Why is it clashing? There’s nothing more “rational” about one set of terms than the other.

The whole thing is a bit silly IMHO, but … meh?

If Orwell were alive he’d be worried about far more important things than what terms some of the worlds wealthiest professionals are using to describe their tools

"It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever."

What exactly is the technical reality that ties us to the terms "master" and "slave", or means that we can't change them if enough people think that's good?

You mean other than the decades of connotation lost by switching terminology and the innevitable miscommunication that will ensue?

There's nothing wrong with switching the term "red" for the term "carmine", "scarlet" or "ruby" either. They are synonymous on paper, but the latter simply doesn't evoke the same recall in people's heads.

You are welcome to run the experiment yourself. Go and ask people if they normally stop at (carmine|scarlet|ruby) traffic lights and observe the ensuing confusion at your question.

Then there is the emergent discrepancy in terminology between legacy systems and current RFCs.

I don't find this at all convincing. The terms in question here don't need to evoke connotation, they are labels in a technical system. It is very straight-forward to re-label things. Documentation can easily cover the change.

And I don't find it convincing that you don't find it convincing.

All terms evoke connotation. That's how and why language works. Which is why I proposed the social experiment for you.

Go ahead and replace the word "red" with the word "scarlet" in your day-to-day vocabulary and see if communication with other humans breaks down.

Update the documentation as necessary.

You're generalising far too much. Of course replacing "red" with "scarlet" generally would make a difference in understanding, not least because "scarlet" is more specific than "red". But that doesn't at all speak to what is going on in this RFC, which is already technical documentation and very specific. If you want to talk about connotation, the entire point here is to get rid of terms that connote horrific crimes. Maybe not to you, but clearly to enough people that this change has been made.

What, like the word leader (führer) connotes horrific crimes?

I'm not a fluent German speaker, so I don't know. But I expect not: in this context it is contrasted with "follower" rather than anything more historically evocative. The relationship between a "leader" and a "follower" generally connotes something voluntary and more-or-less mutually beneficial. I am surprised I'm having to spell this out!

Somebody quite recently said... "You are generalizing too much"

The relationship between slave and master is connotationally identical (to me, of course!) to the relationship between leader (Hitler) and follower (Nazis). Historicaly speaking those relationships had horrific social impact.

I am surprised I am having to spell this out.

I mean, we are talking about connotation here. Why are you trying to tell me how I should feel about words?

Okay, well, you clearly have an unusual interpretation. Enough people agree that leader/follower is more agreeable than master/slave, and even if you don't agree surely you can see where they are coming from. That's part of my disbelief. But you started by trying to argue some general point about using different terms causing some gulf of misunderstanding. Anyway, not much more to say here.

This is some serious cognitive dissonance to force specific language in the name of inclusion, only to them say “you have an unusual interpretation, enough people feel differently”.

“You’re being inclusive wrong!”

Sucks being in the minority, doesn't it.

First of all, check the usernames, I’m not the person you originally replied to, I’m just somebody pointing out the insanity of your comments.

Second, once again, your cognitive dissonance is showing badly. You’re applying very US-centric culture and forcing it on Europeans. This isn’t about being “in the minority”. It’s pointing out that any non-American can see right through “just how inclusive” you really are.

I'm from the UK, I just happen to agree with the RFC, as (I'm certain) would the vast majority of my peers and co-workers. I'm happy to let any readers of this thread judge my comments as they stand.

Is your schadenfreude meant to make a point, and if so what exactly?

Minorities affected by slavery matter, but minorities affected by the holocaust don’t?

...then as a lifelong leftist and champion of precision and clarity in writing, he would perhaps have applauded the choice of language which is both inclusive and technically exact?

I don’t really understand the divisiveness of changes like this at all.

I already say “allowlist” and “denylist” habitually. Whether or not that matches my sociopolitical ideology, that’s just where the industry is at this point, so I’m there too.

Everything in technology is constantly changing, and that is neither good nor bad in my view. It seems strange to be outraged by a change in vernacular when that’s amongst the easiest changes we face in industry generally. I say, save the anger for when SAP stops investing in on-prem, when Azure signing keys are compromised, when your storage vendor loses your data, or when your upstream vendor changes licenses on you, etc.

Can you explain what you mean?

Master and slave are just words, sequences of letters, the meaning is in peoples heads and may be context dependent. Never in my life have I thought of slavery when I had to deal with those words in a technical context. I mean, I get the intention, if we would coin those terms today, then we would surely pick terms without this historical burden. But now that those terms have been widely used for a long time, trying to change language in countless standards, books, code bases, peoples heads, ... that just does not seem quite reasonable.

> But now that those terms have been widely used for a long time, trying to change language in countless standards, books, code bases, peoples heads, ... that just does not seem quite reasonable

You know that there are other terms which have been widely used for a long time that we have successfully changed (most) people's minds about using? It is entirely reasonable to do.

Not only that, but there are a number of terms which are "updated" on a regular basis because they inevitably take on a derogatory connotation and must be euphemized repeatedly. I feel that this is often unreasonable political correctness.

In fact, it's a non-Inclusive practice. One effect of updating the language is that you exclude people of a certain generation. So you can identify and out and then segregate people based on the terminology they use. Are you familiar with "shibboleths"? Happens all the time.

What the IETF is doing here is creating shibboleths for the next generation of IT professionals to separate themselves from the previous generation, who may not be careful enough to update our language.

> One effect of updating the language is that you exclude people of a certain generation.

Your argument is that making language more inclusive is, in fact, exclusionary because people of certain generations are, presumably, incapable of updating their language and thus will continue to go around saying the old, exclusionary things and thus being shunned by the younger generations?

Do you not want to think about that for a bit and consider how utterly ludicrous in sounds in the face of, y'know, reality?

Excerpts from Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky:

3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy"

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

8. "Keep the pressure on."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

If we have to change people anyway, why not change them to not associate those terms with slavery in a technical context - which I think most people already do anyway - instead of making them use different words? Same result and we do not have to update any existing technical texts.

Here's how I think of it: would it be acceptable today, in 2023, to write a book or produce a film that depicts slavery, and has characters who are slave masters and slaves? I would hope it's acceptable, stipulating a sensitive depiction, because masters and slaves are part of reality, they are part of history (and they are still current and happening in our world today).

So if fictional masters and slaves are okay, then what are routers running OSPF? They're not human, and I hope nobody wants to anthropomorphize them so much that they could feel pain, or know injustice. So a router's master/slave relationship is strictly a technical fiction. Is it the best description of the relationship? Is it better than "leader/follower"? Perhaps; I know several other systems that qualify.

Does this trigger African-Americans today who never were slaves? Perhaps.

I'm just not sure of the wisdom to paper over history, to paper over reality, by saying these words are taboo because of what they represent, indeed, in a certain human context of usage.

I could argue that if we're prohibited from depicting masters and slaves in books, films, and OSPF, then people will more easily forget what it means to be a slave, and thereby be condemned to repeat the past which they do not remember. Perhaps it would be more useful to retain "master/slave" relationships among computers, so that we can demonstrate how that works to our children, and show them why it is detestable to human beings.

Extremists have taken accepted standard terminology completely out of context and interpreted it in the worst possible way, using it as a weapon to turn STEM into an environment where (often fabricated!) emotions triumph over rational thought.

One might say that this "inclusiveness" has also lead to the inclusion of idiots.

It really hurts me as an educator, because of course we need to adopt the updated wording because we are sensitive to the changing times and morals, but we also need to make sure that students are aware of the old terms so that they are not unduly confused when they get into the real world, because out there, you're going to find a lot of legacy code and legacy documentation, and most importantly, legacy people like me. At fifty years of age and never much for PC terminology, I am having difficulty adjusting my vocabulary to the "new normal" particularly some things which had come so naturally, such as pronouning people I don't know. I am just thankful that I don't work over real-time video, so I can adjust and correct my writing if I slip up.

Orwell the famously committed democratic socialist who sought to promote a more egalitarian and fairer society?

That Orwell?

I imagine he'd be writing an essay asking why this hadn't happened sooner and whether a better pairing of words than Leader/Follower could have been found.

lol, what "technical rationality?"

Most of the "technical", "rational" people in this thread are whining like triggered children and spouting hyperbolic nonsense about Orwell and Nazis.

If this terminology was more explicitly sexually tinted instead, the American right would have no problem with changing it “to protect the children.”

But because it’s associated with a legacy of systemic violence, suddenly changing it is an offense to civilization that would have Orwell turning in his grave.

You see this same bizarre logic in the new education laws in Florida. It’s bad to tell children about human sexuality. It’s fine to tell them about human violence. But it’s very bad to tell them about society’s role in violence.

Florida cases there are valid and invalid reason. I get it you think barring telling children sexuality is not correct, but to tell children to do transgender operation and convincing them, and having 3 times a week teaching them about LGBTQ+ materials aren't exactly acceptable. In Asia, just teaching children to learn english, science and math already lacking time for them to play and learn arts and music. Yet in America, they manage to even squeeze more time for LGBTQ+ race theory teaching material. And you wonder why USA cannot build iPhone and GPU. I routinely able to encounter Shanghai children able to out speak English with correct English than what I encounter on the street of Chicago.

> If this terminology was more explicitly sexually tinted instead, the American right would have no problem with changing it “to protect the children.”

If that was true wouldn't they have objected to male, female, and hermaphrodite connectors?

If some tech company introduced a product today that used words like “hermaphrodite” and “trans” to describe anything, it would soon be featured on Fox News as evidence of subversive leftist corruption.

Still sounds much better than back history changes.

You really think if entrenched terminology had potential sexual connotations, people wouldn’t make a fuss for it being changed?

You must not have met humans.

If the original terms had been “cock/pussy”, I don’t think many people would be up in arms about changing it.

And if you think that’s ridiculous because nobody would ever have named database components something so obviously offensive, that’s the whole point. Norms change. There was a time just 50-60 years ago when sexual harassment in workplaces was much more accepted than today. Similarly non-inclusive language was much more accepted a few decades ago. In both cases many men have trouble adapting and think it’s a sign of decline of society that their assumptions are being challenged.

So we're not allowed to label connectors as "male/female" anymore, because that's transphobic.

It seems like peak science denialism to me, and it's ironic that we were already, 30 years ago, using terms like "gender-changer" when discussing these connectors too.

Frankly it seems to me that most modern connectors are trans already: is USB-C male or female? Both?

> is USB-C male or female? Both?

I’m not sure what you mean. Like all of its predecessors, USB-C has both a male and female port. Your phone has the female port, your charger has the male one.

No, USB-C has one type of plug and one type of port. The port is what you're calling "female" except look closer. Look closer at both ends. You'll see that the plug has a female void in the center, and the port has a male tongue in the center to fit that void. Therefore, it is hermaphrodite on both ends.

It's basically the same with USB-A.

Hermaphroditic connectors are a thing, and it’s not what usb c is.

Wikipedia has a good article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fas...

Huh, thanks for the article: I've learned a bunch of new terms that we still can't use anymore because they refer to gender and they're transphobic. The guidance said to use terms like "plug" and "port" and "jack" and stuff. Although isn't the latter rather sexual???

Sexual doesn't have harmful or derogatory overtones, it's neutral.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. https://youtu.be/Z-xI1384Ry4

The guidance says that referring to "gender" is offensive, and so the guidance lists preferred terms that replace the "gender-based" offensive ones. That's the opinion of the folks who wrote the guidance.

Keep the fox news boomer comments on Facebook, please.