That's a massive reach.

A massive reach of it being literally the same word? Like obviously they didn't mean it in a racist way but clearly they decided that having a racial slur in the docs there was not something they felt good about.

There may be people who consider it a slur but there are also three species of butterflies, two species of mammals, and a few dozen Wikipedia-worthy people with that name. I mean, I’m all against insulting people, but come on.

I guess Ty changed their name

FSF moved out of its office in August 2024. Note that they removed the address in the newer revision. I guess they took the opportunity to change the example copyright disclaimer to something that didn't include a racial slur.

It's not a functional change so I don't think it warrants a new version number or URL.

This came up during the GPLv3 drafting period. Bradley Kuhn (whose surname is a homonym of this word) relayed personal experience. One commenter said they experienced being called this slur. It's unfortunately still a problem.

So instead of a racial slur they now make fun of Anime/Manga/Video Game fans

"Moe (Japanese: 萌え; pronounced [mo.e] ⓘ), sometimes romanized as moé, is a Japanese word that refers to feelings of strong affection mainly towards characters in anime, manga, video games, and other media directed at the otaku market. Moe, however, has also gained usage to refer to feelings of affection towards any subject"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_(slang)

That in combination with Ghoul

"In folklore, a ghoul (from Arabic: غول, ghūl) is a demon-like being or monstrous humanoid, often associated with graveyards and the consumption of human flesh"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoul

creates a not very nice combination.

Christ, what a stretch. It's obviously a play on the tech Mogul definition.

Not a bigger stretch then with the Ty Coon, that was obviously a play on the Tycoon.

It was not me who started to read bad things into word play, but by that rules is Moe Ghoul offensive too.

So does apple, coconut, cracker, gin, barbarian, brownie, skinny, spade, spook, teabag and a whole host of different words.
It should never be about the word itself, but how it's being used. Someone being called a genius doesn't usually mean they are being applauded for their intellect either, for example.

Sure, because the persecution of black people in the US is at all equivalent to the bullying of anime nerds, right.

The problem is not that thin-skinned people could do mental gymnastics to find reasons to be upset, it's that 'coon' is straight up a racial slur that was historically a major tool of oppression.

Bullying should never be ok, and rules should be valid and applicable for everyone.

Nobody should be a valid target for verbal abuse, not even anime nerds.

So if a rule against verbal harm and abuse are implemented (which I am not against at all) then such rule should be valid and used for all cases.
There is no equality if new inequality is created in the process.

Sure, but unless you're talking about a Maine coon then its not really an apples to apples comparison is it? All the words you've mentioned have very commonplace uses but this does not, and it is not being used in a context that is "usual" for it.

This discussion is meaningless anyway because nobody was like, calling them out for it, or at least I haven't seen evidence for that being the case. They decided they felt uncomfortable and changed it.

Tbf, it's also still used to refer to actual raccoons and coonskin hats and such. It's also is still to this day an actual surname, there could literally be a guy with that actual name (actually, googled it, looks like there's a Resort in Maui, and the CEO of something called Savvy both actually have that name, albeit the resort with an s on the end). Monkey is also "straight up a racial slur that was historically a major tool of oppression" and also people still call others monkeys for just acting silly or haphazardly, and there's of course the animal. Jig is another, it both can be used as a racial slur or to describe a little dance.

Point being, there are both racist and innocuous uses of all those words, and without knowing more about the author we don't have sufficient information to conclude intent. Hell I don't even know their country of origin, it's possible they're not American, ESL, etc, and have no idea the connotations of the word beyond "name pun."

Yes they were.

Fair point, but I can't blame them for playing it safe here.

Go home, you're drunk.

Doesn't seem like anyone was calling them out in that. They're pointing out that it might be a good idea to change it, but I digress, I'll stand corrected here.

I have realised, upon reflection, what I take issue with with your argument.

It places the onus on the intention, as opposed to the result.

If the result of me doing something particularly mundane, that I could do another way with zero extra effort, is that some people are offended or othered or hurt, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that the action to take is to change what I'm doing. Theres nuance in the wider discussion but you can't judge intentions, since nobody can know what someone else's intentions are. You can judge actions and outcomes.

The action in this case is mundane, and I don't place any blame or hate toward the people who took the action (made the Tycoon joke). The outcome is potentially negative, and I would argue demonstrably negative since people felt compelled to comment about it. It still doesn't mean that the folks who wrote the joke are massive racists or fascists or whatever, but the outcome related to their action is negative. Hence they chose to change the action to change the outcome.

Seems pretty cut and dry that this was a wholly positive thing, no?

Me neither.