I can't wait till 4chan weaponizes this with some innocuous term as a joke, and everyone else either goes along with it thinking it's genuine, or doesn't speak out despite the absurdity. Kind of like how they turned the "okay" hand gesture into meaning "white power". eg. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3c5e24b75e755aa25bd603...
Basically this[1] in action.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082
"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."
It's maybe a bit like the term "master" (decoupled from slave) which has very differently nonces in many countries outside of the US. Mainly it's then often not strongly (or not at all) associated with slavery or suppression of people of color.
For example the German word "Meister" is often translated as "Master" but is mainly associated with someone who became really good at a skill, i.e. who mastered it. It's also used in a context of a person who is qualified to teach some from of craft (job), through there the roots are somewhat similar as historically you complied pretty strictly with what your teacher told you.
Anyway, using more inclusive terminology for anything new doesn't cost anything and as such should be done.
Cultural translation is always a bit weird. For example, in Spanish (or at least Spain's) BDSM circles, people use the term "maestro" for "master" (despite the term meaning only "teacher" or "skilled person/virtuoso" in Spanish). I assume at some point it got badly translated and it stuck in the community.
This has to stop. Slavery was long gone and finished when master/slave began being used in computer science. They were not used as a meaning to reproduce and glorify the past, they are simple words that explain how the protocol works. Would you rather « master » and « servant »? King and serf? Bully and victim?
This is to me just as irrelevant as continuing the superstitions about 13 and 666: a reactionnary behavior that people should tame and focus on something more important, like actual code correctness, fuzzing or something actually useful.
Funny how you're much more hysterical about how renaming things has to stop, than you are concerned about how slavery has to stop, when you directly deny the harsh objective reality that there are actually many more slaves today than ever before in history.
Get your priorities right. Renaming things isn't taking away your freedom or cramping your lifestyle.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/perth/programs/focus/modern-sla...
>There are more slaves in the world today than ever before in human history. Its estimated that there are 40.3 million slaves throughout the world today, more than at any other time in human history.
https://bis.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/categories/governance-risk...
>There are more slaves today than EVER before in the history of the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-...
>One in 200 people is a slave. Why? Slavery affects more than 40 million people worldwide – more than at any other time in history.
That's not called for.
As for the rest, it seems to me that it's slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term. Obviously all slavery is a horrible problem, but other kinds of slavery are much less relevant to the terminology debate.
Leon, why did you flip the tortoise on its back? You aren't helping it, why is that?
And I'm still not seeing which part was "hysterical".
> false-call for civility
Is this another "fact"? Got the proof that the call for civility is false? Otherwise this is bad-faith.
> ignoring the reality
The "reality" you describe is disputed.
> people REFUSE to help
they refuse to participate in a bad-faith, antagonistic discourse. There is no attempt at "help" here, just demanding your perspective be accepted as fact, and insulting all who do not obey.
Exactly who besides you says "slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term" and why? Give me some evidence, or retract what you said, because it's outrageously wrong. And where did you get that ridiculous unfounded belief? And what motivates you to propagate it, despite it being false? Just because it "seems to you" doesn't mean there's any truth to it.
It seems to the person who I was replying to, and many other people in this thread, that slavery no longer happens, and they're terribly wrong. Do you also falsely believe there is no more slavery, too? (Yes you do, I see from your other comment: "Nobody is enslaving anyone" -Dylan16807) Is that the basis of your false belief that "it seems to me that it's slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term"?
It really puzzles me what motivates people like you to make such unsubstantiated statements whitewashing slavery, and then feign outrage at having your feelings hurt, while so many human beings are currently suffering from slavery every day, more than at any time in history, that you refuse to acknowledge. Can you explain why?
The problem is the us and them mentality exists, is very prevalent but basically invisible to or ignored by those on one side of the divide. Addressing issue already present isn't significantly furthering the divide, it's making people aware of what's already there. All the people saying "look how divided we are now!" fail to realise this has always been the way.
In what context can we use the terms master and slave?
The term slave means to be controlled by another entity in its most basic definition. Just because there are loads of people who are slaves in the world doesn't make that term less accurate for its other uses.
Businesses already tend not to use sensitive words, especially publicly. This is just adding to that list. For example, whilst you can kill a process we don’t use the word murder. Same for lots of other negatively emotional words.
People do get hung up on naming & terminology. But as has been mentioned elsewhere, master/slave is often chosen through convention when other names would be clearer. We have a whitelist application at work that is actually an event routing gateway. If we renamed it it’d be easier to explain.
To me it seems an easy task to not use master/slave and white/black when I’m naming things, not something worth arguing about, especially if there’s a chance it removes some negativity for some people. I’m happy to spend a few minutes helping someone with a chore and I see this as the same low level of effort and impact.
You can frame it as "bowing down" either way. The other option is to "bow down" to those who do no want to change but have no good reasons beyond that it's what they are used to and, typically, negative partisanship (that on principle they object to anything promoted by the other side of the political divide, simply because). People need to find better arguments than emotionally & illogically driven defensiveness.
The other option is to have a nuanced debate from both sides where one side isn't thought of as hateful and evil. One side is saying "hey this is a slippery slope" the other side is saying "no you're wrong and you're what's wrong with the world today".
Also, where has my defensiveness been at all illogical or emotional? The arguments presented against doing this seem pretty sound from the people who can explain their reasons.
But language DOES matter, and it DOES help people. It's a bit more abstract and decoupled, but shit, you're supposed to be a coder (you ARE on a programming forum), so I'm sure you can handle adding 1 and 1 and getting to 2.
Then address what I said: Do you deny the evidence I just posted about there being more slavery today than ever before in history? What is your evidence that "Slavery was long gone and finished when master/slave began being used in computer science"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contr...
https://www.mediaite.com/sports/breaking-washington-redskins...
>BREAKING: Washington Redskins Expected to Announce Retirement of Team Name on Monday
Before we assume that such things are stupid superstitions or applying race on a term (or choosing not to apply terms in race context) we should listen to the other side of the plate.
We don't have to rename it all immediately, but let's start with the easy stuff and ripple it thru. How hard can it be?
In any case, blocklist, allowlist is way more descriptive than blacklist and whitelist. It describes WHAT the thing does, whereas the black/white relies on a cultural mnemonic that black is bad and white is good. Just name things for what they do, how hard is that?
Why not use pastel colors for chess and checkers because colors black and white are so effing bad?
Should we review the Yin and Yang color semantics too ? Am I offending people when I print my financial statement on WHITE paper? With BLACK ink?
Will there be forbidden words everywhere soon? Should I be able to pronounce the word "slave" in public or will I get stoned for it? Is there going to be a police dedicated to monitor people's use of "disturbing words" that we collectively decided would hurt the sensibility of communities, and started enforcing?
Am I going to loose my job if I commit a diff with forbidden words by the Great List Of Acceptable Words That Don't Discriminate Any Minority In The World? Will my commits to the linux kernel be refused if I chose one word badly, regardless of the actual VALUE of my code? Are we going to cleanse the Kernel from words like fuck or shit or arab? Will there be a PG rating when opening github's project pages so that we don't expose our children to these subversive tractations?
People are starting to confuse their own sensibilities and the greater good. When people start banning words and ideas, they slowly start communitarism and self-isolating rhetorics. They restric their views by hiding the rest of the things they don't like. This just looks like another puritan American move, and it's spreading like karens around the developer community.
This is just like the fake inclusivity where devs are starting to put in their repos what they call "Code of Conduct" where you are now asked to think about the cultural impact of your "Typo FIX" commit over the N communities that would prefer that you call your global variable "allowedList" rather than "whiteList". Oh my.. I don't care. I want my code to be functionally correct, not make BHL happy. Shit, I'm not writing to make a political statement, I'm fixing my SCSI driver implementation.
The reductio ad absurdum where any mention of a color is considered harmful is based in the assumption that the issue is with mentioning color. It might be useful to distinguish when a color is just a color (e.g. red/black trees), and when a metaphor is borrowed from an actual crime against humanity (e.g. master/slave).
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but this is such an America-centric statement. Slavery is alive and well today. There are more slaves now than at any past time.
I've never like colour based names anyway too ambiguous.
That's the problem with replacing an actual word with a new term. You get something that would be equivalent, but it doesn't have that innate understanding.
It's not a big sacrifice, but it's less immediately clear.
If you really want to build something for all times, don't load it up with cultural baggage that will go obsolete.
I can't see how you can demilitarise police in USA without restricting access to deadly weapons across the board. Who's going to enforce the law if the citizenry have access to disproportionately greater force than the police do.
USA needs to start with rule of law, as the current administration, at least, has subverted that you've no chance to move forward IMO.
One more important issue here is that police have been trained only to use force to execute their duties. An alternative would be for cops to focus on de-escalating conflict.
Another more important issue here is that police forces are used to handle problems that are better served by smaller, more specialized agencies. Psychologists and Psychiatrists for mentally ill people. Social workers for the homeless.
A third issue here that is more important than access to excessive force is the rampant and catastrophic lack of oversight for cops. Protests went on for days before George Floyd's murderer was arrested. If video hadn't made the news that man would still be policing today. George Floyd's death didn't involve a gun, it involved a cop who didn't expect consequences.
Beyond all that, police agencies have empirically demonstrated that they have significant and deep seated racial bias across the board. Even if that can be fixed the simplest way to stop the bleeding is to reduce the funding and therefore power of the police. Once they show they can uphold the law without a tax of innocent lives they can have their funding back, but TBH at that point I doubt they'll need it.
Is there a net benefit of coddling unreasonable people to such a degree that we're no longer allowing words to have different meanings, and holding integrity through requiring critical thinking to understand language properly? Organizations playing into this are either pandering to the mob and/or aren't grounded in reason. Let's be strong for our brothers and sisters, even if discomfort increases temporarily due to a mob.
Edit to add: it's interesting my top comment was quickly downvoted 3 times right around the time of the above reply, and then my reply here got 3 downvotes quickly too.
Why is your position the one of critical thinking and "understanding language properly" while the people you disagree with want "unreasonable options?"
As the original article shows, what's being asked for is straightforward and simple to do.
There's no mob. No one is getting canceled. We're just changing some terms we use in a software project to be more appropriate.
The phrase "he doth protest too much" comes to mind every time I see comments like the above.
You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity.
Sorry, but your framing of this as "coddling" is itself dismissive. That, combined with complaining about downvotes, might be driving the unpopularity of your comments.
Defunding the police is a simple to understand slogan that covers a lot of possibilities. Plenty of places have abolished their police and rebuilt from the ground up. When people use the slogan that's generally what they mean. Saying they literally expect there to be no police and everything is anarchy is a strawman position no one besides a couple bros in hoodies in seattle actually takes seriously.
I don't actually have an opinion on the language change (I'm not black so how could I have an opinion on if it empowers black people?) but strictly speaking the rationale based on clarity isn't true.
We should find names that reflects the concept best, while keeping its meaning understandable. Period.
PS: obviously i don't know anything about your personal situation, so i'm not blaming you for anything.
Let me repost a comment I made recently:
In some contexts (e.g. Jenkins), a "master" tells the "slave" what to do and the "slave" does it. This at least is plausibly connected to the real-world meanings of the term, although given that the "slave" is free to start and stop work at any time and the entire job of the "master" is to keep track of that, the analogy isn't great. "Coordinator/worker" works well here.
In some contexts (e.g., MySQL), a "master" sends a copy of all its work to the "slave," and both of them execute it. The "slave" stands ready to replace the "master" if the "master" becomes unavailable, and usually at that point the "master" becomes the new "slave" once it catches up. This makes no sense. "Primary/replica" works well here.
In some contexts (e.g., network device bonding, certain types of logical partitioning or RAID), a "master" is a logical construct, consisting of multiple physical "slaves". All interactions with the "master" are actually algorithmically sent to one or more "slaves," and if all the "slaves" are offline, there's no "master" left. This, also, makes no sense. Terms that would make sense include things like "bond/member" (the members being bonded to each other, and the bond being the resulting abstraction), "LV/PV", etc.
In some contexts (e.g. disk drives), the "master" and "slave" are both devices that provide the same type of service to the host, but the "slave" connects to the "master" instead of directly to the host, and while the "master" is communicating, the "slave" can't. The "master" exercises no control over the slave beyond occasionally blocking the communication channel and it pays no attention to communications between the "slave" and the host. This, also, makes no sense. "Primary/secondary" works well here.
In pseudoterminals, the "master" is a limited API to the PTY object, held by the terminal emulator, which copies text to the screen, interpreters rendering commands, and sends input. The "slave" is a more featureful API to the same PTY object, held by the shell / the command under execution, which does what it wants. This, also, makes no sense. I don't know of a standard term here, but I'd sort of suggest "monitor" and "session," which has the benefit of keeping the initials. The M side is the one connected to your actual monitor and it's also the side that monitors output; the S side is the one connected to the application, and it's associated with at most one session in the sense of setsid(2) (see als credentials(7)).
All of these are different uses, and you can't generally map one to another. For instance, if you're used to a database where "master/slave" is used in the primary/replica sense, and you see a database where the "master" just coordinates requests for work and all actual data is sent to/from some "slave," your knowledge of primary/replica architecture is misleading here.
-- In an active/standby replication setup, the master does all the work and the slave just watches and accumulates the results. This seems backwards.
-- In many replication setups (PostgreSQL and DNS work this way) the replica voluntarily connects to an upstream source. Slavery isn't voluntary.
-- In DNS zone transfers, the downstream replica is in control of replication; the upstream can't tell it to do anything. This is not a master/slave relationship either.
-- In a hardware bus system in which any device can be an initiator and can choose its target device, this isn't a master/slave system because the roles change from one transaction to the next.
--
Having a general ban on the term because of some social pressure to apply "inclusive terminology" is an entirely different issue.
In general, most of the arguments I've seen for keeping the master/slave terms in contexts where they could be renamed without breaking compatibility are for social pressure reasons ("don't give into the mob" / "SJWs are taking over tech" / "free software should be apolitical" / etc.) and not for technical reasons.
And we are debating this, because the fact that they decide to accept to comply with the "inclusive-terminology" movement is going to create a huge precedent, and will actually put an immense pressure on all the other developer community.
It's the same really as not questioning things in the soviet union. See the fine HBO program "Chernobyl" for details on what happens when truths are avoided in favor of bullshit.
The danger with the new leftist fascism we see in the US is that people are afraid of saying the truth. Eventually this will be a problem.
The vast amount of people on traditional and social media saying all the things that you claim people are afraid to say refutes this. Whatever you think people are too afraid to say, there is somebody saying it.
Free speech doesn't mean people get to voice any idea without scrutiny. Other's people's free speech also exists. What people tend to mean is "I used to be able to say this without being criticised" and the loss of that privilege is unsettling. If they can't express an opinion and sufficiently support it against objections and criticism then it might not be such a good opinion.
I don't even consider myself conservative, just that social media wise anything that isn't hard left is labelled white supremacy or racist.
It's more the loss of one's livelihood that is unsettling. Criticism is fine. Campaigning to get people someone fired over petty nonsense is not. All it takes is a few prominent examples - and there have been many - to cow people who disagree into silence.
Actually, it seems to be leftists who are under the impression that their actions should have no consequences.
https://news.yahoo.com/harvard-grad-says-she-fired-125450691...
The question is, given that perfection is impossible, what amount of injustice, such as harassment, is acceptable for a greater good. This question constantly manifests in the economic, legal and social systems we live in. Just like the legal system, there will be some injustices that can't be avoided any everyone has their personal perspective on how much and to whom is acceptable.
Your point above blames “leftists” but you would be greatly mistaken if you think this is a one way street. There are cases of people on the left losing jobs for critising the right. People On both sides have received harassment and death threats from the other side.
In summary, you're complaining about the left doing something without realizing or acknowledging that this isn't restricted to just those on the left or right, everyone is doing this. But if you're one one side you'll ignore attacks by your own side, labeling them legitimate defense, and over-criticise the other side's same actions as unjustifable attacks. Everyone would be better off if we could all acknowledging our bias more.
I think it was Jefferson who thought that freedom of the press was essential even though press would become partisan and present opinions not news. He idealistically and, in hindsight, naively thought that people would be able to use reason & understanding to draw the true picture. But that's not what happens: people are baited, told what to think and react impulsively. Again, that's not just the left or the right, it's people. The problem is always people. To paraphrase Trump: there are awful people on both sides.
Nope. As the OP suggested, lots of people aren't being open & honest about their opinions. Media, tech companies, etc. are overrun by deluded leftists. People are losing their jobs for defending their property. Current western culture is promoting witch hunts against anyone who opposes ideas like "there are 46 genders" or "systemic racism."
This is the modern, western, leftist suppression complex.
If you think that it is not the case that a lot of people are staying silent for fear of mob retribution, you are wrong.
I'm interested in which cases you're referring to here.
I'll add a caveat that small numbers of outlying events which might have been excessive or wrong do not invalidate the notion that society shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions or be judged on their opinions. That's an existing concept, what's happening is a reframing of what's acceptable, which is something that has happened many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
You're conflating passive judgement with active harassment, witch hunts, for "having the wrong opinion." In fact you don't even have to voice an opinion to be the subject of modern leftist witch hunts. Today, being white and smirking is enough to provoke the mania that has consumed the western world. If you're caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and covered by leftist media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
The question is, given that perfection is impossible, what amount of injustice, such as harassment, is acceptable for a greater good. This question constantly manifests in the economic, legal and social systems we live in. Just like the legal system, there will be some injustices that can't be avoided any everyone has their personal perspective on how much and to whom is acceptable.
It's interesting that the example you link to is largely about freedom of the press as that's exactly what the first amendment protects. In that case there is clear action and consequence on both sides. People are free to say want they think and there were consequences.
Your point above was that people lose their jobs because they say something that the left-wing disagrees with and that harassment leads to job loss. The example you provided fails to back that up directly but does provide an example of someone on the left losing their job for something they said. There was also backlash against several other people who had commented on the students' behaviour. There were death threats to people on both sides. It was a f-ing mess all round.
In summary, you're complaining about the left doing something without realizing or acknowledging that this isn't restricted to just those on the left or right, everyone is doing this. But if you're one one side you'll ignore attacks by your own side, labeling them legitimate defense, and over-criticise the other side's same actions as unjustifable attacks. Everyone would be better off if we could all acknowledging our bias more.
I think it was Jefferson who thought that freedom of the press was essential even though press would become partisan and present opinions not news. He idealistically and, in hindsight, naively thought that people would be able to use reason & understanding to draw the true picture. But that's not what happens: people are baited, told what to think and react impulsively. Again, that's not just the left or the right, it's people. The problem is always people. To paraphrase Trump: there are awful people on both sides.
This is an oxymoron. Fascism is a well defined ideology and doesnt mean what you think it means.
In general, fascism distinguishes itself for its intolerance of political opponents, suppression of freedom of speech, and lack of respect for the democratic principles of a majority vote as well as exclusion or isolation of other democratic parties and the use of violence
That's why they mandate it for new parts merged into the kernel tree.
In which case it's basically free.
"As always, paycheck comes in, jira ticket gets dragged from left to right. Whatever."
10,000% agree with you my friend.
So, social norms? There are plenty of things we collectively don't say or do because of enforced social norms yet all of a sudden when those social norms start to include the perspectives of traditionally oppressed groups, certain people start acting like Western Society as we know it is collapsing by the hands of the censorship police.
(You've been punished for questioning geocentrism? Should have respected those social norms, Galileo my friend.)
Unfortunately, many people do not have the luxury of treating their race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc, as a matter of ideological debate. The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege.
But I thank you for being so kind as to include Religion in the list of acceptable "identities". As you have framed the matter, I do NOT happen to have the luxury and privilege to blindly extend deference to our glorious champions of freedom™ and equality™ and accept their diktats without criticism or debate. This is because they are hypocrites and they are tyrants. The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats.
What the hell does this even mean. This sounds more like emotional ramblings than any relevant comments. "What does not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats" even mean?
They're nuns. They are sworn to a life of poverty and chastity. They didn't want to pay for birth control coverage. The Obama Health and Human Services administration could have let this go. It would have harmed no one. It would have deprived no one of birth control coverage.
Instead, we we needed to have Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. But even when they won that one, it wasn't enough! Because the attorney general of New York and New Jersey couldn't let them go either! So we had to have Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania — which was just 7-2 at the Supreme Court.
(Don't worry. Joe Biden's proposed policy changes to "restore the Obama-Biden policy" on these matters with an "accommodation" would have them back in court a third time.)
This was a nine-year battle to vindicate religious rights. It may yet continue. You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. (You may yet think that their case is illegitimate and that they should be forced to pay for this coverage.) Look! You're an inclusivity problem now! Hooray, now you know what it's like!
You're damn right I was ignorant. Luckily you decided to respond and now I'm a little less so :-)
I however, still think however, being unnessicarily melodramatic. This isnt some war against your religion. They aren't targeting your specific religion, quite the opposite in fact, they're giving them no special treatment. You may indeed, have a different argument, perhaps that the government should have less or no involvement in healthcare, or that the requirements for coverage should be less rigid.
Are you discounting his statements due to his identity or presumed "privilege"?
Why do people still use this line of argument? Universal social norms used to treat POC, genders, and other protected classes as second class citizens or worse for centuries. That should make it pretty clear why "social norms" can't be used as a justification or logical reason for anything.
If anything, "social norms" is a stance from political conservatism; it's arguing that things should forever stay just as they are now.
I'm assuming you weren't.
Edit: Glad to see the true nature of your culture. I probably won't come back.
So you feeling strongly about it means that you get to decide another person, who has been a member of this community much longer than you, no longer gets a say? Ideas like this are infinitely more damaging than any technical terminology could ever be.
It’s toxic to any reasonable and rational discourse.
My ancestors were / are from Eastern Europe, i.e., Slavs. The etymology of which is where the word slave actually comes from.
Do I get a say?
In the same way it's proper to use same concept as a metaphor to describe other relationships where one thing is owned by other. There is nothing wrong or offensive in the concept of slavery. Even when the context is enslaving humans.
Slavery is immoral, but the concept of slavery is not.
Use as a metaphor depends on similar perception of the resonant features of the literal use since it relies on those carrying over to the nonliteral use; it is eminently clear that within our society there is not a common share perception of those salient features, so it is not a particularly good metaphor outside of narrow homogenous subcultures, and what it is a good metaphor for within each of those subcultures will be wildly different.
Metaphor is inherently highly culture-dependent.
Slave is actor without autonomy. Master is controlling and owning the slave.
Of course concepts can have moral weight. To suggest otherwise is foolish.
Using word slave in a sentence is not a connected to morality of slavery.
https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/education/professional-lea...
Absolutely not.
The only link between them are as words written in your post.
Demanding that certain words are banned is not moving on, it's being perpetually stuck in a victim's mentality.
Where do we stop? I’m assuming next we want to remove the words entirely from the dictionary?
Because we wouldn’t want to prevent anyone reading the dictionary would we?
If removing those words from the dictionary helps even one person more read it, then that’s a win.
> sow (verb) – to plant seed
> sow (noun) – female pig
Not only are these words pronounced differently, etymologically they have different roots. [0] Do you have any source that would demonstrate that the technical term 'slave' here has nothing to do with the historical enslavement of people?
As an aside, I wonder if the semantic satiation from using homographs that have negative connotations for some could have a positive effect overall by diluting the connotations of what someone thinks of when they hear the word "slave", etc.
Of course, any time I make any kind of comment on this I get told that my skin color makes my opinion moot (even though my ancestors were, also, slaves). I switched to primary/replica last year (in projects where I could), but the never ending tide of other arbitrary words to change gets pretty tiring -- and two different bouts of harassment, death threats, and vandalism when I haven't made changes has really put a sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing.
Indeed, but the GP comment was claiming that the word 'slave' had nothing to do that slavery. Because your comment only had a link to the Homography, it seemed to me to imply that you were saying two words were separate in meaning. That's why I asked for a source saying they weren't.
> It could even be argued that the semantic satiation from using words that have negative connotations for some could have a positive effect overall by diluting the connotations of what someone thinks of when they hear the word "slave", etc.
It could, but, are you making that argument? Should we then dilute the meaning of other words to make their negative effect less impactful? How many words? When do we choose to dilute a word, and how negative should a word be in order to motivate us to dilute its meaning?
> Of course, any time I make any kind of comment on this I get told that my skin color makes my opinion moot (even though my ancestors were, also, slaves). I switched to primary/replica last year (in projects where I could), but the never ending tide of other arbitrary words to change gets pretty tiring -- and two different bouts of harassment, death threats, and vandalism when I haven't made changes has really put a sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing.
I'm really sorry to hear that. I agree that the veracity of the backlash and counter-backlash is not helping anyone, and in on the whole hurtful and not constructive. But is that an argument for not using primary/replica? Is that an argument for never changing anything, since there will almost always be some kind of backlash to a change?
Look, I get it. I can't tell you how many times people are discussing a problem and describe their "final solution" and I cringe a little inside. But I don't say anything, and I don't ask them to change their language because those are the correct words to use, they just have an unfortunate association. But of course the people saying it are not thinking that at all, nor do I suspect they even know the connection most of the time.
Cleansing nomenclature is a fool's errand and won't actually address the real issues we face today.
There are tons of rightwingers in tech or wanting to get in to tech who are feeling excluded and unsafe due to the modern political environment, way more than there are potential black/minority software engineers put off by use of terms like "blacklist".
We've became offended by words, without context. It's just crazy... Master and slave , black and white. are becoming curse words.
What is even more ridiculous is that it's an American thing. English speakers in other parts of the world look in amazement what is happening and how it's going to end.
Which is why people should absolutely make a stand whenever they can to not let this craziness reach the rest of the world.
On some level, you must know these words have meaning.
The sentence "i love you" changes its meaning based on the context. you can say it to your mom, your partner, your friend or even complete strangers after they helped you. every time the meaning changes.
Yes? Master/slave in computers is not the same as slavery in the real life, which is why we can actually do things like switch a server from a master to a slave and vice versa.
What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?
A bus doesn't have four wheels. An interpreter isn't a human being with language fluency. A bit doesn't refer to the business end of a drill. A port isn't a place where you find cargo ships. People manage to deal with jargon just fine.
> "What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?"
The time wasted reeducating (and I use that word intentionally) everyone?
As for the cost of switching, one nice benefit to using more accurate terms is that they’re already familiar - if you swap “slave” for “worker” or “replica”, nobody is going to need extensive retraining to adjust.
Do chess pieces color seem racial to you ?
Does that seem like a great association to defend when it can trivially be changed with no confusion or loss of meaning?
Black is positive in finance.
Words can have more than one meaning. Besides, computer terminology has a lot of words that have different meaning in the context of computers than outside of it. We have the desktop, we have the mouse, we have cookies, viruses, buses, servers, clients and so on.
Should we get rid of the "virus" since it can be so easily confused for the thing that is upending the world right now?
Master/slave is technically inaccurate in most use and, unlike mouse, it bothers some people. Why are you so attached to keeping incorrect terms when changing will have no impact on your life?
And again, it's no less "incorrect" than any of those other terms.
Arguing that the term is not more incorrect, which you have conspicuously failed to do, is missing the point. If you want to argue that a mouse is a confusing name, feel free but also note that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history. Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence: your database master doesn’t torture its slaves if they make errors, or threaten to sell their children, etc. When the master died, they were replaced by their children or someone else but never a former slave. If you’re just talking about parceling out work, try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers” and how that would call your motives into question.
Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.
It'll take more time than I care to spend on a matter that doesn't have any effect on anything. Unless someone wants to go update all of the servers and all of their documentation for free on our behalf, then fine, sure, have at it.
>that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history
This reeks of Americentrism. How is slavery "recent history"? Are we talking about world history or American history?
>Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence
And viruses (the real world ones) are usually not crafted by criminals, yet we call them viruses since the basic premise of the two concepts is similar enough. A mouse has fuck-all to do with a mouse yet we call it that since they have a somewhat similar shape. Now that the wireless mouse is commonplace, this naming is just completely inaccurate and yet it doesn't matter since we can separate the etymology from the meaning.
>try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers”
So if I just call a server that has to obey its superior to the T or it's broken a "worker", everything is fine and dandy? That kinda seems like brushing away the issue.
>how that would call your motives into question.
Maybe my motive is that I'm enjoying the status quo (as humans tend to do) and I don't exactly want to start doing all of this renaming just because Americans are upset at it. Or maybe I'm just a massive BDSM fan.
>Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.
Killing also has a negative connotation but I don't really feel like I need to spare my processes from this cruel, unpleasant and inaccurate word.
Less time than not changing it.
Master/slave terminology is absolutely accurate here and changing it will have an impact on my life.
Unrelated: Do you think black people are the only people who have suffered in slavery?
Presumably you'll now update your position based on my personal anecdote? [Or is that not how it works]
I'm Polish. My great-grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp, as a slave. Would you care to be offended on my behalf too? Or will you tell me that I am no longer allowed to use words with multiple meanings in case I might offend myself?
It would never, ever cross my mind there is any relationship between my colleague being black and the terminology used in the system. Moreover, I think it would be racist to even suggest so.
So, you are the only one allowed to have feelings about this?
So his opinion does not matter? Only yours does?
I was not only taught these words in the context of colonialism, because that‘s not only where they belong. Societies based on slavery were common in the ancient world, including Greece.
All of this changing of vocabulary is not going to help anyone. But it will happen regardless, I‘m okay with watching this phenomenon play out over the next 30 years or so. Eventually society will figure out that this has done nothing to fix social injustices.
There's an asymmetry here. Whether we recognize it or not, we're in a world where one side has all the institutionalized power, the extra advantages baked into the system. The way I've heard it expressed is "The ultimate privilege is not realizing you have a privilege." I know it can be an uncomfortable topic, but it's been said that that's what perpetuates the system: all the sincere denials, the honest statements of "I just don't see it. I've never experienced it, and I've never really seen it happening myself..."
It ends up inadvertently invalidating anyone who attempts to challenge in even simple ways a few of the basic baked-in issues.
I'm not sure how this conversation could've played out in a way that was better. But I do think there's a dynamic at work here that makes it not as simple as it seems...
The claim that there is „one side“ with all the advantages is a distraction as well. There are many imbalances and injustices. They are not between two sides. Things that come to my mind are, for example:
* Was your family rich?
* Was your family educated?
* Gender
* Skin color
* Family ties in the place you live
* Accents/Habitus
* Social strata
* Political power
This is a very basic listing. All of this may or may not have an influence. The fact that the current debate is more shallow than even that says a lot.
Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism. That's why the terminology we use matters. There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."
>There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."
I thought that the recent US protests were exactly because there's a racial dynamic when it comes to killings?
For example, Mediterranean people were for a long time regularly kidnapped by Arab raiders from the south. Vikings kidnapped people from the British isles. Etc.
A bold claim without anything to back it up.
I can do that too, but it doesn’t make it fact.
Yes, this is why there are so few Asian and white men employed in technology...????
Terminology matters. Slavery was only a couple generations ago. The people marching in the street and the comments in this thread make it quite clear we still have a long way to go. This is a small step along that path in the right direction.
This is objectively, demonstrably wrong. It’s ahistorical.
Unless of course, your view is so myopic and US-centric that you’re blind to any slavery outside of the one specific example you’re obviously referring to. All the while posturing your empathy for others.
Just because it happens in a country you don't care about, doesn't mean that it no longer happens.
These debates can be broken down into two smaller, more focused ones:
1) Where does a specific word, e.g. "master", or "kill", exist on this linear spectrum of offensiveness?
2) What should be the cut-off point where we actively work towards replacing terminology?
As for question number one, I feel like I'm in no position to join the conversation, as I'm not part of an oppressed class. The only thing I can do is defer to the judgement of those who feel harmed, and I have no ground for arguing with this understanding of theirs.
As for the second question, I'm inclined to set the bar fairly low. This is because the cost associated with replacing terminology is miniscule in the long run. In fact, I believe an order of magnitude more human effort has been spent on debating terminology updates, than spent on adapting to updates that have happened, such as the one in Python documentation.
1. Whose opinions count on the issue? Just Christians? All women?
2. Do we take them any less seriously if the motivation seems vaguely political?
I really do understand setting the bar low when everybody is arguing in good-faith. But on anything political, I think it's pretty much a stalemate and we have to recognize there's almost no overlap.
It's very obnoxious when as a real world person with a real world request, I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."
I am descended in part from African slaves. I work in tech. I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society. All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS, and that also makes me sure that the diversity issues in tech are not just a pipeline issue, it's an issue of this work environment not being welcoming to people with different backgrounds. All of these issues are additive - few people want to enter a pipeline for hostile working environment in the end, and those that did have to endure constant bullshit in order to be retained.
Efforts to use more inclusive language aren't going to fix nearly any of the big problems, but it is very, very nice to see /any/ effort here, given the history of none at all. Seeing the effort makes these space more bearable, and in my estimation that justifies the very, very minimal cost of committing to trying to use inclusive language going forward (as a software engineer I'm not keen on renames for renames sake, but we're not talking about renames anywhere - we're talking about preferring inclusive names for new things). Likewise it's disheartening to see how many white folks want to proclaim that there are no diversity and inclusion issues in tech.
I'd be quite content to concede renaming master/slave in the linux kernel if that was the end of it. I think what I want to fight against most is the amount of distraction/canceling/fear involved in ever-changing semantic rules. The reason people like me get very hesitant to concede any ground is for fear it would empower even more fear of job security at work (over constantly changing correctness rules).
So you can understand where I'm coming from:
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and if some places do it, then all places will feel pressure to do it, and be called out on twitter if they don't, and create a huge amount of distraction from actually building good products for the customer
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that more words might be included (class, caste, abort, kill, black, white, race, male port, female port, dongle)
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that these words in other contexts won't be allowed (mastery, pop culture Britney Spear's Slave4U song, BDSM, Master's ranks in videogames)
(I've seen this in my own lifetime with the word "retard," which used to be the most correct medical term for certain mental deficiencies, and due to a constantly shifting correctness window is now basically worse than "Fuck.")
Now traditionally "slippery slope" is sometimes considered a philosophical fallacy. But perhaps you can say, if the momentum kept going would you be against it? Because if that train didn't stop, I think all the consequences I listed would be much too high a price to pay.
So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
If there are others who are suffering who want to advocate for ways to improve our language to reduce the unintended harm it has, they're of course welcome to.
Also c'mon this slippery slope argument sounds like this to me: "Where does it stop? Will people object to every word and I'll be forced to express myself just through grunts? What if they then come for my grunts? Therefore I should continue to call things whatever I want because slippery slope."
Where does it stop? It stops when people stop pushing.
If you want to help american black people prosper you're looking too far back in the past.
> So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
Why reparations based on race? Why not just help the poor and downtrodden regardless of race?
You're promoting race-conciousness. You know where that ends? White conciousness and white nationalism. If you (not "you" as in dannyphg) lump people together as a group and attacks them and says they need to give you stuff, those people will start banding together and fighting back. I cannot emphasize enough how much race wars fucking suck. Even the ones just fought with votes and preferential treatment for your own tribe suck.
Definitely not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is every time we take a safe word and make it a "bad" word we sweep up a lot of people along the way, most of whom in my experience aren't really bad people, they're usually just stubborn, caught unawares, a standup comedian, or taken out of context.
Maybe these language changes should have a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice.
I think my other question isn't just where it stops, but when it stops. Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever? Because if the answer is "no" then I'm probably not able to side with this change-the-language movement as a good use of our limited political energy.
The current narrative is that tech industry inherited the dominant white supremacist culture. (To be specific, "master/slave" entered as a tech term in the 1950s there was wide support by whites for the existing laws enforcing white supremacy)
As such, the term was "safe" because those who used it - white people in tech - were also nearly always those people who gain from the underlying dynamics of white supremacy.
Another narrative comes from "Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature" by Ron Eglash" available from https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 :
> ... being unconscious of social mores was a good sign for a future physicist, because physics transcends culture. Perhaps this kind of emphasis on a technical identity is at work here, too, and the master-slave metaphor is attractive to engineers because its free use “proves” that they inhabit a nonsocial or culture-free realm, which is a matter of professional pride
There are other certainly other narratives, which is why I'm asking why you think it was a safe word, even when others do not, and have not for years.
Note that Eglash's paper quotes a Black researcher who had problems with that term back in 1992.
To re-ask your earlier question, whose opinions count on the issue of why a term is "safe"?
You mentioned "a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice".
The "notifications" started well more than 5 years ago. Even here on HN, Django changed 6 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7801646 .
Drupal changed its terminology 12 years ago, which lead to discussion 6.5 years ago here at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6826918 .
The earliest discussion on the topic was 11 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466188 .
When would you consider that proper notice has been sent?
Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.
Why use your limited political energy to, e.g., construct hypotheticals against language change when language always changes?
This has connections with the right of a particular group of people to decide how their group gets named. Wikipedia indicates that "black" was once considered the offensive term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro#United_States . However, most black people today prefer either the term black, or for some Americans, African-American.
This is similar to the issue of whether it's ok to use master/slave to relationships between people, but not whether the usage in tech relates to people or is unacceptable because it parallels historical relationships with groups that in the United States were seperated by race
Once upon a time it was "safe" to use a number of terms which are no longer safe. I pointed out that some of reasons to oppose the change used similar arguments to what zug_zug used.
You are right - "Negro" is an example of a label that a group decides for itself, and not a good example to bring up. So I'll use two other examples.
Consider "boy". This was a form of infantilization used to remind adult black men that the were junior citizens at best. Civil rights protestors in the 1960s wore signs "I am a man", in opposition to this racist label. But before then, it was safe to call black men a "boy" because if the man were to oppose that use, he would risk being physically attacked and losing his job.
Going back a few decades, white passengers called all black porters "George", after George Pullman - a racial slur that was one of the reasons which lead the porters to unionize. But early on, it was "safe" to call your porter George.
In both cases, I don't doubt there were people who argued against the language change by asking "Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever?" Which leads me to conclude that isn't a strong argument.
(See https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/understanding-why-you... for a further treatment of both examples.)
zug_zug suggested that it was once "safe" to use the term "master/slave". With those examples in mind, what does "safe" mean? Was it that those bothered or affected by the term have had little power to change things or even speak out until now?
zug_zug elsewhere posed a hypothetical question asking who gets to decide if something is offensive. I turned it around to ask who gets to decide if something is "safe."
Regarding your last paragraph, it also parallels historical relationships with groups elsewhere, as the current discussion of removing statues of South American "heroes" who were also slavers and leaders of genocide shows. South Americans whose ancestors were routinely oppressed via slave culture and white (or white-er) supremacy have little voice in this discussion, but shouldn't be forgotten.
Can't we devise a general set of principles on which we can base decisions to remove words and metaphors from our professions and culture? "Let's deal with it then" sounds like it leads more to reflexive responses to loud voices (for or against) instead of thoughtful, collective, consideration. If principles can be agreed upon in the abstract, without the emotional baggage of specific words for any side, they can be applied and even if one don't like a specific outcome, one can recognize that it's fair.
I'm totally on board with discarding the "master/slave" metaphors in tech, they bring up unwelcome reminders of something much more serious an terrible, especially for people because of the ancestry and/or because of feelings about their role within modern systems.
I have more of a problem with removal of the word "master" on its own; "master" has many different meanings and uses unrelated to American slavery or other systems of oppression.
My biggest problem is with claiming removing "blacklist/whitelist" is an act against systemic racism. "Blacklist" is not a racial term and "whitelist" was only an obvious choice for the opposite of "blacklist" when one was needed. Black and white dualism [0], associating black with bad and white with good, long predates any use of those terms towards groups of people and continues to do so today. It's unfortunate that these particular words are so overloaded; it would be better if "white" and "black" were no longer used to refer to people but there's little interest in that and I know of no good alternatives.
Have you considered whether you might just be sensitive and these micro-aggressions might just be the normal give and take of working in an office environment? With nothing racial about them?
> All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS
I would be very surprised if you find a less racist job than in the tech industry. Big tech caters way more for minorities than most of the other industries.
This topic has appeared many times on HN. At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763739 I quote and link to several earlier real-world examples.
I think those examples show that the spectrum is NOT "offensiveness of words". I see it as one of workplace hostility, quite in line with existing civil rights laws, and within a reasonable existing legal framework. As such, I don't think your #1 or #2 have much bearing at all.
Here's a real-world event from May 2003, at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/ :
> a black employee of the county’s Probation Department filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance after spotting “master” and “slave” labels on a videotape machine, whereupon the Internal Services Department was obligated to issue notification requesting that vendors refrain from using the master/slave terminology.
To answer your #1, as an affirmative action topic, the opinion which counts is the relevant court which judges violations of civil rights laws or, in the L.A. case, the opinion of the administrative department overseeing civil rights enforcement.
Your hypothetical isn't structured as an affirmative action issue. Presumably the 5 people feel its insensitive because they are against abortion. In the US, most Christians, most women, and most men support abortion rights, so it's tough to see how being a Christian or woman is at all relevant as the protected class.
It's certainly possible to refine your hypothetical, but I still don't see how it would ever fit under civil rights laws anywhere near as well as "master/slave" does.
FWIW, if you are working for a small evangelical Christian anti-abortion organization, and you use "abort" as the name of the method to cancel a meeting, then yes, you should change it. There are better names for the metaphor you are trying to describe, and generally the only answer to "whose opinions count" is "the ones who can fire you", or more broadly, negatively affect your job.
Their opinions in turn are often based on sales and PR. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of white supremacy, colonialism, and tragic horror, then go ahead. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of women's rights, then go ahead. If no one cares, then they won't do anything.
There's been over a decade of raising awareness of issues with "master/slave" terminology, and many people now care. That hasn't existed with "abort". Given the number of groups actively removing the "master/slave" term, I don't see how you can call it a "stalemate" - the abolitionists are winning yet again. And rightly so.
Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.
Just use what's customary and get on with your life. If it's hurting you to see it then get therapy, you've lost proper perspective.
In other words: if anyone says that something is to be renamed, do as they say. If you think it's nonsense or a waste of time, you're just not recognizing it as important, and they are.
In all honesty, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it, and I'm Native Mexican, “
So let me get this right. Your Mexican views count but his white views don’t matter? Ok..
How about don’t discount someone’s view just because they are or aren’t a certain skin color.
I think that's pretty much the gist of everything these days.
I don't think you get to tell other people what they get to feel.
I encourage working on your empathy here. Who gets to decide "what's polite"? What if people disagree? Who gets to decide whose opinion counts?
???
>>> Just do the right thing, is it worth the arguing?
So I think your argument is very all/nothing. There's a whole spectrum of "this thing offends 1 person" -> "this thing offends 100% of people", and we do have to draw a line (is it 20%? 50%?) and not simply label things "offensive."
It's all especially confusing when some people are offended on "behalf" of others. I think oversimplifying this issue is wrong and making this very discussion "unsafe" is also wrong.
We're talking about words vs. words here. Nobody is enslaving anyone, which would be the equivalent to your utterly horrible analogy here.
You're dead wrong. So you DO incorrectly believe that slavery is over and done with.
I already presented you plenty of proof. Can you prove otherwise?
Just like if I said "words vs. words here. Nobody is raping anyone." in the context of a terrible standup routine. I'm not talking about every action in the whole world.
I'm with you, 100%.
Most white people think the slavery/genocide of america's past is just that - it's in the past. So, when they hear people pushing on verbiage associated with it today, they think "oh, that person is dredging up ancient history, why don't they get over it?"
I (and many others) would argue the legacy of that genocide and slavery is _alive and well_ and shapes our lives today, daily. [0][1]
If one could reasonably complain about master/slave language in the south in the 1850s, they're reasonable to complain about that language today.
Anyway, I think this work of getting rid of language rooted in violence and white supremacy is _very_ worth doing. It's just renaming branches, no one is asking someone to do anything more than press buttons on their keyboard.
Certainly, not everyone has to, but I hope some companies do this work, they're thoughtful and intentional about their language, and then they deliver better products and services by virtue of having healthier culture than their competition, and grow wealthy. Wealthier than the companies who think this work is not worth doing.
I'd never force someone else to rename branches, but I've renamed all of my branches I can control!
I emailed Github Support to see if I could get away from using `master` on Github Pages on my personal site, and they said they are working on it, but this isn't available yet.
Even this comment feels risky. It's attached to my name. I'm honestly a little intimidated to leave it, but it feels like a cop-out if I set up an anonymous account to say "I agree!"
[0] https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-police/id15...
The same is happening pretty much everywhere in society, where everything becomes contextual and should be adapted to the personal sensitivities of individuals. Which is fine for everything that's fashionable.
But code isn't (just) litterature or art or fashion. The first and foremost concern of code is to convey a precise meaning so that reader (and compilers) understand it correctly.
How do you know it is going to stop to slavery ? How about every single people in the world start getting offended by words in code because it may remind them of something painful in their history, or just doesn't suit their culture / religion / whatever ?
Will you have to create different branch of the linux kernel depending on where the code is going to be cloned ? Where is this going ?
PS: i appreciate greatly that you say you wouldn't force anyone to change their wording, and only change it for yourself. I believe that's the right thing to do. But i feel you greatly underestimate the long-term consequences of supporting for "inclusive terminology"
That might be true! I suspect and hope that I'm not, but only time will tell.
> i appreciate greatly that you say you wouldn't force anyone to change their wording, and only change it for yourself. I believe that's the right thing to do. But i feel you greatly underestimate the long-term consequences of supporting for "inclusive terminology"
Yeah! As soon as someone says "here's a good thing I'm trying to do AND YOU ALL HAVE TO DO THE SAME OR BE SHAMED" they kinda lose my respect.
I can update branches on my personal stuff with zero consequence in 30 seconds. Easy.
Complicated CircleCI/deploy environments where branch names are hardcoded in a dozen different places, and the app is on fire already, and no one has time, and the manager is trying to hire new developers while keeping the senior devs happy?
I'm not gonna throw shade on them at all.
That all said, I would _love_ to talk about this more, if you're feeling inclined at all. I tried to dig up an email address for you, and couldn't find it. If you'd be willing to swap some emails on the topic, i'd be thrilled! Hit me up at [email protected]!
this is precious, because it saves a lot of explanation time and ambiguities.
Once again i wouldn't mind using a different term if it made things even clearer for a given case. But only for this reason, and not for PC.
Why do you believe that it's just white people opposing this? (I'm not white.)
Why do you believe it's just American's opposing this? Alternatively, are non-Americans permitted to continue using these terms?
> "I'm honestly a little intimidated to leave it, but it feels like a cop-out if I set up an anonymous account to say "I agree!""
It's so de rigeur these days that you shouldn't feel bad about that. There are bad actors on all sides waiting to pounce on anything that anyone says.
While the policy should happen whether or not he supports it. I think it does matter how he feels though. He should feel that these words shouldn't be used in this context. Because, we're not going to solve non-whites being second class if a white people can't see the pain cause by the use of the terms. There are so many bigger problems that should be easier to see and acknowledge that seem to just be over looked, because we don't see the pain.
I am with you SambalOelek. I may not understand everything you and your ancestors have gone through so forgive me when I'm ignorant and tell me about it. That said I don't want you or random people like you to have to do all the work, so I'm reading. https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/black-lives-matter
This change barely moves the needle on Black representation in tech, but I think it does, however little. Improving Black representation in tech /barely/ moves the needle on racism, but I too think it does, however little (these are good jobs and I know it's helped me and my family close some of the racial wealth gap).
And just to be clear: It‘s fine to use primary and replica. There‘s no problem with the decision itself. The problem is the idea that caused this change and the people in this thread who just stop short of calling someone a racist, because he would reject the idea that the terminology was racist in the first place.
edit: I‘ve not seen such fluctuating votes in a long time if ever than in this thread.That shows how divisive this topic is. So I‘ll call it a day. As I said elsewhere, I can wait 30 years or maybe 50 and see how things played out. But one thing is for sure, these ideas (that is: the current approach) will eventually disappear by themselves without leaving even a trace.
So yes, it's harmful.
My point about "it doesn't matter how you feel" is inspired by comments like "political correctness culture is out of control".
So many times, people are concerned by their personal freedom and not their responsibility to humanity.
Being asked not to use a word is not severely limiting your world. The trauma of limiting your vocabulary is not comparable to the ideas they evoke.
This is the future ladies and gentlemen.
Let’s take a look at real racism, and police brutality.
I’d say you are pretty privileged if your biggest worry is people using White list and black list in the Linux kernel.
If it brings just one more person into OS isn't it worth it?
Many people's reading comprehension in this thread suits the arguments they want to make, setting up straw man arguments seemingly without realizing it.
Hardly charitable. Do you think everyone who has a different view from you total scum of the earth?
Maybe they came to a totally rational conclusion, using a completely different set of axioms than you would, that this change is worth it?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/silicon-valley-...
>Meet Silicon Valley’s Secretive Alt-Right Followers. I investigated the role of “alt-techies” in the extremist movement emboldened by Trump.
>“The average alt-right-ist is probably a 28-year-old tech-savvy guy working in IT,” white nationalist Richard Spencer insisted when I interviewed him a few weeks before the election.
What?! Why?
How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing? Or is it just that anything bad or exclusionary happening to your political enemies is a good thing?
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...
>Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
>The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
>Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
>Public or private harassment
>Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
>Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
White Supremacy is clearly inappropriate in a professional setting. Or do you disagree? Do you have a dog in this battle? Can you name any White Supremacist kernel hackers who the community can't get along without?
You really need to take a deep look at yourself, and decide which side of history you're on. Advocating and defending White Supremacy online could and should have detrimental effect on your employability. Do you stand by your beliefs enough to share your real name with us, or do you insist on remaining anonymous?
You're the one arguing for tolerating White Supremacists, in direct violation of the Linux Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.
Do you really object to black people and other minorities working on the Linux kernel?
Well I got in trouble at work for defending pedophiles, so no, it's not just white supremacists I defend. It's everyone, including Muslims, fundamentalist YEC Christians, racists, trans people and the very woke. I mostly defend them by encouraging no politics where it isn't topical, but have also spoken up plenty of times.
This is all horrifically off topic though...
You seem to have a lot of preconceived false notions that you project onto other people, and you're spending a lot more energy attacking people than defending them. I'm sure you co-workers and managers really cherish your argumentation techniques. If you get fired, Tucker Carlson is looking for a head writer.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-addresses-raci...
I'm sure you can find some other forum more appropriate for defending White Supremacy, like the ones Tucker Carlson's previous head writer hangs out on -- why don't you take it there instead of here, edgelord?
Having read this and a number of your other replies I'm now reasonably sure you're confusing me with someone else.
Would you object to me sending you an email so we can get on the same page and we can talk without replies being scattered about the place?
You don't really believe driving out the alt-right white supremacists would result in a smaller overall community, do you? They're a small group that has an outsized ability to repel other people.
"It's about marginalized people." Nope, it's about owning the right. Any supposed benefit for marginalized people is an afterthought.
Tell me please, what are my secretly held preconceptions exactly, and how do you know that?
By writing double quotes around the sentence "It's about marginalized people." you are clearly claiming that I said that, which I absolutely did not. When and where do you claim that I say that?
Why are you deceptively trying to attribute a quote to me that I didn't say?
Do you have no better argument than blatantly misquoting me to make a straw man to attack?
In the first sentence, I was talking about my preconceptions, not yours. The fundamental premise of changing 'master' to 'main', as I understand it, is that this supposed to make Linux "more inclusive" by preventing black people from being exposed to a term that has slavery connotations. However, I hold the preconception that the actual point is that certain people in the "left-progressive-online/idpol" cluster want to feel good by exercising power to make other people do things that will, as an added benefit, piss off the right (basically the left equivalent of "own the libs") which is not as beneficial a purpose as making Linux more inclusive for minorities. Then your comment, being a plain description of the latter sentiment, confirmed this preconception outright, which amused me. The quote wasn't meant to be attributed to you but rather the general claimed motivation for this change and changes like it.
I said your message was deceptive. Do you agree with me that your message was deceptive?
And are you going to tell me what my secretly held beliefs are, and how you know, like I asked you to?
Why do you feel the need to deceive, by quoting me saying something I clearly did not say, and claiming to know what my secretly held beliefs are? Are straw man arguments and deception and putting words I didn't say into my mouth and beliefs I don't hold into my mind the best you have?
If fighting against racism pisses off the right, then so be it. That just means they're racist, and they deserve to be pissed off. How about coming up with a political ideology you're not ashamed to put your real name next to, anonymous coward?
It's a really, really false equivalence.
If you're offended by being asked to behave civilly you really have a bigger problem to deal with.
We should define "offensive language." How will we measure it fairly? Will we poll the english-speaking and set a thresh-hold?
Because I sure hope we don't find out "aborting" a process is offensive language to religious coders with a polical agenda.
If someone brings up that they feel the verb abort is an issue, the community can have that conversation. There are no shortage of idioms that are synonymic -- halt, stop, terminate, end -- and it would be trivial to make the changes if it came to that. Either the decision will be to replace with another idiom, or to keep the existing one.
If Linux had never used master/slave, and instead used primary/secondary, no one would open up a discussion to say "replace primary with master, primary is unclear and too much work to type" or whatever. So clearly there's no obligation to use the disputed terms, just as there wouldn't be for "abort". Are you hung up on using "abort"?
Like, we don't need some cosmic answer once and for all about whether or not ever possible term will ever be offensive. We can just respond to people who bring the issues up. If they seem to be bringing it up in bad faith (for example, if the username is "DefendTheWestGroyper" and they have an anime avatar, probably you don't need to take them seriously) then that can be part of the conversation too.
If this is the worst bikeshedding you're experiencing in a team project then you've got an uncommonly productive group. But also you can just opt out of the conversation. If you try to submit a PR later with a banned word in it, someone will flag it. The consequences on the code side seem de minimis.
I'd much rather have a civil discussion about substantive changes we can make to society as whole, not wasting everyone's time with trivial and performative conformance.
I wonder how much of this is occurring in tech companies because of the same phenomenon - people are just probably don't want to risk their jobs over something so unimportant.
As always, paycheck comes in, jira ticket gets dragged from left to right. Whatever.