4 ms·

So I feel I need to be clearer about my position, because it's being misconstrued as being a "race thing" - It's just to do with the fact that Master/Slave is i

So I feel I need to be clearer about my position, because it's being misconstrued as being a "race thing" - It's just to do with the fact that Master/Slave is innappropriate when it comes to describing a subordinate relationship. I am certain that the terminology emerged in a context (I'm thinking mechanical engineering for instance) where the slave analogy was a commonplace way of describing this but it isn't any more. Slavery thankfully is behind nearly all of human society now and it should stay there. We need to be making an effort to describe these relationships differently, and to use a set of terms just because "they've always been used" is just laziness. The fact that "some" people are offended by it (whether justly or otherwise) is just a supporting argument for this line of thought - not the sole reason.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Slavery thankfully is behind nearly all of human society now and it should stay there. If only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery > We need to be making an effort to describe these relationships differently, and to use a set of terms just because "they've always been used" is just laziness. Using terms that have well-established meanings in a particular context for those established meanings in that context isn't "laziness", and its not something that needs to change because the origin of the terms is an imprecise metaphor. It might need to change if the origin is a metaphor that incorporates, e.g., blatantly racist or sexist, etc., assumptions -- which master/slave does not, even though the practice of slavery in some times and places was tied to institutional racism -- (though even there maybe not if the use and language is so distant that there is no immediate association with those assumptions despite the origin.)
- ricksplat 11y ago
  Master/slave incorporates the definition of a supplicant subordinate relationship which is not appropriate for the context it is frequently used in. People just use it "because it's there". Boss/Worker, Leader/follower, coordinator/actuator and sender/receiver are all more suitable terms in the areas where they are used. None of them imply that one subsystem owns another or must be unquestionably obedient - in a system this kind of relationship is rare.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Slavery thankfully is behind nearly all of human society now and it should stay there. If only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery > We need to be making an effort to describe these relationships differently, and to use a set of terms just because "they've always been used" is just laziness. Using terms that have well-established meanings in a particular context for those established meanings in that context isn't "laziness", and its not something that needs to change because the origin of the terms is an imprecise metaphor. It might need to change if the origin is a metaphor that incorporates, e.g., blatantly racist or sexist, etc., assumptions -- which master/slave does not, even though the practice of slavery in some times and places was tied to institutional racism -- (though even there maybe not if the use and language is so distant that there is no immediate association with those assumptions despite the origin.)

ricksplat 11y ago
Master/slave incorporates the definition of a supplicant subordinate relationship which is not appropriate for the context it is frequently used in. People just use it "because it's there". Boss/Worker, Leader/follower, coordinator/actuator and sender/receiver are all more suitable terms in the areas where they are used. None of them imply that one subsystem owns another or must be unquestionably obedient - in a system this kind of relationship is rare.