From 0946b4ec809b40c0cfe5bced6d83d7a22733fac1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Runxi Yu Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:00:00 +0800 Subject: Delete everything --- config.mk | 7 --- phil/dembase.7 | 78 ------------------------- phil/demus.7 | 90 ----------------------------- socpol/abortion.7 | 87 ---------------------------- socpol/censorauthkosa.7 | 5 -- socpol/freeswcovid.7 | 148 ------------------------------------------------ socpol/zhpronoun.7 | 105 ---------------------------------- tech/forge.7 | 60 -------------------- 8 files changed, 580 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 phil/dembase.7 delete mode 100644 phil/demus.7 delete mode 100644 socpol/abortion.7 delete mode 100644 socpol/censorauthkosa.7 delete mode 100644 socpol/freeswcovid.7 delete mode 100644 socpol/zhpronoun.7 delete mode 100644 tech/forge.7 diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk index 9710d98..e69de29 100644 --- a/config.mk +++ b/config.mk @@ -1,7 +0,0 @@ -PAGES += phil/dembase -PAGES += phil/demus -PAGES += socpol/abortion -PAGES += socpol/censorauthkosa -PAGES += socpol/freeswcovid -PAGES += socpol/zhpronoun -PAGES += tech/forge diff --git a/phil/dembase.7 b/phil/dembase.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 2b2c421..0000000 --- a/phil/dembase.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,78 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt dembase phil -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm dembase -.Nd Democracy: Fundamentals (Unfinished) -.Sh DESCRIPTION -.Pp -*Unless otherwise specified, "democracy" in this article refers to -representative democracy. "Country" can additionally refer to other -regions that have people and its own policies, such as a state, -provinces in some countries, etc.* -.Pp -We usually think of "democracy" as people influencing the policies of -the country by electing trustworthy experts that serve their interest to -make actual decisions about running the country. This type of democracy, -representative democracy, has evolved from direct democracy aging back -two thousand years ago as created by Athens in Greece. Representative -democracy is more scalable than direct democracy and also avoids some -forms of populism and uninformed decisions as its the experts in the -field that are making the actual policies. -.Pp -The Chinese term for democracy is "民主". The first character, "民", -means "people"; the second, "主", ascin "主人" means "owner". -You could understand it as saying "the people of the country own the -country (and thus get to decide on its affairs)". But at the same time, -"主" as in "自主" means "do things themselves", i.e. the right not -to be interfered by others while doing their own business. -.Pp -This is, of course, not the proper definition for democracy; democracy -is just saying that the general public ultimately runs the country. But -we could take the time to appreciate how with democracy we usually end -up with liberty and how we take personal liberty for granted. -.Pp -In any case, both democracy and liberty are important in a long-lasting -prosperous system of society. Note my wording in the first paragraph, -that the decisions of elected experts are for "running the -country"---I specifically mean issues that deal with either the general -public (such as public health and the environment) and things that would -be otherwise hard to solve personally (such as enforcement of contracts -and crimes). The "will of the people", represented by the government, -have no business doing things like banning freedom of thought or -mandating people not to smoke in their private property. Only when -things affect others such as smoking in public should the government, or -the will of the general public, have any say. And of course, people -should take responsibility for their own private deeds. It is argued -that a lung cancer patient who got lung cancer by smoking excessively -doesn't deserve medical insurance from taxpayers; but for cases where -an illness isn't caused by a identifiable private decision factor, -medical insurance and support should be given. (In practice the -distinction is subtle; this is also a very controversial topic.) -.Pp -People overemphasize the importance of democracy. In fact, democracy is -in my opinion less important than liberty---though in practice indeed -liberty wouldn't survive for long without democracy. -.Pp -Note that abortion and similar subjects may fall into the scope of -government. Some opponents of abortion believe that fetus is human life -and thus abortion is murder and shall be outlawed. The "privacy" and -"personal liberty" arguments don't stand up well against this as -it's no longer a personal matter when another human life is supposedly -on the line. [I oppose the abortion bans that Republicans in the US are -placing in many states for a different reason.](abortion.html) -.Pp -Modern populism (which is a poorly-defined term but does have the -following general scope) gives the power of deciding everything that -happens in the country to the people. This is bad in two ways. (1) The -general public often make uninformed and un-thought-through decisions -and are easily influenced. (2) The government, in this case directly the -collective decision of the people, is stepping its feet into the -personal lives of people. While it is democratic, it doesn't give -people liberty, creating a tyranny of the majority, and at the same time -making uninformed decisions which are better made by experts which -people elect. -.Pp -In future articles, I will discuss more practical issues in democracy -and society, especially on corruption of representatives, issues with -the modern voting system, etc. diff --git a/phil/demus.7 b/phil/demus.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 6fb6b10..0000000 --- a/phil/demus.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt demus phil -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm demus -.Nd Democracy: The United States (Unfinished) -.Sh INTRODUCTION -.Pp -When people talk about democracies, it's common to think of the US -Constitution as the "defining point of democracy". While the US is the -first modern democracy, its is far from perfect. I will briefly go -through the following. -.Sh CORRUPTION -.Pp -A study shows that "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic -elites and organized groups representing business interests have -substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average -citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent -influence." -.Lk https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/S1537592714001595a.pdf/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf (Source) -.Pp -A near-ideal democracy would have a roughly linear positive correlation -between the fraction of voters who support a policy and the possibility -of the policy being passed in the legislature. But in the US, the line -is flat at about 30%. A representative democracy wouldn't have a -perfect correlation, because the general public is unable to be informed -on all topics; fluctuations are normal. But *a flat line* means that the -opinions of the people don't matter at all. This does not make sense in -any type of democracy. -.Pp -According to the study, the influence of economic elites and business -interest groups on politics is rather high with a rough positive -correlation as opposed to the flatline for the general public, making -the US an oligarchy rather than a democracy. Mass-based interest groups -have discernible impact on policies, but are still trivial compared with -economic elites and businesses. About three billion dollars are spent -yearly by large "politically active" businesses to bribe politicians -to pass policies for their interest. While businesses should have a say -in legislation, it is unacceptable that they have superior dominance -over public opinion. -.Sh THE SENATE -.Pp -The Senate of the USA consists of 100 members, with 2 from each state. -Two senators from California represent 39 million people while the two -from Wyoming represent 500 thousand people. The founding fathers never -could have imagined such a huge a difference between the population of -states. -.Pp -Some people believe that the Senate helps against populism as opposed to -the House. Although the number of Senators for each state do indeed not -correspond to the population, this has no correlation whatsoever with -preventing populism and doesn't serve an obvious purpose. It only -"helps" by giving completely unproportional voting powers to people -based on their location, period. -.Pp -The Senate also suffers from the fillibuster. Passing a bill in the -Senate has a few steps: Firstly the Senators must *agree to vote*, -passed at a supermajority. Then the Senators actually vote on the bill. -Those who are against the bill will just disagree to vote altogether, -effectively requiring all bills to have a supermajority support to pass -which is nearly impossible as the two dominant political parties almost -always oppose each others' bills and neither have a supermajority in -the Senate. -.Sh The Electoral College -.Pp -The electoral college makes it possible to win an federal election -without winning the national popular vote. It also, similarly but not as -badly as the Senate, represent the people of each state -disproportionally as each state has two extra electoral votes regardless -of their population. -.Pp -A subtle but serious problem with the electoral college is that -electors' listening to the votes of the people is only a *tradition*. -Legally, electors can vote however they want, meaning that the US is not -theoretically a democracy. This hasn't happened before, but this is one -more to the list of problems in the constitution, and is a potential for -disaster. -.Sh Plurality Voting -.Pp -Single-winner elections in the US uses what's called "plurality -voting", where each voter casts one vote to their favorite candidate -and the candidate with the most votes win. This contributes to the -partisan dualopoly (not an actual word, but it basically means -"monopoly" but with two rather than one) as voters who support smaller -parties will undergo the decision of choosing their honest favorite or -one of the two big parties that most closely ressembles their favorite. -As it's hard to gather votes for smaller parties, and thus there's a -small chance of them actually winning the electron, many voters -strategically vote for the big party in order to not be "taken over" -by the big party that they oppose more. diff --git a/socpol/abortion.7 b/socpol/abortion.7 deleted file mode 100644 index db19904..0000000 --- a/socpol/abortion.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,87 +0,0 @@ -.Dd July 26, 2022 -.Dt abortion socpol -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm abortion -.Nd Something I wrote about abortion two years back -.Sh DESCRIPTION -.Pp -In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled -seven-to-two in favor of Roe's rights to abortion against a healthcare -official of the state of Texas. Roe argued for abortion with -"privacy", derived from the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US -Constitution. As the U.S. is a common law jurisdiction, this effectively -legalizes abortion across the country. -.Pp -However, as Roe's case was argued for based on privacy rather than body -autonomy or similar rights, it left a question into if abortion is -indeed a right that women should have. After all, if someone is accused -of murder, the suspect's privacy is not a reason to not investigate the -case further. Those against abortion often believe that abortion is -murder, and thus the privacy argument wouldn't stand long. -.Pp -In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned this -precedent, -and now the abortion rights of women in the united states are in a void. -This memo focuses on discussing the notion of abortion itself, and -briefly comments on the decision of the Court. -.Pp -Some people believe that because fetus is human life, and abortion is -nonvoluntary (as in nonvoluntary by the life terminated) termination of -human life, thus abortion is murder and is unacceptable. -.Pp -This reasoning is flawed---nonvoluntary termination of human life, even -when the decision-maker understands the consequence of their action, may -or not be murder. -.Pp -Involuntary termination of life isn't always murder. Consider yourself -an average person in the United States. You live on paychecks and -you're living an average life in a comfortable house. You noticed a -poor person, without food, proper clothes, or shelter, sleeping in the -street, almost frozen to death. You took them home, giving them food, -clothes and shelter. But one day, out of whatever reason you decided to -stop supporting that person and remove them from the house back onto the -street. You understanded that they will have a hard time finding foot, -shelter and clothes. They deceased because of the cold. -.Pp -The poor person was life, and your decision did cause their decession. -But is this murder? Man-slaughter? Any kind of statutory offense? No, -not really, it's merely termination of voluntary support that you -provided for another person. -.Pp -There is a subtle, but eventually significant difference between helping -a person down the street and voluntary pregnency. (Involuntary pregnency -is basically "alright, here comes a person at your doorstep, you MUST -help them and keep them alive", there's not much to discuss there in -my opinion.) -.Pp -In the last example, the ethicalness of terminating support would be -different if you and the person receiving help signed an explicit -contract giving you the responsibility to help them but you terminate -the support when the contract is still valid. -.Pp -Indeed, the fetus did not sign a contract with the mother that obligates -the mother to carry to term. But similarly, children don't sign -contracts with their parents to take care of them, but we consider -parents who don't take care of their children and such to be child -abuse. But they are different. -.Pp -A scientific definition of life which includes bacteria, fungi, -parasites, plants, animals and many other forms of life doesn't seem -inherently valuable to us---almost all of us don't feel bad killing -bacteria with an ultraviolet lamp, don't feel bad killing plants for -consumption, and don't feel bad stepping on a mosquito. Many of us -don't feel bad consuming animals for food. We value human life because -it allows us to pursue what we want and live a life. But a fetus cannot -do that: though the fetus is biologically a human, it doesn't have the -very characteristics that make the life valuable: It doesn't have -meaningful brain activity and cannot pursue what it wants. -.Pp -Abortion is just okay before the cerebrum (the part of the brain -responsible for thinking) develops, which is usually at the end of the -second trimester. Abortion after meaningful cerebrum activity is -detected should be considered with care because at that time the -fetus's life would be considered valuable. -.Sh SEE ALSO -.Pp -.Lk https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ diff --git a/socpol/censorauthkosa.7 b/socpol/censorauthkosa.7 deleted file mode 100644 index e624a7e..0000000 --- a/socpol/censorauthkosa.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5 +0,0 @@ -.Dd July 31 2024 -.Dt censorauthkosa socpol -.Os Runxi Yu -.Nm censorauthkosa -.Nd Internet censorship in the US's Kids Online Safety Act and China's National Network Identity Authentication Public Service Act diff --git a/socpol/freeswcovid.7 b/socpol/freeswcovid.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 5b8bd0d..0000000 --- a/socpol/freeswcovid.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,148 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt freeswcovid socpol -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm freeswcovid -.Nd On Free Software, Education in China and the COVID-19 Pandemic -.Sh DESCRIPTION -.Pp -I am a secondary school student from Shanghai, China. This email -discusses the problems I discovered in the Chinese educational system, -in terms of students' right to freedom in computing and options to -control the COVID-19 pandemic from the standpoint of a person living in -China. -.Pp -When COVID-19 broke out in 2020, students were required to watch lecture -videos produced by the city's education department for twenty minutes, -then join the Tencent Meetings room to discuss in their own class for -10--15 minutes. -.Pp -Watching the videos wasn't an issue for me. Our apartment has cable TV, -where the videos are broadcast; there was also a website that played the -livestream without JavaScript. However, Tencent Meetings presented a -problem to me. -.Pp -At the time, I run Arch Linux. (Currently, I run Hyperbola -GNU/Linux-libre, a Free Software-only distribution, which would have -made this even harder.) Tencnet Meetings, claiming to support "all -operating systems and platforms", only supports Windows and macOS. (I -wonder how they passed the resolution to display that statement, I -believe that they have many programmers who use GNU/Linux.) (As of -October 2021, a classmate noted that there is a "Linux versuon".) -School required Tencent Meetings, therefore I went through a hard -process to setup QEMU running a Windows 7 virtual machine---I believed -that 7 would be slightly better than 10 in terms of privacy, though as -always with nonfree software, I can't really know for sure. It was -slightly unstable, which is an annoyance, for example the connection -from the Windows audio server to pulseaudio would stop working from time -to time, but it was acceptable. Though my setup was okay (in the -perspective of my school), it left me in a psycological crisis about -education and freedom. More on that later. -.Pp -Offline classes resumed in May 2020, as most of China has minimal cases -of COVID-19. This freed me from using a proprietary -non-privacy-respecting bloated piece of software in a virtual machine, -but it did not free me from teachers' requirement to use WeChat (think -of it as the equiv of WhatsApp in China), Xiaoheiban (A proprietary -classroom information distribution system), or other pieces of nonfree -software. -.Pp -Similar to the beliefs stated in the GNU Education project, I believe -that schools and educaion are a means of sharing information and -knowledge. I understand that meeting software and lesson management -software are used as means of distributing knowledge, rather than the -knowledge being distributed themselves. However, I believe this doesn't -lead to the argument that the mandate of proprietary software usage is -just, for three reasons as below. -.Bl -enum -.It -There are always going to be curious students who wonder how the -trchnology works. Proprietary software denies them this right. -.It -The usage of proprietary software when young may implant dependence -on it in the future. -.It -Education is a right and a responsility. Mandating nonfree software -in education adds unjust responsibilities on students. -.El -.Pp -Point 1 and 2 are explained well in the Education section of the GNU -website, therefore I am not going to focus on them. Focusing on the -third point: -.Pp -Under laws of almost all countries, citizens have the right to an -education. Traditionally, this involves going to school, meeting -teachers and classmates, listening to classes, taking notes, passing -exams (I have strong opinions that exam systems ought to change to -better represent individual talents, but this is out of scope of this -memo.) and finishing homework. Students loose a slight bit of their time -and freedom of movement (as in, it's not easy to move to a house 100 -miles away from school), in exchange for being educated. -.Pp -However, with schools requiring the use of nonfree software, in effect -students are required to give up their privacy, and digital freedom, -both crucial rights in modern society, as the effect of needing to use -nonfree software. The right to education has effectively turned into an -exchange for other basic rights. This is not acceptable. -.Pp -Furthermore, in countries like China, 9 years of education is mandatory -for children. I understand this law as a means to the goal of creating a -knowledgeble and educated society, which is good. However, when -mandatory edication mandates nonfree software, it deduces to "children -are required to use nonfree software". So, being a child here is pretty -unlucky, because there goes your right to privacy, your independence, -and your freedom, because of a law that's supposed to help society. -.Pp -We need to stop using nonfree software in education. -.Pp -In th beginning of this email, I mentioned COVID-19. You might be -wondering how the Chinese government fully put the pandemic under -control in just 5 months, which is seemingly impossible if all you know -is how the US dealt with this situation. -.Pp -The answer is that the Chinese government is implementing strict contact -tracing. This is extremely easy because of the prevaliance of -survillance. Many would argue that this is a benefit of survillance, -which I believe to be true. However, no comparisons were given between -losing privacy and increasing the risk or infection. Briefly inspecting -this idea in my head, it's really hard to think about---privacy and -freedom is important in the long term, at the cost of many lives in the -pandemic. The lives of these dead are gone---they lose not only privacy -and computing freedom, they lose their lives, which costs them their -opportunity to pursue their dreams in this world, and they have no -freedom of choice, speech, etc as they aren't alive. Once again, this -is hard to wrap my mind around, therefore I would especially like to -invite the community to discuss this. -.Pp -The contact tracing system used is not Free Software. At first I didn't -understand why (except for the explanation that they want to profit from -harming citizens which is hopefully just a hypothetical -"explanation"), but I noticed that the authenticity and accuracy of -the system may be affected if users are allowed to modify their -software. This seems to be the core of some problems with regards to -software freedom---here, the user is not running software to complete -their tasks. Rather, it's the government's way to maintain public -safety, therefore I believe that whether users should be able to modify -software in these conditions is up to discussion. Back to the point, -since a green-code proof from the system is needed to get in a lot of -places, a person basically needs to use proprietary software to live a -normal life (to get into coffee shops, for example). -.Pp -In the US and other countries, things aren't that good either. For one, -the pandemic isn't controlled well. As a consequence, a lot of places -require negative COVID tests to do stuff. -.Lk https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2021-08/msg00008.html A thread on the LibrePlanet mailing list -discusses this issue, as a lot of these tests require nonfree software -on users' phones. Note that this thread spans several months long, as -it is a hot discussion, so look in the september and october archives -too. The thread explains the implications clearly, thus I am not -discussing it here. -.Pp -Additionally, I heard that some US courts require Zoom for online cases, -therefore it seems that a person' right to judicial justice comes at -the cost of digital freedom. I can't confirm this, but if that's true, -I'm truly disappointed at the judicial system, even though I'm not a -US citizen. -.Pp -I am looking forward to a freer society, or at least one where the above -problems get solved. diff --git a/socpol/zhpronoun.7 b/socpol/zhpronoun.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 5d432a8..0000000 --- a/socpol/zhpronoun.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,105 +0,0 @@ -.Dd August 3, 2023 -.Dt zhpronouns socpol -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm zhpronoun -.Nd Reclaiming "他" as a gender-inclusive pronoun -.Sh TL;DR -.Pp -"他" uses the "人" (person) radical, and should cover all -people, because not all people are male. -.Pp -"他"字的偏旁为单人旁，应该要涵盖所有人，因为并非所有人皆为男性。 -.Sh EXPLANATION IN ENGLISH -.Pp -In contemporary English, the traditional plural pronoun "they" is -often used as a gender-inclusive singular pronoun, alongside the -feminine singular "she" and the masculine singular "he". However, -there is no equivalent in Chinese. "他" is considered a masculine -pronouns in contemporary Chinese, despite its "人" radical and its -history of traditionally being a gender-inclusive pronoun until the -1920s. This article argues for the reclaiming of "他" as a -gender-inclusive pronoun. -.Pp -Prior to the May Fourth Movement and the broader New Culture Movement, -"他" was a generic pronoun for all entities, including people of any -gender, and inanimate objects. In the movements' efforts to -"modernize" the Chinese language and culture, a separate feminine -pronoun "她" was created by the poet and linguist 刘半农, becoming an -established linguistic norm after the Chinese Civil War. (A separate -"它" was created for inanimate objects; however this has little -relevance to the arguments in this article.) -.Pp -A distinct feminine pronoun "她" along with "他" being a masculine -pronoun poses three problems: (1) the annoyances caused by the lack of a -inclusive placeholder pronoun, (2) the reinforcement of gender binary -normatives and the lack of a neutral pronoun, and (3) the -marginalization of the feminine from the concept of personhood. -.Pp -When referring to a placeholder of unknown gender in contemporary -English, singular they pronouns are often used, such as in "someone -left their laptop here". Such colloquial conversations are generally -unproblematic as all normative third-person pronouns in Mandarin sound -the same: tā. However, in written contexts, many use "他/她" -resembling "he/she". Aside from how this reinforces gender binary and -alienates women (see the next two paragraphs), it is visually -unappealing (as half-width slashes look particularly distinct from -full-width CJK ideographs and break typographical uniformity) and adds -unnecessary syntactic sugar. -.Pp -Individuals who are not comfortable with any gendered pronoun often -prefer singular they pronouns. (I do not wish to turn this article into -a detailed discussion of non-binary gender, please read Leah Rowe's -article "[Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human -rights](https://vimuser.org/pronouns.html)" if this concept seems -unfamiliar.) The status quo of "她" being solely a feminine pronoun -and "他" being solely a masculine pronoun reinforces gender binary and -leaves no gender-neutral/inclusive pronoun for non-binary people who -would prefer such pronouns. -.Pp -The more fundamental issue with "他" as a masculine pronoun lies in -its character composition and etymology. "他" is a compound character -consisting of a "人" (person) radical and "也", while "她" -consists of a "女" (female) radical and "也". Limiting "他" as a -male pronoun assumes the male gender as dominant in "people", and -marginalizes other genders, most prominently the female gender, as -groups distinct from "people". This aligns with the development of the -"她" pronoun as a distinct subset of what used to be covered by -"他". I believe that a character's composition should not be deceptive -to its meaning, and therefore, the "他" with the "人" radical should -describe any person, not just any male person. -.Pp -While I believe that "他" should be truly gender inclusive, its -current masculine standing does make it similar to [Generic -he](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_gendered_third-person_pronouns#Generic_he) -to some extent. I dislike generic he as it reflects bias towards men, -but an inclusive "他" does carry these risks. Therefore I propose that -those who prefer a unique masculine pronoun may choose to use one with a -"男" (male) radical instead. While "男也" (read that as one -character) has not been given a Unicode code-point yet, I find this -solution to be much more ideal than stereotypical generalizations with -"他". -.Sh EXPLANATION IN CHINESE -.Pp -现代英语中，传统的复数代词 "they" 常用作性别包容的单数代词，伴以 "she" 作阴性单数代词及 "he" 作阳性单数代词。然而，汉语中却没有等效的词语。现代汉语将"他"视为阳性代词，尽管其偏旁为单人旁，且在二十世纪二十年代以前，其曾有过用作性别包容性代词的历史。本文的论点为，将"他"恢复为性别包容性代词。 -.Pp -在五四运动及更为广泛的新文化运动以前，"他"曾通用作所有实体的代词，包括任何性别的人，及无生命的物体。这场运动为中国语言和文化的"现代化"做出了许多努力，其中之一就是单独创造了一个阴性代词"她"。这个字由诗人、语言学家刘半农创造，并在国共内战后成为了公认的语言规范。（对无生命的物体，也创造了一个单独的"它"；但这与本文的论点无关。） -.Pp -在"他"作阳性代词时，分立阴性代词"她"，引发了三个问题：（1）因缺乏包容性占位代词而产生的困扰，（2）强化了性别二元规范，缺少了中性代词，及（3）将女性在人格概念中边缘化。 -.Pp -现代英语中，常常使用单数 they 代词来充当未知性别的占位词，例如 "someone left their laptop -here"。这种口头对话一般不会出现问题，因为普通话中所有规范的第三人称代词发音都相同：tā。然而，在书面语中，许多人会像 "he/she" 一样使用 "他/她"。除了强化了性别二元论、排斥了女性（见后两段）外，这在视觉上也不显美观（在全角 CJK 象形文字中插入半角斜杆尤显突兀，且破坏了排版的一致性），还添加了不必要的语法糖。 -.Pp -有些人并不喜欢分性别代词（我在这个 commit 前亦是如此），所以他们常偏向使用单数 they 代词。（我无意图在本文详细讨论非二元性别，如果你不熟悉这个概念，请阅读 Leah Rowe 的文章 "Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human rights"）"她"单独用作阴性代词，同时"他"单独用作阳性代词，这种现状强化了性别二元论，并使得偏好性别中性或性别包容性代词的人无法使用这类代词。 -.Pp -将"他"用作阳性代词，更为关键的问题在于这个字的组成及词源。"他"字由单人旁和"也"组成，而"她"字由女字旁和"也"组成。将"他"限定为男性代词，假定了男性在"人"中占了主导地位，同时还将其他性别（最明显的是女性）边缘化，将其视作有别于"人"的群体。自从原本被"他"涵盖的这个子集有了单独的代词"她"，前述问题也随着这个代词的发展而发展。我认为，一个字的构成不应该欺骗它的含义，因此，单人旁的"他"应该用于描述任何人，而不仅仅是任何男性。 -.Pp -虽然我认为"他"应该要具有真正的性别包容性，但这个词目前男性化的程度，使得它在某种程度上类似于将 he 通用化了。我并不喜欢通用化的"他"，因为这体现了对男性的偏见，但包容性的"他"确实也有这些风险。因此，我提议，偏好使用单独的阳性代词的人，可以转而选择一个有男字旁的字。虽然"男也"（读成一个字）目前还没有 Unicode 码点，但比起刻板地将"他"字一般化，我认为这才是更加理想的解决方案。 -.Sh AUTHORS -.Pp -Runxi Yu wrote the original. -.Pp -The Chinese translation was translated by Peaksol. Thanks! -.Sh SEE ALSO -.Pp -.Lk https://vimuser.org/pronouns.html Leah Rowe: Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human rights diff --git a/tech/forge.7 b/tech/forge.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 7f7975d..0000000 --- a/tech/forge.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,60 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt forge tech -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm forge -.Nd Fore Workflows -.Sh DESCRIPTION -.Pp -I generally use -.Lk https://git.runxiyu.org/ my own Git server -for my projects. I also use my -.Lk https://sr.ht/~runxiyu sr.ht account -for -.Lk https://todo.sr.ht/~runxiyu issue tracking -and -.Lk https://lists.sr.ht/~runxiyu mailing lists, -and -.Lk https://git.sr.ht/~runxiyu their Git -for some projects too. -.Pp -Regardless of whether I'm using my own infrastructure with plain Cgit -and plain mailing lists (except that my mailing list manager is slightly -broken for now), or the slightly better-integrated environment sourcehut -provides, a contributor who wishes to submit some of their commits may -simply do the following with -.Lk https://git-send-email.io git-send-email -.Bl -enum -.It -Configure git-send-email (only once!) -.It -Clone the repository to a local directory -.It -Make some changes and commit -.It -.Ql git send-email HEAD^ --to='~runxiyu/public-inbox@lists.sr.ht' -or something similar -.El -.Pp -This is much easier, imo, than the pull-request workflow popularized by -GitHub (which is proprietary by the way) and similar forges: -.Bl -enum -.It -Register an account on the forge (once per forge) -.It -Click “fork” on the repo's Web interface -.It -Clone the fork to a local directory -.It -Make some changes and commit -.It -Push -.It -Go back to the Web interface to create a PR (which often involves -clicking at least three buttons) -.It -Delete your redundant fork once the PR is merged and your repo is -not really useful anymore -.El -.Pp -Why do certain people hate on SourceHut? -- cgit v1.2.3