> Obviously you don't name something in programming 'pimp' / 'bitch', or even more extreme I suppose: 'white_guard' / 'n_____', that's obviously childish, unwarranted, and just for the sake of provocation.

These are all words with literal meanings that could theoretically apply to some aspect of some system. But you admit that these words are inappropriate to use, presumably because of the additional connotation and cultural context that comes along with them.

Is it so difficult to imagine that other words, words that you do not personally have the cultural context to find offensive, could feel the same way to other people who have lived through different experiences?

I am glad that you realized that it’s theoretically possible that the bias in our language of associating blackness with evil or badness might be something that affects people. I think it’s easy to say something like, “oh it’s never been about skin color, don’t be so touchy” when you’ve never had that language constantly around you while society is also actively telling you that you are worth less because you are black. But if you’re a black child being bullied in school for your skin color, that language might take on shades of meaning that seem much more sinister.

I don't think there is a racial bias in associating blackness w/ evil or 'whiteness' with good, I rather think it has to do with night/darkness vs day/light. Do you think 'red' as a widely used 'warning light' somehow relates to 'native Americans'?

Like I've said, I never thought of it in terms of race ; once you start actively believing that biases are EVERYWHERE, you will see them everywhere, automatically. And I think for one, that this is an extremely obsessive way to live, and also a battle one can never ever win, and the question 'where does your quest for justice stop', is warranted.

I always thought there was a 'common sense' approach, pruning any mention of 'slave' as terminology in programming / system administration after decades of use for me seems to be extremely far away from it.

Whatever happens w/ naming conventions here, I will eventually adapt. But I seriously fear that this quest for justice, especially in 'language' goes far beyond common sense and is about actively looking for problems, that are none until identified.

I think maybe I didn’t make my point clear here. I don’t think that in these particular examples there exists racial bias in the language. The language (most languages) is biased (but not racially) towards associating darkness with evil and light with good. If you personally are experiencing racial bias due to having darker skin, I think language like this can feel very different than it would otherwise, even if the language itself is not explicitly racially biased. I’m not saying we should abandon the whole light/dark evil/good dichotomy, but just pointing out that things built in to the culture that aren’t technically related to race in any way may feel very different if you’re on the “good” side than if you’re on the “bad” side.

> It's not at all difficult to assume that something is offensive to someone, but not to me. It's extremely easy that for any different person, different phrases are considered offensive. But the solution of 'let's create a world where nothing is offensive anymore' seems ludicrous.

I agree that it seems impossible to avoid offending every individual. But, when it’s so easy to avoid using language that has negative connotations for a significant portion of the population, why shouldn’t we? Why cling so tightly to not being kind, out of some kind of slippery-slope assumption that if we give ground and have empathy this once, the word will end?

It’s really odd to me how offended people get by the suggestion that there might be something offensive about the language they use. I have no ties to the words I use. If I want to be friends with someone or to include them in what I’m doing, and they have a problem with some word I use because of some context that I haven’t experienced, it does me no harm to use a different word.

> I always thought there was a 'common sense' approach, pruning any mention of 'slave' as terminology in programming / system administration after decades of use for me seems to be extremely far away from it.

Here I think you’re taking offense at a situation that doesn’t exist. What I’ve seen is people trying to avoid perpetuating the problem by not adding new instances of the world slave to new code/systems, or making updates to use different language when it’s convenient and someone’s already touching the code. These actions hardly seem to me to be pruning any mention of the term from decades’ worth of software.

Language, it’s important to remember, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is always changing along with society and culture. It’s therefore natural that what is considered acceptable or not is going to change over time, and we’ve always had to deal with this as a society. Look at people wanting to ban books for using words that have become offensive, as an example. The interesting thing about software, as opposed to books or words engraved in stone on monuments, is that it’s often very easy to change the words that are used, because software isn’t a historical artifact but a living thing. And as a living thing, people are going to want it to reflect their own current societal norms. So changes like this seem an inevitable part of a long-lived industry that creates such mutable products.

Regardless, it hardly seems worth getting so worked up over someone else choosing to make this decision in the codebase that they maintain. It is their right as maintainers to do so, and if you disagree so strongly with them making this small token of empathy, you can of course choose to use another filesystem.

- It's about where the goal post is. Let's not forget what the original discussion is about. You invoke a lot of 'emotional imagery' ('why not be kind'), we are talking about long standing naming conventions that can be thought of as being non-racial and no one had a problem with 2 months or 2 years ago, now becoming a problem because people think they are doing something positive here, while it's not addressing ANY problem regarding racism at all ...

- software is both, living and artifact - we are not talking about a new program written in 2020 using some weirdly offensive and arcane naming conventions, we are talking about retroactively updating naming conventions in programs. Regarding societal norms we always play catch up, should I vet my code once a week to check if it is still conforming to PC-culture?

- software is a technical thing, we programmers like to think of it as non-political ; like I've said multiple times I think already: when I read source code thinking about racism is so far off my radar, that it's insane to see 'master' and 'slave' and think of it (for me, at least). Which also ties in with the point I tried to make, that some people are so ingrained in their social justice war, that I think they just see 'racism' and 'bias' EVERYWHERE.

- a lot of people feel 'pressured' into complying with what they regard to be ridiculous changes (when it comes to technical merit) because there is a certain amount of people who view non-compliance with whatever their current crusade is about as 'unkind' - if you think me using master/slave terminology has something to do with the topic of racism in the United States, I refuse to make that connection I guess.

- ultimately: it's probably more about people patting themselves on the back, for having done something, and for having changed nothing - and I deeply resent that. In other words: blind activism at its best.

> Like I've said though I think of 'master/slave' as perfectly fine descriptions regarding their function

I disagree with this. Master/Slave is in fact a pretty terrible description of most of these systems, and appears to have been shoe horned in.

In most master/slave systems the master does all of the work, and the slave nodes exist either for duplicate read capacity, or as a hot standby in case the master fails. This is not the way that historical masters and slaves interacted, to say the least. I believe that "primary/secondary" or "primary/standby" is actually a much better description of the actual function of these systems.

> white vs black, bright vs dark, , "shining bright light" vs "tempted by darkness", etc, it was almost a Eureka moment: "How can people think of skin color there?"

Some of those are tricky, because lightness and darkness is also a good faith description of how human vision works.

But who would see black and white as a description of skin color? Pretty much every American. There is some nuance to terms like whitelist and blacklist (that I have not yet made up my mind on, btw), but when it comes to naked terms like "black" and "white", that is exactly how Americans refer to each other's skin color.

Maybe it's different in your culture. Again, a lot of the people discussing these things are Americans talking to other Americans.

> 'because a black man was murdered by police in a country across the Atlantic, and now they are looking to prune any mention of slavery from everywhere they can find it'

That is a pretty poor explanation of the phenomena at hand. A better description would be "a murder of a black man triggered massive social upheaval and a society wide moment of soul searching about the nation's history both of slavery and poor post-slavery treatment of black Americans. This change has included everything from significant reversals in opinions on policing, the Black Lives Matter movement, the naming of military bases, public display of confederate monuments and flags, all the way down to an investigation of the use of language in software engineering."

The discussion around the use of terms in software isn't because "a black man was murdered", it is because America is experiencing massive social shifts around how we treat race in America. A discussion of how we name pieces of software is probably the absolutely smallest portion of a massive change.

That's partly my point though. That if you are bombarded with 'racism' as a topic daily, and want to do something about it, you are tempted to do something, at least something, and once you are actively looking for problems, you will find them. Once you are convinced that it's everywhere and has to go, there is next to no limit where your quest might lead you. It having lead to this right here is the perfect example.

'Master/Slave is in fact a pretty terrible description'

'primary/secondary' is nice, master/slave is just extremely ingrained, let's agree on that, so you know what is meant by it. I deeply hope we won't have 500 various naming conventions for what used to be called master/slave.

"But who would see black and white as a description of skin color? Pretty much every American."

Then let's discuss THE CAUSE FOR THIS. Because it's wrong, it's wrong to invoke race everywhere those two colors are mentioned in some specific context. Is renaming everything maybe just putting a shade over something that Americans should confront themselves with more honestly, more deeply, because I know via my upbringing, that I never would have thought about whitelist/blacklist as skin color, it would have been so far away from my radar... maybe you think renaming master/slave here will somehow have a ripple effect, or is part of something bigger and a warranted change. I think it will do exactly nothing, and is just blind activism that breaks decades of convention.

'That is a pretty poor explanation of the phenomena at hand.'

I was over simplifying on purpose, because what I wanted to portray was 'someone outside of it' I guess.

'software is probably the absolutely smallest portion of a massive change.'

I think it's just something to make people feel better, 'we've done something about it now', it's the 'smallest portion' of massive change, it's also the most non-impactful, which is why I find the case for it to be weak.