3 ms·

Why?

by whostolemyhat 6y ago

Why?

nallo 6y ago
Its racist?
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I really don't think it is. It's a descriptive term. You'd need to also change the name of the Masters tournament and masters degree while we're at it, along with anything else that uses the term master. Master/slave client terminology on the other hand is definitely racist. Something like primary/ auxiliary would probably be better.
  - hashkb 6y ago
    Slavery isn't always racist, by the way. Sometimes it's religious or nationalist. Since we're talking about context, it's good to understand the enormous range of people who could be offended by seeing slavery references at work.
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      > it's good to understand the enormous range of people who could be offended Again, possibly another unpopular opinion, but there really is a huge range of things people are offended by and there will always be people being offended by something. If you keep removing things that people are offended by then there's not much left. Granted there's a line, but I don't think this meets that threshold.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  The "master/slave" in databases does indeed build on the racist metaphor. But is the etymology of the "master branch" the same? For example in the term "master's degree" the word master clearly retains a stronger link to the original etymology of "Magister", teacher.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nilkn 6y ago
  I think we need to get to the point where the term “racist” is not used as a generic catch-all for anything race-related. In this case, the argument is not that the term “master” is inherently racist. This term has a vast number of legitimate and completely non-racial usages throughout the English language. Rather, the argument is that in this case the term tends to remind folks of slavery, and that is an uncomfortable thing to be reminded of. That doesn’t mean the term is now “racist”. Now, why folks feel reminded of slavery due to this usage but not the countless other usages of the term is not something I personally understand. I don’t think of slavery when I hear the term “master’s degree”, and I don’t think of slavery when I hear the term “master branch.” But it’s not really my place to take issue with what terms in which contexts call to mind slavery for other people. I do think it would be useful to do some surveys and figure out if this is something that is actually common before making such a widespread breaking change.
  - hashkb 6y ago
    > But it’s not really my place to take issue with what terms in which contexts call to mind slavery for other people. That's all you had to know. > I think we need to get to the point where the term “racist” is not used as a generic catch-all for anything race-related. You should understand that this supports racist ideas and policy when you say it. Edit: unless you mean "in another 400 years after we've made radical policy changes" Edit again: I can't reply bc posting speed limits and the balance of racism/antiracism in HN threads, so please go read e.g. "How to be an Antiracist" and you'll see where I'm coming from.
    - nilkn 6y ago
      I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make. I don’t find it helpful to apply “racist” unthinkingly as a blanket term that encompasses anything and everything race-related, and I cannot agree with you that my post in any way supports racist policies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tadzik_ 6y ago
Because if you go after "words that may be considered offensive in some context" you'll end up with a very limited vocabulary. Where I'm from, the word "collaborator" is universally associated with collaborating with either the communist regime or the nazi occupant. Does it make the word bad? Should github change it to something else? Look beyond your own culture and you'll soon find that no word is safe to use. Also, isn't Github still helping ICE build concentration camps for kids? And yet the hypothetically offensive meaning of "master" is where they draw the line?
jpxw 6y ago
Because it’s an unnecessary breaking change.
- there_the_and 6y ago
  It’s not a breaking change.
  - king_magic 6y ago
    ... uh, yeah, it is.
    - there_the_and 6y ago
      Nope. Any third party software that assumes a “master” branch always exists and is always the main branch was already broken.
      - ceceron 6y ago
        It's not broken. It just works under assumptions applicable to the most common use cases. I know that a software engineer will sneer about dependencies of this kind, but such assumptions really simplify reality/software/whatever. And yes, they are a pain in the ass when it comes to changes and that's why one should be careful with unnecessary changes.

Why?

nallo 6y ago

Its racist?

hanniabu 6y ago
Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I really don't think it is. It's a descriptive term. You'd need to also change the name of the Masters tournament and masters degree while we're at it, along with anything else that uses the term master. Master/slave client terminology on the other hand is definitely racist. Something like primary/ auxiliary would probably be better.
- hashkb 6y ago
  Slavery isn't always racist, by the way. Sometimes it's religious or nationalist. Since we're talking about context, it's good to understand the enormous range of people who could be offended by seeing slavery references at work.
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    > it's good to understand the enormous range of people who could be offended Again, possibly another unpopular opinion, but there really is a huge range of things people are offended by and there will always be people being offended by something. If you keep removing things that people are offended by then there's not much left. Granted there's a line, but I don't think this meets that threshold.
ithkuil 6y ago
The "master/slave" in databases does indeed build on the racist metaphor. But is the etymology of the "master branch" the same? For example in the term "master's degree" the word master clearly retains a stronger link to the original etymology of "Magister", teacher.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 6y ago
I think we need to get to the point where the term “racist” is not used as a generic catch-all for anything race-related. In this case, the argument is not that the term “master” is inherently racist. This term has a vast number of legitimate and completely non-racial usages throughout the English language. Rather, the argument is that in this case the term tends to remind folks of slavery, and that is an uncomfortable thing to be reminded of. That doesn’t mean the term is now “racist”. Now, why folks feel reminded of slavery due to this usage but not the countless other usages of the term is not something I personally understand. I don’t think of slavery when I hear the term “master’s degree”, and I don’t think of slavery when I hear the term “master branch.” But it’s not really my place to take issue with what terms in which contexts call to mind slavery for other people. I do think it would be useful to do some surveys and figure out if this is something that is actually common before making such a widespread breaking change.
- hashkb 6y ago
  > But it’s not really my place to take issue with what terms in which contexts call to mind slavery for other people. That's all you had to know. > I think we need to get to the point where the term “racist” is not used as a generic catch-all for anything race-related. You should understand that this supports racist ideas and policy when you say it. Edit: unless you mean "in another 400 years after we've made radical policy changes" Edit again: I can't reply bc posting speed limits and the balance of racism/antiracism in HN threads, so please go read e.g. "How to be an Antiracist" and you'll see where I'm coming from.
  - nilkn 6y ago
    I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make. I don’t find it helpful to apply “racist” unthinkingly as a blanket term that encompasses anything and everything race-related, and I cannot agree with you that my post in any way supports racist policies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tadzik_ 6y ago

Because if you go after "words that may be considered offensive in some context" you'll end up with a very limited vocabulary. Where I'm from, the word "collaborator" is universally associated with collaborating with either the communist regime or the nazi occupant. Does it make the word bad? Should github change it to something else? Look beyond your own culture and you'll soon find that no word is safe to use. Also, isn't Github still helping ICE build concentration camps for kids? And yet the hypothetically offensive meaning of "master" is where they draw the line?

jpxw 6y ago

Because it’s an unnecessary breaking change.

there_the_and 6y ago
It’s not a breaking change.
- king_magic 6y ago
  ... uh, yeah, it is.
  - there_the_and 6y ago
    Nope. Any third party software that assumes a “master” branch always exists and is always the main branch was already broken.
    - ceceron 6y ago
      It's not broken. It just works under assumptions applicable to the most common use cases. I know that a software engineer will sneer about dependencies of this kind, but such assumptions really simplify reality/software/whatever. And yes, they are a pain in the ass when it comes to changes and that's why one should be careful with unnecessary changes.