If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.
It's literally a bragging point at my new Co.
It's hilarious watching the amount of mental energy people waste on this.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.
I would say there is. That's where the language comes from. BUT I do not think that necessarily means that this is a callback or reference to enslaved _people_. Master/slave model accurately describes the model in a way that people can hear the terminology and understand what is happening without knowing details. It doesn't condone/promote slavery, it doesn't have anything to do with enslaving people, and in no way does it even encourage such behavior.
Context matters, a lot. And to be honest I didn't hear anyone complaining about this (and I live in an extremely liberal place), so it came off (to me) as a grab for social currency (_especially_ since GitHub didn't use the term "slave". GitHub was using "master" in the sense of "main" or "principle" and so I didn't get even understand). If you try hard enough you can make anything reference race, but at the end of the day what really matters is context and how people perceive things. If no one (or realistically few people, because there are people looking to make issues) are making these connections AND no one is being harmed, then we shouldn't really be worried about it.
Edit: wanted to make clearer that I'm talking about two different terms of the usage "master". One from master/slave model[0] and one that GitHub uses (which uses the adjective version of the word which means "main" or "principle"). And that the GitHub version does not reference the former version. I know we're talking contentious subjects here but I'm trying my best to convey what is in my head. I'm open to new opinions but bear with me. Language is complicated.
Except it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery at all. The master branch is akin to the master record, that holds the true and complete copy. A master branch evokes mastery of a subject, like a Masters degree.
Except now, everyone just submits to the idea that the word master only has context in master/slave terminology.
> A master branch evokes mastery of a subject, like a Masters degree.
I would actually say that that a Master degree is using a different definition (though both part of the adjective usage). For a master branch (or master document, master copy) I'd say it is the definition that is "main" or "principal". Whereas a Masters degree is having mastery over something, which is akin to high proficiency.
ah, but which people? the most reasonable and intelligent people? the traumatized and most sensitive people? The former I'd say yet, the latter I'd say go get some therapy and keep your trauma to yourself, it shouldn't drive the larger discussion.
Sure, it's organic, but there's no god-of-the-gaps in there. It is knowable. A language isn't as complex as a human brain. Nor is it living, it can be decomposed at will.
Linguists have been working like gang busters to iron it all out. Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, et al...
If someone gets up infront of a room of 1000 people and says "hey guys!", clearly intending to reference the entire audience, they're not being fucking sexist.
And if you're standing there with 5 racists showing a pepe flag or an ok sign or whatever random garbage it is this week, then you're a fucking racist.
There's absolutely no need for nuance or ambiguity in either case.
You can argue the toss all you want about how to determine whether someone is intending to do something (it's not like you can read minds so that can obviously have a ton of complexity to it), but if you're starting from a position that people can unintentionally do something offensive then everything that follows is just pointless bullshit. You've just built a trump card for both sides into the argument so they can just scream past each other like morons without contributing anything meaningful.
Communication is a multiple party activity. It's not just a speaker and a speaker's intent. The recipient and how it's received absolutely matter (and should). I've said plenty of things I didn't intend to be stupid. Still stupid.
Is it ok for the Washington football team to be the Redskins because no current fan or owner intends to be using a racist name?
It's not only the hearer getting upset that matters either. There's room for error and for grace and tact on both sides of a conversation. But it's definitely not just intent only. Humans don't work like that. Hell, even computers don't work like that.
People can be unintentionally upset. I'm sure we can all think of a time when we've accidentally upset someone. I still try not to do it.
We don't have to force people to change their language. It will happen over generations as we discuss these topics.
I disagree. Intent matters, a lot, and you're right, but it isn't the only thing. Right now I think we fall on the other side, that reception is all that matters (in the bias training I receive they specifically mention that it is 100% reception and not intent). I believe the law works on reception because that's easier to quantify. Intent is very tricky. You can do something that most people would consider wrong and just say "well I didn't mean it that way." (the inverse can happen too, but less people are likely to start a legal case out of spite compared to people defending themselves. It is tricky)
I believe that there is a middle ground somewhere. Where that is I'm not sure and I think we need to work together as a society to figure that out. I think somewhere in there there is a "reasonable" set of norms, and we have other laws to suggest that we can use this as a basis. But even this can be tricky as there are many different cultural norms and customs. It isn't even just ethnic customs. In America we have very different regional customs that often butt heads. I think we need to recognize that people are different and operate based on different values and often this is fine.
But I think a big thing we've lost in our current standing is good faith. There's three parts to any form of communication. 1) The idea that is within one's head that they are trying to convey to the other person. 2) The words, body language, inflection, etc that are used to codify this idea (aka: encoding). 3) The understanding of that language that was used to convey the idea (aka: decoding). Humans are pretty good encoders and decoders (we wouldn't have made it here where we are if we weren't) but there are limitations. Language is extremely messy and we often don't think it is because we're so used to it. But you can look at words being used today and you'll often find that people are talking past one another because they are using different definitions of the same word and actively refuse to interpret the other person's intended message (as an example, every internet conversation about capitalism/socialism/communism). The point of communication is to pass one idea from one head to another head. It requires understanding that there are these three components. If we do not act in good faith then we cannot communicate. With that knowledge it suggests there are two different actions to take if one wants to act in good faith. The communicator should try to encode their thoughts as best as they can, attempting to understand their audience (aka: speak to your audience). BUT we often forget that the listener's job is to decode, to do their best to determine the idea that the communicator is trying to convey (aka: __intent__). In fights we will say "but you said..." even knowing what was intended as a way to win. This is not in good faith but is so prevalent.
When conversations are about mic drops and one upping another person, communication cannot be had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
It's funny, this is often presented as a supporting example to limit citizens' free speech or other rights, typically paired with something along the lines of, "no freedom is limitless." Of course many people don't realize this example is a) outdated and currently false, and b) the argument used against citizens speaking out against WWI using the Espionage Act of 1917, which is considered by many to be one of the worst and oppressive laws to our rights ever written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
You may recognize the names of some of the act's victims:
Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, labor leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Defense Intelligence Agency employee Henry Kyle Frese, and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Let's use another hypothetical just for fun. Let's say I called someone a bad name and they punched me, would I bear the legal responsibility for their lack of self control? I would think not. I would think the person who threw the punch would be charged for assault and I would be charged with nothing. If that's the case, how would that be different from the fire example? Someone spoke and someone reacted with no self control. I would think the person who reacted with no self control would bear at least some responsibility.
What about yelling bomb on an airplane?
Agreed that anyone who decides to demonstrate the above is definitely going to want plenty of money and free time at their disposal.
Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that's a goddamn fucking waste of time.