6 ms·

I think this is a great example of people taking virtue signaling to points of stupidity. Master-slave being problematic is something I can get behind, but git'

I think this is a great example of people taking virtue signaling to points of stupidity. Master-slave being problematic is something I can get behind, but git's master branch isn't even referencing the master-slave analogy. What about people who are really good at something? Should we never call them masters? Just experts? I'm now a chess GrandExpert? I have an Experts degree? You're burning a lot of political capital to change things that really don't matter instead of things that do.

seiferteric 6y ago
Eliminate the Masters Degree!
- jerzyt 6y ago
  You beat me to it!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dheera 6y ago
  And I always thought "Master" sounded more badass than "Doctor" ...
kevingadd 6y ago
Many employers have general policy of not using potentially sensitive terminology in their codebases when there are good alternatives, whether it's "master" (could be master-slave, could be something else), "blacklist", etc. If it's easy to apply that policy you can just do it and then you never have to worry about whether an employee slipped a regrettable word choice into a string literal that a customer's going to see 6 months from now. It's nice to have options for doing this cheaply instead of doing a panic audit of your codebase and changing a bunch of stuff by hand. Determining whether a given use of the word is appropriate requires context and careful consideration, and people already tend to have a bunch of work on their plates! For something like "master" I think it's reasonable to go "let's just not use it in our repos, there are alternatives", it's not erasing any useful nuance or meaning.
- dbsmith83 6y ago
  I disagree. Changing a word which could potentially offend someone even though it is not rooted in something offensive is exhausting and silly. People can find anything to be offended by. If someone is ignorant about the terminology, such as the 'master branch', then I would explain to them the history of the word. That is much easier than forcing everyone to change industry standard terminology with the bonus of conveying some knowledge.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    If you think “master” is problematic, try using the word “niggardly” in written conversation (never use it vocally, of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_n...
- im3w1l 6y ago
  If you tell people which words they are allowed to speak based on programming convenience, then you will turn them into robots. By the way did you know that the etymology of robot? Wikipedia has this to say > The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Čapek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920.[79] The play begins in a factory that uses a chemical substitute for protoplasm to manufacture living, simplified people called robots. The play does not focus in detail on the technology behind the creation of these living creatures, but in their appearance they prefigure modern ideas of androids, creatures who can be mistaken for humans. These mass-produced workers are depicted as efficient but emotionless, incapable of original thinking and indifferent to self-preservation. At issue is whether the robots are being exploited and the consequences of human dependence upon commodified labor (especially after a number of specially-formulated robots achieve self-awareness and incite robots all around the world to rise up against the humans). > Karel Čapek himself did not coin the word. He wrote a short letter in reference to an etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary in which he named his brother, the painter and writer Josef Čapek, as its actual originator.[79] > In an article in the Czech journal Lidové noviny in 1933, he explained that he had originally wanted to call the creatures laboři ("workers", from Latin labor). However, he did not like the word, and sought advice from his brother Josef, who suggested "roboti". The word robota means literally "corvée", "serf labor"
derivativethrow 6y ago
I appreciate the cogency of your broader point, but please reconsider using the terminology "virtue signaling." When one person accuses another of virtue signaling, even implicitly, there are typically only two possibilities: 1. They hold such a cynical worldview that it's reasonable and coherent to criticize someone else for attempting to publicly advocate for what they honestly believe to be right, or 2. They believe the other person is not being honest in their advocacy, and more importantly that they should call the person's integrity into question by opening that up for discussion. When you label another individual's behavior as virtue signaling, you forcibly shift the focus of discussion on that person's behavior and identity rather than the thing they're advocating. This can have a chilling effect on people voicing their opinions with honesty and authenticity. Likewise if an idea if worth critiquing, it should merit criticism on its own without calling into question its advocates' motives. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I'm just calling out the use of the term.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 6y ago
  I use "virtue signaling" for something like: 3. Advocacy that mainly serves to make the advocate sound virtuous rather than substantively address the difficult aspects of a difficult tradeoff or help to wisely deploy resources in a way that will make progress on a problem. It's distinct from your 1 in that it accepts that people can exist who legitimately care about improving the world. It's distinct from your 2 in that it doesn't assert the person's advocacy is dishonest (or otherwise not heartfelt), only that their specific contributions are unhelpful or present a bad framing. Example of a useful difference that 3 highlights: Virtue signaling: "I just think we should help everyone wherever we can." -> suggests that the speaker is particularly noble while also setting a herculean standard for how to live one's life. (Really? Every single moment?) Not virtue signaling: "As a rule of thumb, you should give about 10% of your net income to charitable causes, since this is historically feasible, and mainly would force you to cut back in ways that have disproportionately high utility for others. Any more than that is nice, but is more than I can legitimately ask." -> recognizes upper bounds in what they expect out of others, and what might be feasible or excessive. Naturally, most advocacy lasts more than two sentences, but that gives the general idea.
dreary_dugong 6y ago
While there was almost certainly no original malintent with the phrase 'master' in this context, it's a very small and relatively easy change to make to avoid hiccups down the road. Even if you don't agree that this is needed, I think it's clear that it's easier to just rename it now than it would be to explain to someone a few months down the road the deep historical context for why this should not offend them.
- dbsmith83 6y ago
  I don't think that's true. Then you would just be explaining to new team members why you are not using master. You can explain to someone who doesn't know in one sentence where the term comes from.
- triyambakam 6y ago
  This kind of thinking though leads inadvertently to doublespeak. You end up avoiding saying so much you can't say anything.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  It’s not deep historical context. It’s a contemporary, widespread usage of master to refer to an original or an exemplar. In the rare case an adult doesn’t know this, they can catch up in seconds.
- arp242 6y ago
  > easier to just rename it now than it would be to explain to someone a few months down the road the deep historical context for why this should not offend them Do you have any examples of such conversations, specifically regarding to the naming of the "master" branch?
- loco5niner 6y ago
  > it's a very small and relatively easy change to make to CREATE hiccups down the road. Fixed that for you.
- Delk 6y ago
  If people could just remember that there are in fact several meanings for words, having to engage in that conversation down the road would not even happen. Or perhaps it would, but assuming reasonable people, it might amount to clarifying what the word (such as "master") means in a particular case or where it came from. As long as the usage of the word isn't particularly strongly associated with what is offensive, that conversation shouldn't be a huge problem. If people start jumping on the bandwagon of renaming "master" (or any such term) en masse because of it being "potentially offensive", that makes people think the usage of the word is offensive, and the potential offensiveness and having to explain that it's not becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then we'll all need to change what we call this or that, just because people can't remember that words have multiple meanings. Let's not turn meanings that are not problems into ones that are.

seiferteric 6y ago

Eliminate the Masters Degree!

jerzyt 6y ago
You beat me to it!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dheera 6y ago
And I always thought "Master" sounded more badass than "Doctor" ...

kevingadd 6y ago

Many employers have general policy of not using potentially sensitive terminology in their codebases when there are good alternatives, whether it's "master" (could be master-slave, could be something else), "blacklist", etc. If it's easy to apply that policy you can just do it and then you never have to worry about whether an employee slipped a regrettable word choice into a string literal that a customer's going to see 6 months from now. It's nice to have options for doing this cheaply instead of doing a panic audit of your codebase and changing a bunch of stuff by hand. Determining whether a given use of the word is appropriate requires context and careful consideration, and people already tend to have a bunch of work on their plates! For something like "master" I think it's reasonable to go "let's just not use it in our repos, there are alternatives", it's not erasing any useful nuance or meaning.

dbsmith83 6y ago
I disagree. Changing a word which could potentially offend someone even though it is not rooted in something offensive is exhausting and silly. People can find anything to be offended by. If someone is ignorant about the terminology, such as the 'master branch', then I would explain to them the history of the word. That is much easier than forcing everyone to change industry standard terminology with the bonus of conveying some knowledge.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  If you think “master” is problematic, try using the word “niggardly” in written conversation (never use it vocally, of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_n...
im3w1l 6y ago
If you tell people which words they are allowed to speak based on programming convenience, then you will turn them into robots. By the way did you know that the etymology of robot? Wikipedia has this to say > The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Čapek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920.[79] The play begins in a factory that uses a chemical substitute for protoplasm to manufacture living, simplified people called robots. The play does not focus in detail on the technology behind the creation of these living creatures, but in their appearance they prefigure modern ideas of androids, creatures who can be mistaken for humans. These mass-produced workers are depicted as efficient but emotionless, incapable of original thinking and indifferent to self-preservation. At issue is whether the robots are being exploited and the consequences of human dependence upon commodified labor (especially after a number of specially-formulated robots achieve self-awareness and incite robots all around the world to rise up against the humans). > Karel Čapek himself did not coin the word. He wrote a short letter in reference to an etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary in which he named his brother, the painter and writer Josef Čapek, as its actual originator.[79] > In an article in the Czech journal Lidové noviny in 1933, he explained that he had originally wanted to call the creatures laboři ("workers", from Latin labor). However, he did not like the word, and sought advice from his brother Josef, who suggested "roboti". The word robota means literally "corvée", "serf labor"

derivativethrow 6y ago

I appreciate the cogency of your broader point, but please reconsider using the terminology "virtue signaling." When one person accuses another of virtue signaling, even implicitly, there are typically only two possibilities: 1. They hold such a cynical worldview that it's reasonable and coherent to criticize someone else for attempting to publicly advocate for what they honestly believe to be right, or 2. They believe the other person is not being honest in their advocacy, and more importantly that they should call the person's integrity into question by opening that up for discussion. When you label another individual's behavior as virtue signaling, you forcibly shift the focus of discussion on that person's behavior and identity rather than the thing they're advocating. This can have a chilling effect on people voicing their opinions with honesty and authenticity. Likewise if an idea if worth critiquing, it should merit criticism on its own without calling into question its advocates' motives. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I'm just calling out the use of the term.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 6y ago
I use "virtue signaling" for something like: 3. Advocacy that mainly serves to make the advocate sound virtuous rather than substantively address the difficult aspects of a difficult tradeoff or help to wisely deploy resources in a way that will make progress on a problem. It's distinct from your 1 in that it accepts that people can exist who legitimately care about improving the world. It's distinct from your 2 in that it doesn't assert the person's advocacy is dishonest (or otherwise not heartfelt), only that their specific contributions are unhelpful or present a bad framing. Example of a useful difference that 3 highlights: Virtue signaling: "I just think we should help everyone wherever we can." -> suggests that the speaker is particularly noble while also setting a herculean standard for how to live one's life. (Really? Every single moment?) Not virtue signaling: "As a rule of thumb, you should give about 10% of your net income to charitable causes, since this is historically feasible, and mainly would force you to cut back in ways that have disproportionately high utility for others. Any more than that is nice, but is more than I can legitimately ask." -> recognizes upper bounds in what they expect out of others, and what might be feasible or excessive. Naturally, most advocacy lasts more than two sentences, but that gives the general idea.

dreary_dugong 6y ago

While there was almost certainly no original malintent with the phrase 'master' in this context, it's a very small and relatively easy change to make to avoid hiccups down the road. Even if you don't agree that this is needed, I think it's clear that it's easier to just rename it now than it would be to explain to someone a few months down the road the deep historical context for why this should not offend them.

dbsmith83 6y ago
I don't think that's true. Then you would just be explaining to new team members why you are not using master. You can explain to someone who doesn't know in one sentence where the term comes from.
triyambakam 6y ago
This kind of thinking though leads inadvertently to doublespeak. You end up avoiding saying so much you can't say anything.
1123581321 6y ago
It’s not deep historical context. It’s a contemporary, widespread usage of master to refer to an original or an exemplar. In the rare case an adult doesn’t know this, they can catch up in seconds.
arp242 6y ago
> easier to just rename it now than it would be to explain to someone a few months down the road the deep historical context for why this should not offend them Do you have any examples of such conversations, specifically regarding to the naming of the "master" branch?
loco5niner 6y ago
> it's a very small and relatively easy change to make to CREATE hiccups down the road. Fixed that for you.
Delk 6y ago
If people could just remember that there are in fact several meanings for words, having to engage in that conversation down the road would not even happen. Or perhaps it would, but assuming reasonable people, it might amount to clarifying what the word (such as "master") means in a particular case or where it came from. As long as the usage of the word isn't particularly strongly associated with what is offensive, that conversation shouldn't be a huge problem. If people start jumping on the bandwagon of renaming "master" (or any such term) en masse because of it being "potentially offensive", that makes people think the usage of the word is offensive, and the potential offensiveness and having to explain that it's not becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then we'll all need to change what we call this or that, just because people can't remember that words have multiple meanings. Let's not turn meanings that are not problems into ones that are.