Some of you may be aware of my recent trip over to twitter to try to have a meaningful conversation with 140 character limit.
Or, more accurately to try to get an actual response and dialogue out of "GIMP" or the GNU project. This SPECIFICALLY because any other forum or avenue of inquiry, in my experience, gets flat out ignored or dismissively referred to their FAQ which states:
"I donât like the name GIMP. Will you change it?
No. Weâve discussed this numerous times, and we donât think this is really all that necessary. We understand that some people feel offended by the colloquial meaning of the name GIMP, but we cannot please everybody and should not attempt to do so."
~GIMP official FAQ [https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-dont-like-the-name-gimp-will-you-change-it]
This response itself is dismissive, insultingly so, and actually completely misses the point.
For those of you who seem to think it's stupid to be hung up on this name, think it's irrational to be upset about it, or think it's just "trying to be offended" Let me explain to you why their name is a problem.
It's not just the name. Specifically it's the nuances behind why and how the name was chosen, and how their response to it, and the public discussion around it is all very harmful, tone deaf, and definitely still REALLY needs to be discussed.
To start with, how the product was named -by their own admission- and the IMPLICATIONS of it, which a lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding, so I'll go over it in detail, one step at a time.
FIRSTLY. Understanding the problem.
"It took us a little while to come up with the name. We knew we wanted an image manipulation program like Photoshop, but the name IMP sounded wrong. We also tossed around XIMP (X Image Manipulation Program) following the rule of when in doubt prefix an X for X11 based programs. At the time, Pulp Fiction was the hot movie and a single word popped into my mind while we were tossing out name ideas. It only took a few more minutes to determine what the 'G' stood for."
~Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis [http://www.xach.com/gg/1997/1/profile/1/]
A number of things are made very clear by this interview.
a. They had plenty of options for different acronyms but they didn't like the "sound" of IMP, ximp, etc...
b. They wanted to use the word GIMP because the movie Pulp fiction was popular at the time
d. They decided they wanted the acronym to spell "GIMP" before they knew what the G should even stand for.
What this collectively MEANS -for those of us who have a hard time with synthesis- is that:
I.They didn't decide on the word GIMP because it was an acronym that just "happened" to be made up of the actual name of the software [Ie; not like .git, or other similar examples], rather they decided they wanted GIMP as a specific goal.
II. It was not "gimp" as in the archaic meaning of a tight cord used to limit the end of fabric [unlike some bracelet floss that's sold]... but rather the -actually used- meaning -behind- it's use in pulp fiction.Â
Let me explain that, in case some of you still don't understand the correlation.
The "gimp" character is called so because of wearing a "gimp suit". A "gimp suit" is so called because it "limits" the wearer -"gimps" them- as in the same meaning and definition as the word when used as a slur, the meaning "limited" or "to limit". [We aren't discussing whether or not calling it a gimp suit is ableist also, that's not what's on trial here.]
MEANING: When "GIMP" the program was named, it was done so to intentionally spell out GIMP, because it sounded cool [or didn't "suck"], and from a source that gives it exactly the meaning and implication people are syaing it has when they get offended. By their own admission.
...And they REALLY didn't care what the G stood for.
To quote the article again:
"And to make the matter clear, the GIMP originally stood for General Image Manipulation Program, but has since been dubbed GNU software by Richard Stallman (with our agreement). Spencer and I decided that GNU Image Manipulation Program is a better usage of the 'G'."
This demonstrates beyond argument that:
I. They really didn't care what the G was even for, so long as it was there.
II. Richard Stallman himself exercised influence over the naming of the product and that influence lead to at least make the G stand for something more reasonable and applicable seeming  than "general".
IN CONCLUSION: The name GIMP wasn't an acronym, it was an -excuse- of one, based in wanting to name it GIMP, specifically, because they decided that sounded "not suck" which they decided on impulsively without considering the implications of the meaning and headless of how it might affect people.
SECONDLY: public response.
Since then, they and multitudes of others have been blindly defending that decision, silencing any attempt to discuss it with them by calling "free speech" out over the voices of the disabled community, because -and I quote- "we donât think this is really all that necessary" which just completely dismisses that they are having any impact on people or that these people are at all rightfully offended, then continuing to try to assert that they "Shouldn't have to please everyone" and that the offence being taken is with the "colloquial" use of the word [Implying that we're somehow just mistaken about what the word means, so we should get over it].Â
In short, they don't actually demonstrate any understanding of why people are actually upset, they don't seem to have any regard for the effect they're having on people, their response is completely tone deaf and dismissive, their listening ears are turned of because they'd rather completely ignore any kind of social responsibility than have to do a very minor re-branding of their product.Â
In fact, the way they have responded to the disabled community is EVEN MORE damaging and an even better demonstration of the way they are defending themselves by advocating attitudes that are ableist, or are very much at the core of ableism not being taken seriously and being allowed to continue.Â
What they are effectively communicating in the way they have responded to the disabled community is:
You're trying to be offended over nothing. It's not actually an issue. We aren't actually doing something that affects you, you just don't understand, you're just confused. You expressing having a problem with us is you trying to infringe on our right to free speech. You pointing out a problem with what we're doing is a demand that we change and we don't have to bow to that.Â
Sound familiar? It should. It's how people respond all the time when someone tries to point out that something is ableist or harmful to the disabled community or a person with disabilities.Â
THAT is why people are upset, and they are VERY right to be.
This response also mirror the arguments of the general public "coming to their defense".
""Those disabled bullies are just trying to "thought police" this poor company because they don't understand the laws we have about "free speech". They don't understand that what -they say is happening or being said- just isn't how it is.""
And that's DISGUSTING. Even short of the other 80% of responses that are far worse.
GIMP doesn't think that their "name" is actually harmful to anyone.
They seem to be under the impression that it's just a word, and people are offended for no reason. They seem to be under the impression that it's just oversensitive and confused people who have a problem with their "name" because they don't actually understand.Â
They seem to think that the way they chose the name, having the name, keeping the name, defending the name and the WAY they are defending the name, are all reasonable and relatively harmless and that there's just a few people who are just upset they can't police everyone into being "nice" and "pleasant" who have a problem with any of it.Â
In order to illustrate why THEIR beliefs and behaviour are so impactful I need to set the stage with the current social climate we're in on the issue:
...
When I decided to approach them on twitter it was this attitude I was wanting to address. I wanted to invoke them into starting a dialogue with me, rather than just referring me to their FAQ.Â
Twitter seems like it might be a stupid choice, I'm aware. The word limit doesn't make for a nuanced discussion, or even being able to use the right words. For the most part, the people there are --inherently due to the function of the site-- much more interested in instant gratification with minimal effort, and being "right" or "winning" with a line they think makes them sound cool, than they are with actually discussing anything, or seeking to understand what someone is trying to communicate to them or anyone else. It's a popularity contest on steroids and it knows it. It's rife with people seeing a tweet and jumping in with no understanding of the context, to just start shouting their opinion [one formed about something they are interpreting completely out of context]. It's a site that practically caters to trying to shout over someone -to shut them up- with a simplistic idea, rather than enable any kind of critical discussion of complex ideas. More than that it's highly predictable that things would quickly come to people shouting gross insults and threatening violence because someone dared let a company know what they thought in forty characters or less.Â
[Though I would like to acknowledge that not everyone there is like that, and thank -not just the people who showed their support and tried to contribute- but also the people who were genuinely trying to understand what I had to say, rather than just jumping in with insults and attacks. The fact that there were any of you at all made that less a deep dive into having to witness nothing but the gross abuse and willful ignorance that usually seems to dominate the internet. Though the -extent- of some of the disgusting attitudes there kind of surprised me too. (like how do you say something that disgusting, hateful, and conceited out loud and not hear yourself and decide you've made some poor life choices?)]
Because it was the one place that was in public where I knew GIMP wasn't liable to just completely ignore me or obtusely dismiss me right back over to their FAQ.
 It was the one place I was guaranteed WOULD start some kind of dialogue and bring the issue back into the public eye, or at least someone's eye. It was a guarantee people would engage with me in some level of discussion, even if it was only angry trolls. The more people decided they felt threatened by me voicing an opinion, the more angry they would get, the more likely they were to at least read what I had written, even if they glossed over it at the time, even if they responded with abusive shouting, they read it, they processed those words with their brain and they responded. It is where adversity of the worst kind lives.Â
I was even thinking someone might try to make valid arguments to oppose mine, but the closest they got was trying to argue "free speech" without seeming to grasp either what that actually meant in the context, or the nuance of intention or morals behind free speech or any laws pertaining to human rights and how they applied in the given context.
I actually managed to have a half-way civil conversation with about four people, two of which were even less set in their ways than I had expected, and one of which -who started saying some really obnoxious stuff- even conceded that it was something they would continue to look into and consider.Â
It also produced -to a level I didn't even predict- a perfect example of what happens every time someone in the disabled community stands up to say they think something is ableist and needs to be talked about, right there for GIMP to read over, in response to their conversation with me. [Though GIMP themselves were as pointedly flippant as usual]
I got somewhere over 100 tweets, most of which were perfect examples of the ways people usually try to dismiss any discussion about how words and language can have very real and very dangerous effects on people, or were straight up examples of the more extreme ableist oozing of abuse, hate speech, and threats of physical violence that normally get leveled at anyone who dares speak up about human rights on that kind of forum.Â
[Another reason why I went to do this was because I knew I wouldn't be upset by the attacks and threats the way some people would be. It would have been cool if more people felt it was safe and worthwhile enough to join me, but I understand why a lot of people sit in quiet support without saying anything on sites like that. Making a statement like that is liable to attract mobs of cyberbullies and people who get off on hurting and scaring people they see as being at a disadvantage, and it doesn't generally amount to anything and is mostly ignored by the people you are trying to speak to. I felt safe letting them know exactly what I thought, so I did so.]
I'd like to list some examples of the sentiments I received here, bear with me, I'm illustrating a point I'll finish making soon, but the full tweets are there for anyone to read.Â
[This list not to include the general tendencies of stuff like, pointedly misunderstanding and misinterpreting, logical fallacies, lack of language comprehension, conflation, confusing -ignoring logic- or -not understanding it- with something not making sense, personal attacks that aren't to do with my demographic, cherry picking the one weakness they think they can see to try to discount everything thatâs being said, and all the other obnoxious things people do in internet arguments that generally make them not worth bothering with.]
1. Repeated implications that I'm just "professionally offended".Â
This is a problem because it's representative of an attitude that what is being done to people isn't actually harmful, and takes special -effort- to get upset about. Which is to imply that people just decide to be upset for no good reason. It dismisses the idea that there might be a real problem that's actually contributing to the abuse of real people, by implying that those offended have either no real reason or understanding -at best- or -at worst- selfish ulterior motives. The reason this is a problem is because it's specifically used to dismiss someone in place of actually allowing for a dialogue of the merits of the claim, and generally always done because the dismissing party knows their reasoning won't actually stand up to scrutiny.
2. People angrily implying that me letting a company know what I think, and bringing up ableism is me -an individual- "bullying" a corporation, which is threatening behaviour.
People throughout history have always responded to people speaking up for human rights as "threatening". An individual standing up for the rights of the disabled community is not "bullying a poor defenseless business." Don't be ridiculous.
3. People justifying that people are in the right to throw slurs, abuse, sexual language and threats at me, because that's their right to "free speech" which I DESERVE for speaking my mind to a company which was me "attacking them and trying to take away their rights."
[We'll just pretend I'm from the US like most of you and hold me to the same laws in this discussion]
Okay, this might be -apparently- hard for some of you to understand, as a lot of you are very confused about what is and is not protected free speech, BUT...
Me approaching a company and letting them know what I think to their faces, or expressing what I think a reasonable course of action is, is me exercising my right to free speech. I did not attack them, I expressed an opinion. I had every right to do so. I had every right to do so without being persecuted either by law or by individuals.
But there ARE exceptions to the right to free speech, more than all of you seem to think [if you got your understanding of what's protected from pop-media, consider at least reading the wikipedia article to refresh yourself on it a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States]
Exceptions include but are not limited to: Inciting imminent illegal action -INCLUDING- violence, harassment and other activities deemed to be illegal [such as cyber bullying], Fighting words, True threats, Obscenity [speech that can be considered highly offensive like sexual harassment, descriptions of gore etc... unless used in art or social commentary, this one porn runs into a lot because we argue about whether or not it's art, for the record I think most porn IS art], Torts, which include libel & slander & defamation AND "intentional infliction of emotional distress"
A lot of people like to INSIST that these kinds of hateful speech are protected as a constitutional right, but they are NOT. That's not to say that all hate speech is an exception, you're right, it's not. [Ie, you can express racist sentiment and be in the KKK BUT calling a black man the N word to his face or trying to get someone to hurt him IS still illegal.]
All that to say that most of the people attacking me WERE both violating the law and were NOT protected by any laws about "free speech".
POINT BEING: Not that I was in the right, but that people regularly do this. They talk over, threaten and bully disabled people or anyone who "dares" to stand up for them, and yet cry "bully" and "threatening my free speech" for themselves when someone tries to point out that something someone said or did was immoral, or ableist, or needs to be examined.
4. Disgustingly ableist language.Â
Including one guy calling everything I was saying "autistic screeching", pictures of disabled persons or depicting them that are captioned in various hateful and insulting manners, Comments about my perceived mental ability, really just a general outpouring of vitriol.Â
In addition to that a LOT of implications that disabled people, including those talking about these issues "don't do anything useful all day", and therefor do not get to have or voice an opinion.
5. Trying to dismiss me as just being a "Social Justice Warrior".Â
Trying to use the argument that anyone's view should be automatically discounted because their main interest and motivation is trying to achieve equal rights and fair treatment for all, is really just a bullshit thing. This goes back to what I was saying about dismissing the idea that ableism is even an issue or even needs to be discussed.
People say "SJW" like an insult, and the fact that they do in itself exemplifies part of the problem. People who don't have to face oppression like to believe that social and human rights issues aren't a big deal, that things are fine as they are and that the oppressed and abused are just bitching for nothing. Nothing shows how blinded you are by cultural attitudes to the suffering of other people than when you brush off people as "SJWs" or "professionally offended" so that you don't have to actually consider their view point. If the beliefs and ideas you hold now are so good, then they will stand up to scrutiny, if the way things are now are so good, it'll stand the test of time. Dismissing challenging ideas just shows how threatened you are by them....Â
[And yet this is a problem because it's become the new "cool" to brush off anyone who actually cares about people, issues, and discussing morality. It's kind of on trend right now to be a disinterested asshole and make fun of people who actually care about issues. This to me is the most frustrating thing about young millennials. They accept that problems exist for the most part, but not giving too fucks about the suffering and mistreatment of fellow humans, and trolling or harassing people who do, is really cool in most circles right now.]
6. Threats of physical violence and sexually harassing speech.
Not protected under "free speech". Illegal. Against site policy I'm sure, and also cyber-bullying, which is also illegal. And regularly leveled at anyone perceived to be an "SJW", or advocating for a minority, or part of that minority. Especially disabled people, specifically DUE to ableist attitudes about mental health and intelligence.
[To GIMP I say "Look upon your kingdom, your creation, what you have sewn and weep."]
WHAT THIS ILLUSTRATES: All of this to give an example of exactly the problem. Dismissive language and behaviour EXACTLY like what GIMP exhibits any time they are questioned about their name are VERY MUCH a large part of the problem affecting people with disabilities trying to fight against the systematic oppression, abuse and ableism they face. That being, that no one is willing to acknowledge that it's even a problem, or that they are even in the right to be upset. That our opinion as disabled people doesn't hold the same sway as those of other groups.Â
It also illustrates just how much of the people "defending" GIMP either don't understand the issue and aren't willing to, or are themselves disgustingly ableist.
Â
You wouldn't design your acronym to spell Whore, cunt, the N word, etc... and get away with it, or expect not to face a lot of backlash and controversy. The very fact that GIMP doesn't inspire the same "OH we better not do that" response is because of ableism, of how unaccepted and invisible of an issue it is, and because they know they can keep brushing us off and get away with it.Â
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't harmful, immoral, ignorant or a stupid fucking business decision.
It also means that GIMP is setting an example of how this kind of dismissal is publicly accepted, and will continue to be accepted. They are setting an example that the disabled community can still be spoken over and ignored without anyone wanting to -or being able to- take significant action against them. This powerlessness and lack of resources is possibly more of a problem for the disabled than any other group, currently. We -often- by definition aren't able to work, and aren't even allowed by law to have resources beyond what we strictly need to scrape a survival out of. Beyond this, the most prevalent and toxic part of ableism is that we are not taken seriously, and many of us aren't even allowed by society to speak for ourselves.Â
They challenge us to take legal action against them knowing that we can't, knowing WHY we can't, and it's disgusting.Â
[In fact people kept trying to bring it back around to the laws and the constitution despite that I was mostly trying to talk about the morality and social responsibility, and while they were simultaneously arguing that GIMP was an international organization of volunteers, so had no country where they could be considered to be "based" -despite earlier statements to the contrary, Boston MA anyone?- and therefore this somehow means that they can't be held to any laws, aren't accountable to anyone and I shouldn't expect that anyone in the GNU project or the free software foundation to have any influence over or interest in them at all. (To clarify, Richard Stallman founded both the FSF and then the GNU project, the FSF funds the GNU and the GNU is the main body behind GIMP, which is also it's own project, though they claim to only be an affiliate.) And they'll keep trying to cite that "complex legal relationship" to silence any discussion of who they are actually accountable to.]
It's not just GIMP by any means, but what I have been trying to get them to understand is that they are contributing to it, and that they are in a position of power to create HUGE and much needed social change.
THIRDLY. Why it's a problem, and why GIMP should care.
Due to their general attitude of dismissal towards the disabled community, this may come as a surprise to them, but -as a free art software project- the disabled community is not only the one group that they could potentially benefit the most, but also the one group they could -and probably do- benefit FROM the most.
See, contrary to what ableist attitudes would encourage you to believe, disabled people aren't sub-human lumps who just sit around wasting resources by existing. We are each a whole person just like you who happen to also have a disability. We don't cease to be people with other abilities, interests, hobbies, social lives and passions just because we have a disability. We might not all be able to hold regular 9-5 jobs, but that doesn't mean we don't find lots of ways to be self actualized and contribute to our culture, to people around us and to many professional fields of interest.Â
In fact, because a lot of us cannot work regular jobs [mostly because employers would rater hire someone NeuroTypical & Able-Bodied, than work around someone's illness or disability] we often have a lot of time that we spend at home, and generally kind of isolated a lot of the time. And around being sick, recovering and taking care of ourselves so we can function, we need to have mentally and physically stimulating things to do to fill our time like anyone else.Â
What this means is that we generally have skills and passions we devote ourselves to -at least- as much as anyone else, and especially things we have found that we can contribute to and work on to keep us sane and feeling normal when we aren't able to do other things, when we're bed ridden, when we can't move very far, when we can't leave the house... Do you think we just sit around on our thumbs feeling sorry for ourselves and complaining? Oh! Right, you DO think that, apparently, according the the discourse I normally get out of people... But NO, no that is not how people work.Â
Do you know how many disabled people -arguably even compared to NTABs- are devoted artists and programmers? Do you know how many of us rely on being entrepreneurial -and the things we create with our own two hands- in order to have a livelihood at all? Do you know how many of us devote ourselves to the realm of ideas, philosophy, sciences, studies of religion, morality, law, etc...? Just because some of us have health issues that don't mesh well with normal societal expectations, doesn't mean we aren't, or can't be, highly skilled, educated and developed people.Â
We are -however- most often at a great disadvantage for resources, financial and otherwise, and are possible the demographic of people hurt the most by companies setting high price walls to being able to participate in our digital and media culture, by companies having obtuse levels of DRM, by all the blocks corporations try to put up around using and contributing to software and the development and sharing of ideas. [Not to mention often having our other rights trampled over, including our right to free expression without persecution.]
The point here being that we are people, who happen to be disabled, and you shouldn't discount us. You shouldn't be dismissing us. Not just because being an ableist asshole is a shitty thing to do, but because we are you.Â
The reason why I'm taking time to spell this out has a lot to do with the target demographic and goals of projects like the FSF and the GNU and even the personal beliefs and goals of the people behind them, like Richard Stallman [Everyone loses their shit in some way the moment I mention him, so I'm going to talk about him a lot here if I can].
The free software foundation:
"The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users.
As our society grows more dependent on computers, the software we run is of critical importance to securing the future of a free society. Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses, where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us."
This, a clear statement that their goals have everything to do with protecting human rights and human interests, especially from governments and corporations.
"Free software means that the software's users have freedom. (The issue is not about price.) We developed the GNU operating system so that users can have freedom in their computing."
Again, this time more centered on the computer aspect, but a clear statement about protecting the freedoms and interests of people.
Well, gimp doesn't really have a mission statement, because they aren't really an independent project, they are by the GNU [*cough* I mean they're "affiliates" yeah...*] They are effectively the team just working on the graphics editing program. It's likely fair to say their goals are probably: Make a really useful program for artists for the GNU... as a group of contributing programmers across the world.Â
You would think at least that their interests include: Artists, providing an accessible and good art program, and um.... Programming and having people contribute by programming and doing art... One would assume. Oh hang on, I'll ask... [I'm still waiting for an answer.]
Richard M Stallman [founder of the FSF and the GNU]:Â
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it."Â
[The golden rule being a principle which essentially states that "one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself"]
A man who founded a foundation and multiple projects for the purposes of protecting the rights and interests of human beings in his field of interest. A man who has argued that there is a difference between what is moral and what is legal and seems interested in discussions on both. A man who believes in the free sharing of ideas, for growth, and for joy.
A man who I don't think would be at all okay with the things being said "in defense" of his foundations or projects. A man who I believe wants to do what he can to protect the rights, freedoms and interests of ALL people, in general.
My POINT is, it doesn't seem very logically consistent for the GNU or GIMP to be so dismissive of the disabled community, given the harm it causes versus the good they could do, and given what their goal and purpose seems to be. Given what moral and philosophical foundation they were built on and for.
GIMP has an opportunity to protect and fight for the rights, interest and freedoms of those affected by ableism, to drag ableism out into the light and set a social example by making it clear that ableist ideology will not be supported or encouraged by them, to make a statement that they do care more about people than they are self serving, and to stop hiding behind legality an financial barriers to dodge responsibility for how they affect people; like the corporations they claim to be morally opposed to.
The fact that they don't see this, that they would dismiss this, that they don't see that we ARE them and they are hurting us, is just baffling to me.Â
That's what I don't understand. That's what I'm trying to explain to them. That's what I'm trying to get them to hear.Â
They are holding the perfect opportunity to act in interest of everything they say their goals are, and instead are acting like everything they claim to be against.
But it seems like the truth is that they don't care, because they don't have to, their listening ears are off, they aren't losing anything because they don't realize what they're missing.
