4 ms·

> Every single time you people decide to change software for no other reason than social justice, all normal programmers decide to be more racist, sexist, trans

> Every single time you people decide to change software for no other reason than social justice, all normal programmers decide to be more racist, sexist, transphobic and whatever else pisses you off - for no other reason than just to spite you. Although I can't completely agree with this, there is definitely some negative effect of such actions whenever they're undertaken. People who think "this is going too far" will naturally oppose to them. So I wonder about the net benefit here, really. We've been using the master/slave terminology for years, but it has nothing to do with actual slaves and I can't imagine anyone thinking about them when dealing with technology.

hjrnunes 8y ago
I think the underlying issue is not "that it goes too far". I don't believe anyone would oppose "going this far" in terms of reducing or abolishing actual slavery. I think what pisses people off is the utter frivolousness of it all. We all know that this is actually not doing anything about actual slavery. Replacing the word slave in Python or software in general will do actually nothing for actual slaves in the world nor will it change the minds of actual slavers and actual slave owners. So whilst people probably do not care that much about which specific word is used, they get pissed off by the frivolous sanctimony displayed by the proponents of the change.
- hjrnunes 8y ago
  Also, there is something else. Due to Taleb's principle of the intolerant minority[1], people that feel this is frivolous are faced with a choice: either submit to the frivolous intolerant zealots or die on a hill which no one really wants to die on; in this case, defending the word slave and be accused of defending actual slavery. That can piss people off too. [1]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... edit: spelling
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    Thanks for a very interesting read.
- warkid 8y ago
  What it does it makes people mention this word less often. This is helping forget history. To have it repeated sooner - in some other form, using different words.
  - archbung 8y ago
    Why would one wants to forget history?
eesmith 8y ago
> Although I can't completely agree with this While I read it as doubling down on bigotry. "Oh, you think I'm a racist? I'll show you what racism is really like." I find it hard to think that someone who isn't sexist would decide to become sexist out of spite over terminology. > We've been using the master/slave terminology for years, but it has nothing to do with actual slaves In technology, the term "master/slave" is used as a metaphor. The master is in command, and the slave is supposed to obey the commands of the master. In this metaphor, we are assumed to be aligned with the interests of the slave master. This metaphor absolutely has something to do with actual slaves. In real life we have concluded that the only moral goal for a slave master is to renounce power, and the goal for slaves is freedom. If we use the modern view when we apply the metaphor then our moral goal should be to free database slaves. Which isn't really what we want. That's why I agree with the idea of using a different metaphor.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > I find it hard to think that someone who isn't sexist would decide to become sexist out of spite over terminology. It doesn't work exactly that way. It's more like some people start telling you to do things that seem absurd to you and imply you are doing something wrong whereas you had no bad intentions at all, and this causes a negative reaction. > If we use the modern view when we apply the metaphor then our moral goal should be to free database slaves. Which isn't really what we want. If we really follow this logic, we should ban all negative words and reconsider all metaphors. We should never run any daemons as they're associated with the devil and this could upset adherents of Theistic religions (your explanations of daemon etymology shouldn't matter then). We shouldn't use the name Apache because of the sad history of American natives. We shouldn't use terms such as "bug squashing" as they would imply animal cruelty. And so on and so forth.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Sometimes people tell me to do absurd things, not because it's absurd but because I don't understand that I'm doing the wrong thing. I grew up thinking it's okay to wear outdoor shoes inside the house. Since then I've visited places doing that is not just impolite, but rude. If I visit a Japanese restaurant and people start telling me to take my shoes off, and imply that it's wrong to wear shoes with zashiki style seating - even when I have no bad intentions - should I double-down and insist that I wear my shoes? No, of course not. What would you do in that case? > If we really follow this logic, we should ban all negative words ... No? I mean, the example I gave describes how the metaphor is almost completely inverted. That's not a negative, but a flipping of the meaning. I don't see how you concluded that as my logic. > reconsider all metaphors "Awe" used to mean something more like fear, and "awesome" meant "profoundly reverential" or "inspiring dread". Since the 1960s it has taken on a meaning more like "impressive, very good". (Quotes from etymonline.) When the Bible says something like "great and awesome God", it doesn't mean to read it the same way that Bill and Ted would use it. Similarly, the Christmas song says to "don our gay apparel", which has a rather different meaning now than from when it was written. In both cases, if you want to emphasize the original intent, then yes, I do suggest changing what words you use. You'll note that neither case refers to a negative. > We should never run any daemons Unlike for master/slave, where the terminology comes from actual slavery, the term 'daemons' as used in computing does not come from the (Biblical) devil but from Greek mythology. That meaning has been used in English since the 1500s. > this could upset adherents You'll note that my argument isn't based on upsetting people. It's based on using a metaphor where the underlying understanding or interpretation has changed. You comment 'your explanations of daemon etymology shouldn't matter then'. There can certainly be an argument for using a different term even if there is no etymological descent. As Christopher Hitchens commented, after using the word "niggardly" - which has no etymological connection to the vile slur - "Nobody said anything, but I privately resolved -- having felt the word hanging in the air a bit -- to say "parsimonious" from then on." However, very few are making it that argument about daemons, while the push for a change in the master/slave term is at least 20 years old, that I'm aware of. Since some people will object to anything, no matter what, the idea that there may be an objection doesn't sway me much. > We shouldn't use the name Apache because of the sad history of American natives I lived in New Mexico, and know that people from the Jicarilla Apache Nation and from the Mescalero Apache Tribe are not opposed to general use of term "Apache". (I verified just now that they use 'Apache' on their web site.) I think you are just making this up to make a point. My argument, however, was not based on hypothetical situations that someone might be offended or that there might be negative interpretation. If you are making it up, then I suggest that you should not use the suffering of American Natives to score an internet point. > We shouldn't use terms such as "bug squashing" as they would imply animal cruelty. I believe you are right. Also, "bug hunt." I have wondered why it always felt a bit odd to me. Along with that would be phrases like "ddt" as a name for a debugger. FWIW, I prefer "fixing bugs" rather than "killing bugs. If there is a general cultural shift towards Jainism or some other belief which avoids the killing of bugs, then yes, we should reconsider that metaphor. Don't you agree?

hjrnunes 8y ago

I think the underlying issue is not "that it goes too far". I don't believe anyone would oppose "going this far" in terms of reducing or abolishing actual slavery. I think what pisses people off is the utter frivolousness of it all. We all know that this is actually not doing anything about actual slavery. Replacing the word slave in Python or software in general will do actually nothing for actual slaves in the world nor will it change the minds of actual slavers and actual slave owners. So whilst people probably do not care that much about which specific word is used, they get pissed off by the frivolous sanctimony displayed by the proponents of the change.

hjrnunes 8y ago
Also, there is something else. Due to Taleb's principle of the intolerant minority[1], people that feel this is frivolous are faced with a choice: either submit to the frivolous intolerant zealots or die on a hill which no one really wants to die on; in this case, defending the word slave and be accused of defending actual slavery. That can piss people off too. [1]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... edit: spelling
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  Thanks for a very interesting read.
warkid 8y ago
What it does it makes people mention this word less often. This is helping forget history. To have it repeated sooner - in some other form, using different words.
- archbung 8y ago
  Why would one wants to forget history?

eesmith 8y ago

> Although I can't completely agree with this While I read it as doubling down on bigotry. "Oh, you think I'm a racist? I'll show you what racism is really like." I find it hard to think that someone who isn't sexist would decide to become sexist out of spite over terminology. > We've been using the master/slave terminology for years, but it has nothing to do with actual slaves In technology, the term "master/slave" is used as a metaphor. The master is in command, and the slave is supposed to obey the commands of the master. In this metaphor, we are assumed to be aligned with the interests of the slave master. This metaphor absolutely has something to do with actual slaves. In real life we have concluded that the only moral goal for a slave master is to renounce power, and the goal for slaves is freedom. If we use the modern view when we apply the metaphor then our moral goal should be to free database slaves. Which isn't really what we want. That's why I agree with the idea of using a different metaphor.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> I find it hard to think that someone who isn't sexist would decide to become sexist out of spite over terminology. It doesn't work exactly that way. It's more like some people start telling you to do things that seem absurd to you and imply you are doing something wrong whereas you had no bad intentions at all, and this causes a negative reaction. > If we use the modern view when we apply the metaphor then our moral goal should be to free database slaves. Which isn't really what we want. If we really follow this logic, we should ban all negative words and reconsider all metaphors. We should never run any daemons as they're associated with the devil and this could upset adherents of Theistic religions (your explanations of daemon etymology shouldn't matter then). We shouldn't use the name Apache because of the sad history of American natives. We shouldn't use terms such as "bug squashing" as they would imply animal cruelty. And so on and so forth.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Sometimes people tell me to do absurd things, not because it's absurd but because I don't understand that I'm doing the wrong thing. I grew up thinking it's okay to wear outdoor shoes inside the house. Since then I've visited places doing that is not just impolite, but rude. If I visit a Japanese restaurant and people start telling me to take my shoes off, and imply that it's wrong to wear shoes with zashiki style seating - even when I have no bad intentions - should I double-down and insist that I wear my shoes? No, of course not. What would you do in that case? > If we really follow this logic, we should ban all negative words ... No? I mean, the example I gave describes how the metaphor is almost completely inverted. That's not a negative, but a flipping of the meaning. I don't see how you concluded that as my logic. > reconsider all metaphors "Awe" used to mean something more like fear, and "awesome" meant "profoundly reverential" or "inspiring dread". Since the 1960s it has taken on a meaning more like "impressive, very good". (Quotes from etymonline.) When the Bible says something like "great and awesome God", it doesn't mean to read it the same way that Bill and Ted would use it. Similarly, the Christmas song says to "don our gay apparel", which has a rather different meaning now than from when it was written. In both cases, if you want to emphasize the original intent, then yes, I do suggest changing what words you use. You'll note that neither case refers to a negative. > We should never run any daemons Unlike for master/slave, where the terminology comes from actual slavery, the term 'daemons' as used in computing does not come from the (Biblical) devil but from Greek mythology. That meaning has been used in English since the 1500s. > this could upset adherents You'll note that my argument isn't based on upsetting people. It's based on using a metaphor where the underlying understanding or interpretation has changed. You comment 'your explanations of daemon etymology shouldn't matter then'. There can certainly be an argument for using a different term even if there is no etymological descent. As Christopher Hitchens commented, after using the word "niggardly" - which has no etymological connection to the vile slur - "Nobody said anything, but I privately resolved -- having felt the word hanging in the air a bit -- to say "parsimonious" from then on." However, very few are making it that argument about daemons, while the push for a change in the master/slave term is at least 20 years old, that I'm aware of. Since some people will object to anything, no matter what, the idea that there may be an objection doesn't sway me much. > We shouldn't use the name Apache because of the sad history of American natives I lived in New Mexico, and know that people from the Jicarilla Apache Nation and from the Mescalero Apache Tribe are not opposed to general use of term "Apache". (I verified just now that they use 'Apache' on their web site.) I think you are just making this up to make a point. My argument, however, was not based on hypothetical situations that someone might be offended or that there might be negative interpretation. If you are making it up, then I suggest that you should not use the suffering of American Natives to score an internet point. > We shouldn't use terms such as "bug squashing" as they would imply animal cruelty. I believe you are right. Also, "bug hunt." I have wondered why it always felt a bit odd to me. Along with that would be phrases like "ddt" as a name for a debugger. FWIW, I prefer "fixing bugs" rather than "killing bugs. If there is a general cultural shift towards Jainism or some other belief which avoids the killing of bugs, then yes, we should reconsider that metaphor. Don't you agree?