4 ms·

I don't think purging every word that you deem 'unwelcoming' is a good idea. It is very authoritarian and reeks of 1984. Understanding historical context is s

I don't think purging every word that you deem 'unwelcoming' is a good idea. It is very authoritarian and reeks of 1984. Understanding historical context is something to be sought. This is an innocuous term, and instead of trying to purge everything you don't like and sweep it under the rug, you should be educating other people.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
This seems like a strawman. Is changing a few words in the context of computing going to change our ability to innovate down the road? It sounds highly unlikely. Also, there's plenty of historical texts that use master/slave that capture why it's problematic to use those terms today. The folks suggesting to update our field's terminology are not saying 'burn all the books that describe the systemic racism present in America' which would be a requirement of the "purging everything we don't like and sweeping it under the rug" mindset. The point is simple: some terms are associated with terrible sentiments, when clear alternative terms exist. Can we be welcoming enough to accept this?
- dbsmith83 6y ago
  It's not a strawman, we are talking about the issue at hand--master branch. Why are you talking about master/slave terminology, which has nothing to do with the master branch terminology? I don't think it's worth completely changing terminology and disregarding history because some newcomers don't understand the meaning of an innocuous term. I think that it is more valuable to preserve it than to change it just because there are a few people who do not understand it. I believe in changing terminology that actually is rooted in oppression. It's a good rule of thumb which allows change while also not forcing everything little thing to have to change. Master branch is not rooted in oppression. Welcoming to me does not mean walking on eggshells and avoiding saying perfectly accepted industry terms that someone just may find offensive because they don't understand it. Welcoming is mentoring, teaching, and kindness. I think your logic leads down a slippery authoritarian slope. Should I not say rule of thumb because a few people misunderstand the origin? https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-04-17-1998107056-story.html https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-04-17-19981070... I'm going to keep saying it.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    Innocuous, to you, because you have the privilege of ignoring the alternative definitions of the word. It is not innocuous to others. Not caring about the feeling of others isn't being welcoming. It's not about "walking on eggshells". It's basic human decency and empathy to care about the feelings of others, which your replies haven't addressed. If people are bothered by the usage of the word, do you care? Plain and simple, you do not. You say they're being ignorant.
    - dbsmith83 6y ago
      Alternative definition.. reminds me of 'alternative facts'. There is a clear definition that is out, and if someone knows it but continues to choose to define it as something offensive, that is their problem. I don't cave to willfully ignorant people. It is painfully obvious that you just weaponize the word 'welcoming'. If someone does not do what you want them to do, then they are 'unwelcoming'. Given that I did address your points and talked about what being welcoming really looks like in terms of human decency, it's also clear that you didn't even read my thoughts, which to me says a lot about your own empathy.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        https://www.google.com/search?q=define+master https://www.google.com/search?q=define+master HISTORICAL a man who has people working for him, especially servants or slaves. "he acceded to his master's wishes" For clarity's sake, are you asserting this definition isn't valid? Also, nothing is defined as 'offensive'. It's subjective. When you say the usage of the word 'master' is innocuous, for example, that's subjective. It isn't a fact.
        dbsmith83 6y ago
        For clarity's sake, yes, I am saying that historical definition for master branch is not valid. Click on the "Electronics" button. That is the valid one. You can see in the comments section here where this is explicitly called out. Why is the historical one not valid? Because context matters. We are not talking about the word master itself, we are talking about it in a context. Master branch was not defined using the historical definition. In our case here, it refers to the electronics definition. The English language is completely full of words where meanings have changed and are different depending on the context. Using your logic, we would not only be renaming master branch, but also removing all other contexts, like 'mastery' of a discipline, or the record industry's 'master copy', or even terms like 'maestro' in music. If you take something out of context, it can be offensive to someone--no doubt, but that is why context matters. Going thru the English language to find every word that used to mean one thing we don't like and then removing all modern usages which don't even mean the same thing in a different context is mindbogglingly silly, costly, and frankly, puritanical.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

This seems like a strawman. Is changing a few words in the context of computing going to change our ability to innovate down the road? It sounds highly unlikely. Also, there's plenty of historical texts that use master/slave that capture why it's problematic to use those terms today. The folks suggesting to update our field's terminology are not saying 'burn all the books that describe the systemic racism present in America' which would be a requirement of the "purging everything we don't like and sweeping it under the rug" mindset. The point is simple: some terms are associated with terrible sentiments, when clear alternative terms exist. Can we be welcoming enough to accept this?

dbsmith83 6y ago
It's not a strawman, we are talking about the issue at hand--master branch. Why are you talking about master/slave terminology, which has nothing to do with the master branch terminology? I don't think it's worth completely changing terminology and disregarding history because some newcomers don't understand the meaning of an innocuous term. I think that it is more valuable to preserve it than to change it just because there are a few people who do not understand it. I believe in changing terminology that actually is rooted in oppression. It's a good rule of thumb which allows change while also not forcing everything little thing to have to change. Master branch is not rooted in oppression. Welcoming to me does not mean walking on eggshells and avoiding saying perfectly accepted industry terms that someone just may find offensive because they don't understand it. Welcoming is mentoring, teaching, and kindness. I think your logic leads down a slippery authoritarian slope. Should I not say rule of thumb because a few people misunderstand the origin? https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-04-17-1998107056-story.html https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-04-17-19981070... I'm going to keep saying it.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  Innocuous, to you, because you have the privilege of ignoring the alternative definitions of the word. It is not innocuous to others. Not caring about the feeling of others isn't being welcoming. It's not about "walking on eggshells". It's basic human decency and empathy to care about the feelings of others, which your replies haven't addressed. If people are bothered by the usage of the word, do you care? Plain and simple, you do not. You say they're being ignorant.
  - dbsmith83 6y ago
    Alternative definition.. reminds me of 'alternative facts'. There is a clear definition that is out, and if someone knows it but continues to choose to define it as something offensive, that is their problem. I don't cave to willfully ignorant people. It is painfully obvious that you just weaponize the word 'welcoming'. If someone does not do what you want them to do, then they are 'unwelcoming'. Given that I did address your points and talked about what being welcoming really looks like in terms of human decency, it's also clear that you didn't even read my thoughts, which to me says a lot about your own empathy.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=define+master https://www.google.com/search?q=define+master HISTORICAL a man who has people working for him, especially servants or slaves. "he acceded to his master's wishes" For clarity's sake, are you asserting this definition isn't valid? Also, nothing is defined as 'offensive'. It's subjective. When you say the usage of the word 'master' is innocuous, for example, that's subjective. It isn't a fact.
      - dbsmith83 6y ago
        For clarity's sake, yes, I am saying that historical definition for master branch is not valid. Click on the "Electronics" button. That is the valid one. You can see in the comments section here where this is explicitly called out. Why is the historical one not valid? Because context matters. We are not talking about the word master itself, we are talking about it in a context. Master branch was not defined using the historical definition. In our case here, it refers to the electronics definition. The English language is completely full of words where meanings have changed and are different depending on the context. Using your logic, we would not only be renaming master branch, but also removing all other contexts, like 'mastery' of a discipline, or the record industry's 'master copy', or even terms like 'maestro' in music. If you take something out of context, it can be offensive to someone--no doubt, but that is why context matters. Going thru the English language to find every word that used to mean one thing we don't like and then removing all modern usages which don't even mean the same thing in a different context is mindbogglingly silly, costly, and frankly, puritanical.