written, too?

    >
    >
    > Because that's something that no one desires, nor is it the logical
    > conclusion of anything that anyone has expressed here. Please don't invent
    > strawmen.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Robert Kern
    >
    > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
    >  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it
    > had
    >  an underlying truth."
    >  -- Umberto Eco
    >
    > --
    > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
     
    Devin Jeanpierre, Jan 3, 2012
    #3
  4. On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:59:53 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

    > Devin Jeanpierre <> writes:
    >
    >> > Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free to
    >> > howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a
    >> > platform to amplify anyone's prejudice.

    >>
    >> A module named "girlfriend" won't amplify anyone's prejudice. It is, at
    >> that point, just a joke.

    >
    > I agree that it's a joke. It is a joke at the expense of women:
    > promoting the view that, like a car or a house (the other modules that
    > were part of the joke), a girlfriend is a possession to be acquired.


    How do you get that reading?

    Yes, in the English language, we talk about "getting a girlfriend", but
    we also talk about "getting a boyfriend". Does that imply that *men* are
    nothing more than a possession to be acquired? Clearly not. There is no
    implication re social status -- we can talk about "the nation has finally
    got a king" without any implication that kings are low status, mere
    "possessions" to be acquired.

    If there is anything "offensive" about the "joke", it is the implication
    that women are shallow creatures only interested in men for their earning
    potential. But why should that be more offensive than the idea that men
    are so desperate for a relationship that they are happy to hand over
    their earnings to anything female that pretends an interest in them? The
    joke cuts both ways.

    It is the nature of jokes to exaggerate character traits. In real life,
    many women *are* interested in the earning potential of men, not
    exclusive of all other factors of course, and many men *are* push-overs
    to any gold-digger with a pretty face. But neither is a universal trait:
    they are mere generalisations.

    There are exceptions, of course, people are complex and reality doesn't
    fit nicely into the pigeon holes we invent, but generalities do apply in
    general. We're lying to ourselves if we don't acknowledge the truth that
    in general the status of a man depends on his wealth and power and that
    of a woman on her fecundity, looks and youth. Acknowledging that reality
    is no more sexist than acknowledging the reality that on average men are
    bigger than women and that women can conceive but men can't.


    Stan: I want to have babies.
    Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
    Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
    Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
    Stan: Don't you oppress me!
    Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the
    fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

    - Life of Brian



    --
    Steven
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Jan 3, 2012
    #4
  5. On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:57:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

    > Steven D'Aprano <> writes:
    >
    >> The joke cuts both ways.

    >
    > This is the Just World fallacy: you're implying that, because the same
    > joke can be applied equally well to women or men, that therefore it is
    > equally harmful. The fallacy is to ignore the fact that the playing
    > field is not level.


    I'm not ignoring the fact of an unequal playing field. (The playing field
    is uneven in different directions in different places.)


    > Yes, that same joke can semantically be applied equally to men. But it
    > is disproportionately harmful to women,


    You're making an assumption there that I don't accept. There is no
    evidence that it is harmful to *anyone*, men or women.

    And not just because "it's only a joke" -- jokes are a wonderfully
    powerful weapon, and like all weapons, they can be used for good or evil.
    E.g. the Klu Klux Klan lost a lot of influence when the US media (and in
    particular the Superman television series) made them into a laughing
    stock. On the flip-side, Irish jokes have been both a reaction to Irish
    terrorism and a way of depowering the Irish.

    But if jokes are weapons, this particular joke is not only a water
    pistol, but it's a *broken* water pistol.

    There are barriers to women becoming programmers. Some of those barriers
    come from men, others come from other women, and some are internal to the
    specific woman in question. One might even be able to list some of those
    barriers. But if you think that it is self-evident that childish jokes
    about working hard in order to attract a girlfriend is one of those
    barriers, then I have to disagree strongly.

    [...]
    > Apologetics defending sexist jokes against women


    In what way is this a sexist joke against women?

    Normally, one can point out the victim of sexist or racist jokes: it
    makes a class of people out to be a laughing stock, incompetent or stupid
    or wicked. That is not the case here, unless we think that preferring a
    hard-worker and good provider over a lazy deadbeat is a sign of moral
    degeneracy (that is, "gold-digger" versus "wants the best for herself and
    her children").


    --
    Steven
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Jan 4, 2012
    #5
  6. On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:54:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

    > Steven D'Aprano <> writes:

    [...]
    >> You're making an assumption there that I don't accept. There is no
    >> evidence that it is harmful to *anyone*, men or women.

    >
    > It objectifies women.


    So you claim.

    > If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
    > haven't the stamina to educate you.


    Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that this
    sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop claiming that
    it is harmful?

    Or do you expect us to just take your word for it and stop questioning
    you?


    --
    Steven
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Jan 4, 2012
    #6
  7. On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ben Finney <> wrote:
    > It objectifies women. If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
    > haven't the stamina to educate you.


    And "import pickle" objectifies pickles. It's deplorable how few
    gherkins become programmers, and I think it's because of these
    immature jokes about pickles that have become entrenched in the Python
    community. These folk are on the very point of becoming programmers
    when they read an extremely obscure reference in one program's module
    collection and, as a result, choose a career elsewhere (in the case of
    pickles, there's always a job at McDonalds).

    ChrisA
     
    Chris Angelico, Jan 4, 2012
    #7
  8. Peter Otten

    Dan Sommers Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:37:24 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

    > And "import pickle" objectifies pickles ...


    Not quite: "import pickle" merely readies the machinery that objectifies
    pickles. In order to objectify a pickle, you have to call pickle.loads:

    >>> import pickle # get ready to objectify a pickle, but don't do it yet
    >>> x = SomeClass(some_value, some_other_value)
    >>> s = pickle.dumps(x) # now s contains a pickle
    >>> y = pickle.loads(s) # this actually objectifies the pickle known as s


    Sorry.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled holy war.

    *sigh*
     
    Dan Sommers, Jan 4, 2012
    #8
  9. On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Dan Sommers <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:37:24 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
    >
    >> And "import pickle" objectifies pickles ...

    >
    > Not quite:  "import pickle" merely readies the machinery that objectifies
    > pickles.  In order to objectify a pickle, you have to call pickle.loads:


    Modules are objects too!!!

    *marches around carrying signs proclaiming Rights for Modules*

    Does anybody else feel that this holy war is somewhat pointless? Oh
    wait. Holy war. "Pointless" is redundant.

    ChrisA
     
    Chris Angelico, Jan 4, 2012
    #9
  10. Peter Otten

    Ethan Furman Guest

    Ben Finney wrote:
    > I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
    > know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
    > English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
    > luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
    > of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.



    > We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
    > needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
    > field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
    > easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
    > which is perpetuating a hostile environment.



    > I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
    > retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
    > defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
    > hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
    > to clean up our house more.


    +1

    ~Ethan~
     
    Ethan Furman, Jan 4, 2012
    #10
  11. Peter Otten

    Ian Kelly Guest

    On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Tony Pelletier <> wrote:
    > Honestly, is this list really what this is all about?  I'm bored already...


    Sorry, this list does not exist for your personal entertainment.
    Maybe you should try YouTube.

    And no, it's not really about sexism either, but there is no harm in
    the occasional educational rant. Kudos to Ben for fighting the good
    fight!
     
    Ian Kelly, Jan 4, 2012
    #11
  12. Peter Otten

    Ian Kelly Guest

    On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tony Pelletier
    <> wrote:
    > That's a rather ironic comment.  Idiot.


    Really? Which part was ironic?

    >> Sorry, this list does not exist for your personal entertainment.


    Not this one, that's just a statement of fact.

    >> Maybe you should try YouTube.


    Kinda. What I really meant here was "Maybe you should just go away",
    but that is not really in opposition with what I actually said, so
    it's not technically irony either, just mild understatement.

    >> And no, it's not really about sexism either,


    Literal statement of fact.

    >> but there is no harm in the occasional educational rant.


    Literal statement of opinion.

    >> Kudos to Ben for fighting the good fight!


    And I meant that 100%. Also not ironic.

    ....

    Oh, wait, I get it now. Your post was ironically self-referential. "Clever!"

    By the way, take a constructive suggestion and stop top-posting.
    Bottom-posting is the commonly preferred style around these parts.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting

    Cheers [irony!],
    Ian
     
    Ian Kelly, Jan 4, 2012
    #12
  13. Peter Otten

    Ian Kelly Guest

    On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Tony Pelletier
    <> wrote:
    > I have zero desire to follow the rules of a Python(here's the ironic part.
    > Get it now clever boy?) list when it'd riddled with childish banter that has
    > nothing to do with........ wait for it......................... Python?


    Fair enough. If this thread and this exchange were actually
    representative of the list, I wouldn't want to waste my time with it
    either.
     
    Ian Kelly, Jan 4, 2012
    #13
  14. On 4 January 2012 20:08, Ian Kelly <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Tony Pelletier
    > <> wrote:
    >> I have zero desire to follow the rules of a Python(here's the ironic part.
    >> Get it now clever boy?) list when it'd riddled with childish banter thathas
    >> nothing to do with........ wait for it......................... Python?

    >
    > Fair enough.  If this thread and this exchange were actually
    > representative of the list, I wouldn't want to waste my time with it
    > either.


    Sadly, my feeling is that the amount of vacuous discussions and
    hair-splitting debates is steadily increasing. Just to see, I had a
    look at the archives for July 2001 (because that's around the time I
    took up Python) and the list definitely had a more interesting feel to
    it. It also made me realise that many of the best contributors have
    gone or only make rare appearances. Anyway, there was little spam,
    but already some trolls, e.g.

    "Is Python Dead?"
    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-July/091178.html

    Not everyone was convinced about PEP 238 (new semantics for "/"):

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-July/090659.html

    Did you change your mind, Terry? I too used to be against it :)

    I'll stop now. Cheers,

    --
    Arnaud
     
    Arnaud Delobelle, Jan 4, 2012
    #14
  15. Peter Otten

    Rick Johnson Guest

    On Jan 3, 8:37 pm, Chris Angelico <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ben Finney <> wrote:
    > > It objectifies women. If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
    > > haven't the stamina to educate you.

    >
    > And "import pickle" objectifies pickles. It's deplorable how few
    > gherkins become programmers, and I think it's because of these
    > immature jokes about pickles that have become entrenched in the Python
    > community.


    No, no, "import pickle" is not about objectifying pickles, it's a sub-
    conscience Freudian phallic symbol!

    import pickle
    pickle.LONG4 # Only the blind would miss that one!
    pickle.load
    pickle.dump
    pickle.EMPTY_DICT # Using GvR's pronunciation

    But don't worry, *some group* is sure to be offended.
     
    Rick Johnson, Jan 6, 2012
    #15
  16. Peter Otten

    Rick Johnson Guest

    On Jan 3, 8:42 pm, Ben Finney <> wrote:
    > Steven D'Aprano <> writes:
    > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:54:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
    > > > It objectifies women.

    >
    > > So you claim.

    >
    > I'm sure you have a hundred ready rationalisations for why a joke that
    > has “girlfriend” as a fungible object, together with “car” and “house”
    > as things to mechanically import into one's life, is somehow not
    > objectifying women.
    >
    > But, while those rationalisations may satisfy you, I'm not interested in
    > hearing them. If you don't see that the joke objectifies women, that
    > tells me quite a lot about how blinkered you are to the problem.
    >
    > For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with such rationalisations,
    > having employed them many times myself. Fortunately there are women who
    > will speak up against it and encourage men to do the same
    > <URL:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x168.html>.
    >
    > > Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that
    > > this sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop
    > > claiming that it is harmful?

    >
    > I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
    > know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
    > English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
    > luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
    > of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.
    >
    > Women (to return to the people in question), on the other hand, do not
    > have that luxury. In this community they have no option but to be aware
    > of the privileges we males have here.
    >
    > We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
    > needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
    > field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
    > easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
    > which is perpetuating a hostile environment.
    >
    > I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
    > retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
    > defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
    > hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
    > to clean up our house more.


    Your points are all valid, except, not valid in this particular
    argument. import girlfriend is not sexist, no more than import car is
    selfish, and import house is greedy. I think the joke is on the poor
    guy who needs this module. He is a poor soul with nothing, who needs
    to import everything.
     
    Rick Johnson, Jan 6, 2012
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. gert

    http://pypi.python.org/pypi

    gert, Apr 29, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    427
    Martin v. Loewis
    May 1, 2010
  2. Matt Chaput

    Spamming PyPI with stupid packages

    Matt Chaput, Jan 1, 2012, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    158
    Matt Chaput
    Jan 1, 2012
  3. Ethan Furman

    Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages

    Ethan Furman, Jan 3, 2012, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    242
    xDog Walker
    Jan 4, 2012
  4. Chris Gonnerman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    146
    Chris Gonnerman
    Jul 30, 2012
  5. Prasad, Ramit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    132
    Prasad, Ramit
    Jul 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page