Are you objecting to the word "ratfucking" or the ratfucking itself? As vulgar as it sounds, the word itself has a well established meaning.

Thanks - I didn't know that. I actually find his message less offensive now.

I stand by my assessment it's not classy language though.

Perhaps we should base our judgments about the issues under discussion by the plausibility of the claims being made, the evidence supporting them, the likely consequences of different possible courses of action, and our values, rather than whether the proponents of one or another point of view hail from the upper class or the lower class.

Webster's says the definition of classy is "having or reflecting high standards of personal behavior".

The word didn't exist in Webster's time, so it's unclear which dictionary you're referring to, but in any case the definition is so incomplete as to be wrong.

Etymonline says, "pertaining to or characteristic of a (high) class," from 1891. https://www.etymonline.com/word/classy GCIDE says, "having elegance or taste or refinement in manners or dress," and "exhibiting refinement and high character. Opposite of low-class." WordNet says, "Elegant and fashionable." What brings all these definitions together is that something is good in the particular way that the upper class values.

It's true that many people who admire the manners of the upper class consider their behavior standards to be "high standards", and they certainly are demanding standards. But "classy" is not used to describe conformance to any demanding standards of personal behavior, such as a soldier's enthusiastic yelling and physical fitness, Clarence Darrow's unyielding advocacy of the welfare of the world's poorest, Feynman's profound mathematical learning and epistemic humility, or the brutal, unvarnished honesty demanded by Dutch society. As you know if you are a native speaker of English, none of these are considered "classy", however demanding they may be, because they do not belong to the [English and North American] upper class, which demands very high standards of etiquette, euphemism, diplomacy, fashion, and stoicism. Those virtues are "classy"; the other virtues I described above are not only not "classy" but in many cases positively opposed to "classiness".

I think all social classes today would consider the term ratfucking obscene, and believe that using obscenities is inconsistent with a high standard of behaviour?

It's interesting to look at the older roots of the word and see links to social class there but I'm not using the term in that sense. The definition I referred to is a modern one from Mirriam Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classy

On the contrary, there are many people who consider using obscenities to be praiseworthy or even obligatory under certain circumstances. Generally they belong to social classes that you evidently have carefully avoided having any experience with.

The ideological line you're laying down here is a specifically upper-class ideology, as revealed by its content, not just the words you use. Your lack of awareness of the origin of that ideology comes from does not liberate you from that origin; on the contrary, it enslaves you to it, making you an instrument of agendas you do not understand and cannot question. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881

"Classy" in this case doesn't mean "class." Some people are turned off by vulgar language.

You say, '"Classy" in this case doesn't mean "class." Some people are turned off by vulgar language.' Your two statements seem to contradict each other; the first one is incorrect, and the second one is correct. Perhaps you do not know what the word "vulgar" means; it means "of the common people", that is to say, the lower class.

Despite the pedantic definitions of the words, the point the commenter was trying to make wasn't about class distinctions, it was that they were perceiving it to be offensive.

The reason they perceive it to be offensive is that they are unconsciously enacting a dynamic of class domination that they cannot even question due to their lack of awareness, as further explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881

Yes aversion to coarse language is internalized class warfare, you nailed it.

Why does one’s intuition bring up classiness of all values at play....

Well, this is precisely a class conflict: the lower-class values of liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty on Raymond's side, and the upper-class values of purity, etiquette, exclusion of the wrong sort of people†, and getting along well with the right sort of people, on Ehmke's side — although you might say that her etiquette is "more honored in the breach than in the observance", in our modern mangling of the phrase.

The question is really which set of values will determine the future course of the Open Source Initiative: the values of foulmouthed mullet-wearing truck drivers or the values of refined ladies and gentlemen who couldn't possibly, oh, how simply dreadful.

† Personae non Gratae, you might say.

Out of interest, do you say that liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty are lower class values because you believe the upper classes do not value these things?

I'd agree that ESR might have received a better reception for his point of view if he'd expressed himself differently though.

No, generally speaking, people agree in abstract terms on what virtuous principles are, such as honesty and courtesy; they disagree about what virtuous acts are, because in every act we resolve a conflict between conflicting virtuous principles, necessarily subordinating lower values to higher ones.

So you are saying ESR has a conflict between a virtuous principle which led him to use obscene language (is that autonomy?) and the upper class virtuous principle of courtesy, and he's subordinated courtesy because he's working class?

The GP said it already. The example virtues are honesty and propriety. If you value honesty over propriety, you'll speak honestly at the cost of speaking politely. If you value propriety over honesty, you'll either not speak or speak in a more polite/roundabout way to avoid conflict, even at the cost of honesty.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. God help us.

I find it rather concerning that they're that quick to ban him for voicing dissidence. Was there anyone threatened by his speech?

It's not the treat, it's the lunatic ranting part.

For the sake of fairness, consider the case that people opposing him would use similar lunatic language.

They would drop fighting words like neoconservatives, greedy capitalist, far right nuts into the discussion. That would be crazy just as well.

----

For the record, I think ESR was mostly right on the issues. He is just communicating like lunatic angry person.

He has a long history of making statements like this. Anyone showing up for the first time in years only to intentionally and obviously violate rules should be kicked out.

I fully agree with the idea that "ethical" licenses aren't free software, but the dude is a terrible actor in this. He violated the rules, and got banned. That's not a bad thing!

I don't see any evidence that he violated the rules; he described Coraline Ada Ehmke as a "toxic loonytoon" as part of his opposition to her ethical beliefs. Whether or not he is correct about that, I don't see how it's a violation of the rules to say so — it's not as if he used a slur against women, white people, or transgender people. Even when he railed against "Marxism" (it's not clear to me whether Ehmke is a Marxist, but certainly some of her supporters are) he didn't use slurs like "commie" or "tankie", despite the bitter hatred of Marxism that his life is oriented around.