We are eliminating gender from our colloquial terms for the same reason. Serviceperson instead of serviceman; mail carrier instead of mailman, police officer instead of policeman. This is the same thing- just eliminating a term which injuries a different minority along a different identity axis.

I think they mean that if a black person types in `git checkout master` they are inflicting microaggression against themselves... I personally think this is mental gymnastics on par with homeopathy[1].

On the other hand, I guess the "habit" thing might hold _some_ credibility, but it's not probably not going to be as effective as they think. They say it roughly takes 40 days to make a habit, so in the most optimistically woke scenario, this person will be hyper aware about the branch name for about 40 days, after that they'll stop noticing it[2].

[1]: I can also never tell if these people are trolling or genuine.

[2]: I'm not really an expert on habits, so maybe my analysis makes no sense.

Imagine that your great-great grandparents were enslaved. Your grandparents weren't allowed to go to white schools. Your dad was harrassed by the cops as a young man in the deep south. You worry that your colleagues may think you wouldn't have been seriously considered for this job if you weren't an underrepresented minority.

During onboarding you learn "git checkout master". You type those words everyday for six months, never thinking twice. Your confidence has grown over those months and you begin to feel like you belong here. But there's one coworker, Brad, who just doesn't seem to like you. Or maybe that's just his personality. But Brad just never seems to have anything nice to say. His code reviews are abrasive, though they don't rise to the level of bullying. Maybe that's just how he is.

This morning Brad picked apart a commit you were particularly proud of. Code you thought was rather clever, he tore into as overcomplicated and premature optimization. Okay, fine maybe he was right, but he didn't have to be rude about it. You feel like maybe Brad just doesn't like you. What did you ever do to him? Is it because you're black? No, you don't have any real evidence for that. "But...maybe?" a small voice whispers in the back of your mind. Unfortunately you can't look to how other black developers are treated by Brad. There aren't any.

You get some fresh air to clear your mind before sitting at your desk to make those changes Brad suggested. "git checkout master". Typing those words, you notice for the first time that "master" is a word with other connotations. Really, they had to choose that word? I mean, it would be a silly thing to complain about aloud.

Nevertheless, for months, every time you type that word part of you thinks "Really?" It doesn't upset you, exactly, but it reinforces a sense that this workplace is--hostile is too strong of a word--but not welcoming to black people. Maliciously indifferent. The kind of indifference that sees an enormous racial disparity and shrugs.

It's called a micro-aggression for a reason. It's a small thing. But small things add up. And it's an easy fix, so why not?

Micro aggression is not about the size of the action, it's about the scale (on how many people it is applied).

I'm not black, but i worked with Brad before. Years later, I realize Brad was largely right, although a bit of a dickhead with an attitude, but I learned not to be emotionally attached to my code and not think everyone has a beef with me.

We are teaching people how to be a bunch of cry babies with all this microaggression nonsense and safe spaces. People need to have a thicker skin, not everyone who disagrees with you or doesn't treat you right has something against you, they sure as hell have reasons for it, not an excuse, but reasons.

Checkout Ego Is The Enemy, a light/easy read book, but it introduces you to what I'm saying a little deeper.

Of course, everyone has minor workplace tension and conflict at times, and working through those things is just part of the job. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to make people feel welcome and at ease.

The concern is that, by promoting the mindset that these terminological disputes are real aggressions, we're making people feel less welcome even as we take more concrete action. We're building a culture that encourages people to assume they're unwelcome until proven otherwise, never trust or take at face value their coworkers' stated commitments to inclusivity, always assume the worst rather than give the benefit of the doubt.

Hypothetical offenses do not add up, because they are insubstantial. That is why not.

Yeah, sure. So when I argue with Brad and he doesn't like my commit, it's because I'm ... no, not black, no, not gay, not even a woman, even if my ancestors were enslaved (quite possibly) I don't know it for sure. Hell, why can't I find an easy explanation? Have to live with the white guy privilege. Of course I will never assume I'm a jerk (or maybe he is), or simply the code is not so great. So every time he tells me to type git (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/git) I feel his aggression. Maybe it's time to grow up?

>Imagine that your great-great grandparents were enslaved.

I am going to go out on a limb and say 99% of people have had their ancestors enslaved. Is having an ancestor enslaved 150 years ago different than somebody who had their ancestors enslaved 200 or 300 years ago? If you, your parents, quite possibly even your grand parents never even met the slave in your family then it is irrelevant.

My ancestors may have been slaves 1,000 years ago. Even serfdom in Europe began to fizzle out 500 years ago. My ancestors were never enslaved in the US, under the US Constitution, under a US Congress, US President, and US judicial system. If your grandfather can tell you stories about his grandfather who was once enslaved, I think that matters. I think our understanding of where we come from matters.

Many white people were literal slaves around the same time (in the 1800s and before). Look into the Barbary slave trade. Over 1 million white people were held as slaves in Africa. Even some Americans were held as slaves in the Barbary Coast.

I guess I don't think where our ancestors came from is very important. I only know where my ancestors lived about 200 years ago and it is just general areas not any specifics. I don't know anything more than that. This is quite possibly about the same amount of years as many blacks whose ancestors came over during the slave trade.

The last African American former slave died in 1972. This isn't ancient history for some people. Given that, I think yes, it is very different if someone deep in your family tree was enslaved versus your parents or grandparents.

I mean, the mere fact that you can trace your lineage back that far is indicative of the difference. Many people find their identity through their culture, and often times that perspective is gained by tracing their origins back generations. The foods you eat, the customs you share with your family, even your name.

Some people can trace their lineage back through dozens of generations. Other people can't see past a few levels up the family tree because their history was destroyed by a more recent slaver society. For some people, the traditions in their family are the traditions of their enslaved ancestors. The songs they sing were sung on the fields their ancestors were forced to work. The names in their family are the names forced upon them by their oppressors. Their family cook book contains recipes their enslaved ancestors used to make the scraps they were thrown palatable. Theirs is not an organic culture, but one that formed out of necessity due to the conditions forced on them by slavers (relatively) recently. So yes, I think it does matter that even if a person has never met a slave themselves, they can still feel the reverberations of slavery quite strongly.

I think your stats are quite suspect (in fact, made up, as you pretty much mention) and no, it's not at all irrelevant. I know my family history back to the 1600s; these folks were poor as dirt and indebted at times but they were not enslaved. (Some were part of this European 'crofting' system but that is not the same as slavery.)

More importantly, I can ask around in my family and find out family health history, how long people lived; I know where they came from and can find relatives. My African-American friends cannot all do the same. For some, their known family history only goes back to the last slave sale. They don't know where their ancestors came from in Africa. They have limited knowledge of family health history, compared to what I know. I know the language my great-great-great grandparents spoke; they don't. I can do research on historical foods from my area; they can't. With the advent of modern genetics, some can figure out some of that (look, maybe I'm Igbo, let me go to Wikipedia and look that up....) but it's quite different than being able to ask your aunt to set you up on a tour of where your ancestors lived in the 1700s and her being able to just look on her desk for those files.

Many white people were literal slaves around the same time (in the 1800s and before). Look into the Barbary slave trade. Over 1 million white people were held as slaves in Africa. Even some Americans were held as slaves in the Barbary Coast.

“Sufferings in Africa” is a fascinating memoir of some white sailors shipwrecked and enslaved in Africa. The book inspired many white leaders in the US to empathize with the abolition movement.

>Imagine that your great-great grandparents were enslaved. Your grandparents weren't allowed to go to white schools. Your dad was harrassed by the cops as a young man in the deep south. You worry that your colleagues may think you wouldn't have been seriously considered for this job if you weren't an underrepresented minority.

My country was destroyed by Nazis, milions of my country citizens died cuz of it and it was less than century ago.

I'm working fine with german companies / people just fine as I'd work with other country based companies, no bias.

Time to move on.

Will you be equally fine, if the company talks about building 'Economic Reich'. Or if people on probation are sent to 'concentration camp' for a week long training.

You mean if they used "concentration camp"? then I'd laugh off my ass just like I did now because of how ridiculous it sounds

I guess other people could be pissed off, but I think "concentration camp" is nowhere even close to "master"

maybe "camp"/"bootcamp" is close to "master", but then I don't think people would be annoyed over it.

"We're sending people to a week long bootcamp", just pretty normal and neutral statement.

equivalent of "concentration camp" would be "we'd want you to work as our slave" in job description sent to black person.

Not the parent, but your characterization of the stated perspective reveals quite well that you aren’t taking it seriously! This is a complex issue, so let’s treat it that way.

The micro-aggression, as I understand it, is having to ask yourself whether the term ‘master’ _did_ originate from slavery (in the context of git, IIRC it didn’t, but master-slave replication is the stronger example). The context and plan fact is that programming, as a broad culture, to date, _has_ been excluding Black people and others. So it is not hard to imagine some folks desiring to make a symbolic change to make the culture more inclusive.

I understand your intentions are noble, but we kinda go back to one of the points the author of the post was making: Has anybody bothered to asked black developers if the terminology alienates them, or makes them feel uncomfortable?

I don't believe it was the technical terminology that caused unwelcoming conditions, but the people in the industry.

Black people (or developers, for that matter) are not a monolith, obviously. So me providing one example (https://dev.to/afrodevgirl/replacing-master-with-main-in-git...) only goes to show that it is a concern among some in the community.

And, of course technical terminology _alone_ is not the issue! Totally agree that there is more to be done. I just find it amusing that there is so much pushback on this particular aspect (the naming of the branch). Clearly it is a concern, and it is on the whole a small thing to change. Larger systemic change is of course more ideal, but sometimes the battle starts at the symbolic level and expands from there.

So before I answer, I'm aware that there's a bit of "cognitive dissonance" going on in my head about this topic. One one hand I fully agree with you, but on the other it feels like it's deflecting/trivialising the issue and creates a false sense of accomplishment that will delay the necessary change.

> I just find it amusing that there is so much pushback on this particular aspect

I think push back comes not from attachment to "master" but from the emotions the virtue-signalling crowd causes in people who desire real change. The virtue-signallers are like the kid on a school project who did virtually nothing, and then tried to claimed all the credit once the project was done. It's a bit "hashtag-contribution," but ironically. It awakes a sense of righteousness in people (whether it's misguided or not is another topic) that think this is stupid, useless, and some probably think it's harmful because it pacifies a large group of people with thinking change happened, when it didn't. It's a bit like seeing a broken website, then changing the button colour and calling the website fixed and being done with it.

However, it's like you said, people aren't monoliths. Various people have trigger words. Some people get triggered by "moist," someone in another comment mentioned Jews have the right to be offended by the word "concentration" or the word "camp" (yes, even if it's out of context; master in the case of git is also very out of context to slavery).

I don't think changing the world for the sake of individuals is possible/scalable, but what we should do is try and accommodate them. I'm all for making people included and accommodating them, to a degree in which it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable in; I want to be given the same courtesy.

It feels like Alex from the blog post waited for the world to change, instead of being the change he wants to see. Waiting for the world to change is futile, you can only influence your environment to a degree, and if that doesn't work look for a better one that suits you better. I don't know if Alex did that or not, but it reads as if he was passive until now. I guess better late than never.

> Larger systemic change is of course more ideal, but sometimes the battle starts at the symbolic level and expands from there.

I fully agree with you on this, which is where my cognitive dissonance kicks in. I guess part of the reason is that, even though I agree symbolic changes are good, I don't feel that this was even symbolic enough. A better symbolic change in my mind would be for Github to announce a paid apprenticeship program for people without a STEM/CS background, and try to also somehow cover more black communities. I don't know how this would be executed[1], or if it even can be executed, so maybe it's not a well thought-out idea.

[1]: Maybe engage/market more proactively at schools/communities where the majority of the students/people are black?

Edit: This comment describes the issue more eloquently and succinctly than I could! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26492686