3 ms·

I don’t really understand what’s wrong with using more inclusionary language. I’m so very confused by this attitude. I mean, I can understand someone not viewi

by arrrg 11y ago

I don’t really understand what’s wrong with using more inclusionary language. I’m so very confused by this attitude. I mean, I can understand someone not viewing it as particularly important, but you seem to view it as very obviously ridiculous which is an attitude I really struggle to understand. This seems like a tiny little harmless improvement of the world.

Oletros 11y ago
It is ridiculous because the meaning of master-slave in this context has nothing to do with exclusionary language and leaser-follower doesn't mean the same.
- mercer 11y ago
  Furthermore, until we start actually running into the thorny issue of computer AI, it's consciousness and the ethical dilemma's surrounding it, the relationship actually is that of a MASTER and a SLAVE. It's like banning Huckleberry Finn for using the word 'nigger', or Der Untergang because it's about Hitler.
Cyph0n 11y ago
What's wrong is that the original terminology is both more correct and has been convention for decades. There really is no replacement that can convey the intended meaning. I really don't see how one can get offended by terminology, as long as the usage is not intentionally offensive. What makes it all hilarious is the fact that the PR was merged almost immediately into MASTER without being fully tested first. It's as if not merging it ASAP would have started WW3 or something.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Indeed, I think you're correct in this. You'll find two arguments against this in the wild – "we've always used that terminology," and "it's the only way to describe the relationship." I don't think either are that convincing. I used to be pretty clear that I thought this was a stupid thing to complain about, until one day when I was presenting a small distributed software project to a group including non-technical people. I explained about the 'master' and the 'slaves', and at the end someone asked 'why did you use those terms? Isn't there something nicer we can use?'. I realised that they weren't complaining because they were offended or anything, but because slavery is sort of not a nice thing to talk about – the fact that I was used to those terms in a technical context maybe blinded me a bit to the fact that others might find them distasteful. They were changed, everyone was happier, nothing was lost.

by arrrg 11y ago

Oletros 11y ago

It is ridiculous because the meaning of master-slave in this context has nothing to do with exclusionary language and leaser-follower doesn't mean the same.

mercer 11y ago
Furthermore, until we start actually running into the thorny issue of computer AI, it's consciousness and the ethical dilemma's surrounding it, the relationship actually is that of a MASTER and a SLAVE. It's like banning Huckleberry Finn for using the word 'nigger', or Der Untergang because it's about Hitler.

Cyph0n 11y ago

What's wrong is that the original terminology is both more correct and has been convention for decades. There really is no replacement that can convey the intended meaning. I really don't see how one can get offended by terminology, as long as the usage is not intentionally offensive. What makes it all hilarious is the fact that the PR was merged almost immediately into MASTER without being fully tested first. It's as if not merging it ASAP would have started WW3 or something.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

matthewmacleod 11y ago

Indeed, I think you're correct in this. You'll find two arguments against this in the wild – "we've always used that terminology," and "it's the only way to describe the relationship." I don't think either are that convincing. I used to be pretty clear that I thought this was a stupid thing to complain about, until one day when I was presenting a small distributed software project to a group including non-technical people. I explained about the 'master' and the 'slaves', and at the end someone asked 'why did you use those terms? Isn't there something nicer we can use?'. I realised that they weren't complaining because they were offended or anything, but because slavery is sort of not a nice thing to talk about – the fact that I was used to those terms in a technical context maybe blinded me a bit to the fact that others might find them distasteful. They were changed, everyone was happier, nothing was lost.