3 ms·

I think this word censorship is meaningless and dangerous. It sets a bad precedent, anyone can get offended by anything. That doesn’t justify censorship. It's

I think this word censorship is meaningless and dangerous. It sets a bad precedent, anyone can get offended by anything. That doesn’t justify censorship. It's not even a white/black thing. White people has had white slaves (millions), black people has had black slaves (also millions). The Atlantic slave trade is just example of slavery. It has existed in many civilizations: “Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed in many cultures. [...] the practice of slavery [...] proliferated after the invention of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution, about 11,000 years ago. Slavery was known in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as in almost every other ancient civilization, including ancient Egypt, ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Babylonia, ancient Iran, ancient Greece, ancient India, the Roman Empire, the Arab Islamic Caliphate and Sultanate, Nubia and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

oliwarner 6y ago
Sure... But why not remove imagery of slavery from tech syntax? We have plenty of other organisational terms to denote a higher rank. What's wrong with those? They might even be more accurate. I don't suppose DBAs get in a ship to pillage and loot foreign lands for their database redundancy. I see too many people arguing semantics or historical bias, or whataboutisms but barely anybody giving positive arguments to preserve the master-slave terms in tech. If "all races have had slavers" is the best you've got, perhaps it's time for change.
- manuelaljibes 6y ago
  There's no technical reason to make this change, it's an annoying change with literally zero positive impact on the world, this won't abolish slavery nor will it help anyone, it may help the promoters of this stupidity to feel better about themselves, like "look at us! we are aligned with the PC agenda! We're sooo progressive and docile!"
  - oliwarner 6y ago
    No technical reason, but clearly a political reason. And politics matter in an open project where diversity and collaboration are so important to their long-life goals. You don't agree —and that's fine— but does it harm you to rename it? That is past the initial inconvenience of it not being the word that it's been before... Is that any more inconvenient than the other API changes that almost all software goes through at some point? I can understand some light grumbling, but I don't see why people get so bent out of shape they feel the need to start summarising slavery through the ages. "It's just a word" swings both ways.
    - manuelaljibes 6y ago
      What harm does it do to rename things based on nothing but the pathetic impulse to abide by the nonsensical PC agenda? Well, it introduces the need for me as a developer to adjust to a new naming scheme for no good reason, we know APIs change all the time, and adjusting to new naming schemes is part of the job, but when a project decides to break an API its always for a good reason, no professional team will ever break an API on a whim, because in most projects, people are aware that breaking APIs immediately deprecates massive amounts of code, and that these changes should only be made only if it's absolutely necessary; breaking APIs and forcing everyone else that just want to get the work done to comply to this nonsense is not going to help slaves around the world, if you really want to take action, set a donation prompt for a charity on the README or in the program itself as Vim does, but don't annoy the rest of us with this bs just so that you can feel better about yourself ffs
      - oliwarner 6y ago
        I can't tell if I'm just spinning my wheels at this point, but they're not trying to make themselves feel better, it's about fostering an environment for including those who do care. OpenZFS wants a more diverse user and developer community. Good for them. And if you think that no professional developers ever break their APIs on a whim, you're either very young, or haven't been paying attention. Google does this all the time across their ecosystem. It's annoying, but you learn to get over it. If you don't like it, fork it.

oliwarner 6y ago

Sure... But why not remove imagery of slavery from tech syntax? We have plenty of other organisational terms to denote a higher rank. What's wrong with those? They might even be more accurate. I don't suppose DBAs get in a ship to pillage and loot foreign lands for their database redundancy. I see too many people arguing semantics or historical bias, or whataboutisms but barely anybody giving positive arguments to preserve the master-slave terms in tech. If "all races have had slavers" is the best you've got, perhaps it's time for change.

manuelaljibes 6y ago
There's no technical reason to make this change, it's an annoying change with literally zero positive impact on the world, this won't abolish slavery nor will it help anyone, it may help the promoters of this stupidity to feel better about themselves, like "look at us! we are aligned with the PC agenda! We're sooo progressive and docile!"
- oliwarner 6y ago
  No technical reason, but clearly a political reason. And politics matter in an open project where diversity and collaboration are so important to their long-life goals. You don't agree —and that's fine— but does it harm you to rename it? That is past the initial inconvenience of it not being the word that it's been before... Is that any more inconvenient than the other API changes that almost all software goes through at some point? I can understand some light grumbling, but I don't see why people get so bent out of shape they feel the need to start summarising slavery through the ages. "It's just a word" swings both ways.
  - manuelaljibes 6y ago
    What harm does it do to rename things based on nothing but the pathetic impulse to abide by the nonsensical PC agenda? Well, it introduces the need for me as a developer to adjust to a new naming scheme for no good reason, we know APIs change all the time, and adjusting to new naming schemes is part of the job, but when a project decides to break an API its always for a good reason, no professional team will ever break an API on a whim, because in most projects, people are aware that breaking APIs immediately deprecates massive amounts of code, and that these changes should only be made only if it's absolutely necessary; breaking APIs and forcing everyone else that just want to get the work done to comply to this nonsense is not going to help slaves around the world, if you really want to take action, set a donation prompt for a charity on the README or in the program itself as Vim does, but don't annoy the rest of us with this bs just so that you can feel better about yourself ffs
    - oliwarner 6y ago
      I can't tell if I'm just spinning my wheels at this point, but they're not trying to make themselves feel better, it's about fostering an environment for including those who do care. OpenZFS wants a more diverse user and developer community. Good for them. And if you think that no professional developers ever break their APIs on a whim, you're either very young, or haven't been paying attention. Google does this all the time across their ecosystem. It's annoying, but you learn to get over it. If you don't like it, fork it.