Oh, come on. It’s a lot, lot closer to bastard than retard or tard. At some point people have to own their own misperceptions.

FWIW my first thought was the same as GP, and then only later did I consider that maybe it's punning on bastard, but I still wasn't sure. Probably better to pick another name and not have to keep explaining it.

Why does it need explaining.

Even if it was a play on retard I think it's really none of your business what someone calls their thing.

The kneejerk response here to be "you have change its name" is so damn entitled.

How is it entitled to ask people not to use names that are a play on slurs against people with developmental disorders?

Ask, or demand?

It needs to be explained that it's not using ableist language, meaning that every time it's shared a discussion like this one will take place, regardless of what you think about it.

> It needs to be explained that it's not using ableist language

Why? This doesn't logically follow to the author renaming their thing unless you think speech policing on the internet is some kind of valid passtime or has any weight on anything in the real world.

> meaning that every time it's shared a discussion like this one will take place

So it's a good PR move because the PC police can't figure out that just maybe every corner doesn't have a nazi around it and maybe it's just a play on bastard?

It doesn't matter if you believe speech policing is valid or not. It does and will happen. I mean, look here: right now the top two top-level comments here are about the name, rather than talking about the project itself.

It's irrelevant what should or should not be, in this case. If you want to avoid people discussing potential controversy around the name you've chosen, then don't choose a name that has controversy potential (and if you do that by accident, graciously change it). I'm talking about outcomes here, not about what anyone might think should or shouldn't happen.

Why do you think they chose a controversial name? For fun?

The author can do what they want, but if they care what associations people have about the name and they didn't consider this, they now have new information.

b$st$rd maybe

Well, it seems to be about 50-50 in this thread alone whether it was "bastard" or "bash tard".

> At some point people have to own their own misperceptions.

I don't have to own shit. I didn't name it.

I first read it as "bash retard", but then thought a little more and hoped it was a play on "bastard". But then the author later (but not very clearly) explains the pronunciation, which makes me think it's intended to be "bash retard". Not a good look, if my interpretation is correct.

Yeah, I read that as Sean Connery saying "Bastard".

As an actual living bastard, I endorse the name.

So. There.

I'm all for funny names, but giving your project a needlessly inflammatory name, to me signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the greater open-source community to develop it further or adopt it.

"Git" is an insult, but it's not a slur.

Etymology is weird.

Git is derived from "Get" (as in "beget") which is another term for a bastard.

Watered down through the decades and much less sting, but the meaning is the same.

Don't be obtuse. As widely discussed in this thread, we aren't talking about "bastard."

some people want to talk about the latter section of the word "tard" being shorthand for "retard" presumably.

So I'll take you up on that, even though I fully disagree that this is the pun the author was making.

I'll start by saying that "to retard" has actual meaning, outside of derogatory statements, slurs or so on. In fact, that meaning predates by many hundreds of years: the description of people in such a way.

Since you could argue that this project is trying to speed up development, it could also argue that this is a commentary on "being retarded from your original objective" of running commands.

So, my first argument is that "to retard" can have meaning outside of being offensive, in fact, that was its primary use.

Now: Retard is a slur, absolutely. But, is it worse than Idiot? Moron?

At some point in time those were clinical definitions to mean the same thing as retard, they became used as slurs and fell out of favour.

Now, ironically, they are less inflammatory than the new derogatory word.

So, my second argument is that being offended by certain language is arbitrary.

---

Why am I arguing? Because you assume mal-intent where it's possible there is none. I genuinely assumed "bashtard" = "bastard", and that's "as offensive" to me as "git" (as a living and breathing british bastard), I didn't jump to the conclusion that it was attempting to denigrate low IQ people.

This type of language policing needs to be self-critical, because if you're not willing to be critical on what you're putting out into the world and onto other people: I will be, and you'll hate me for it.

> signals that the author doesn't have an interest in working with the greater open-source community to develop it further or adopt it.

This reminds me, there's a somewhat inherent affiliation in the flamewar over the branch name master/main.

The people who use "master" clearly don't think it's a bad term to use, and probably think being upset over it is silly. Those who use "main" either think it's (to some extent) racist to use the word master, or don't want to be yelled at.

Whichever word you chose ultimately signals affiliation, and the other group will feel you don't recognise their frustration. -- I think the sensible people just ignore it.

Rather.. I think if you want to have a community where people with different cultural attitudes feel welcome, I think some toe-stepping is inevitable and unavoidable.

The thing that bothers me about the people who dig in and insist on continuing to use "master" is that... well... this is the hill they want to die on? If changing was some big expensive process, or if it was a name that held some sort of special historical significance (or whatever), I could maybe see the argument against. But it's... the original default branch name of a source control tool. Get over it and move on, maybe?

(Having said that, I still haven't gotten around to renaming all my existing repositories...)

> If changing was some big expensive process

This is the main fear in every org I have seen the debate play out.

Going to every single script and tool that touches git, check and update it isn’t free, nor completely devoid of risk. Even when everyone is one the same page about the right thing to do, it’s tough to prioritize over other actual production issues.

The appeal to arbitrariness goes both ways. If it's a minor choice, insisting it be changed is silly. "Get over it and move on" applies just as much to either.

That people have feelings about a topic that's disproportionate to its significance is characteristic of a flame-war. It's natural for people to hold strong opinions on all sorts of stuff like this. It's very human.

Everyone has opinions over the colour of the bike shed.

I think GP is referring to the politically incorrect "-tard" part of the name.

Bashtard is one letter away from bastard. You're stretching if you're reading it as retard.

I initially read it as a play on "bastard". But I'm not so sure it's a stretch. I know more than one person who likes to add the -tard suffix to all sorts of words, used in an offensive way, and it's quite hard to pronounce in a way that doesn't sound like that.

It’s 0 letters away from bash ‘tard, and not really a stretch to speculate that the name might be intentionally a pun that has both meanings.

it's 4 letters away from 'tard' since it requires the removal of letters.

That's like saying "Scunthorpe" is 0 letters away from 'cunt'.

Based on the blurb in the article, I think (though it's not fully clear) that the author intends "bash retard".