7 ms·

Hi, I support this change and I don't consider myself a spineless sunflower, nor am I offended on behalf of anyone else.

StavrosK 6y ago
What is it that offends you about the terms, and why? Honest question, as I've never spoken to anyone who wasn't offended by proxy.
- sagichmal 6y ago
  > What is it that offends you about the terms, and why? Sorry for being unclear. I'm not offended, either. But (see my reply to sibling comment) I find the arguments that the term can be seen as offensive, and that it perpetuates a (small! subtle! but real!) form of systemic racism, essentially plausible, and I'm sympathetic to them.
tehwebguy 6y ago
Exactly! People said this terminology hurts to hear and use, explained why. It doesn’t hurt me to use more appropriate terms so it feels like an easy choice. I’m not surprised GitHub came to the same conclusion.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  I haven’t seen one explanation that makes any sense. Care to link to one in any of these threads here, on Twitter or reddit that made sense to you?
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    The explanation is that “master” is a slavery term. It has other meanings, sure. But for some people who are a descendant of people who were enslaved it is an unwelcome reminder of slavery every time they merge.
    - wayneftw 6y ago
      Nobody anywhere uses the word "master" to mean a person who has slaves. The word has at least 14 other meanings. The one meaning that relates to "slavery" is 100% of the time tagged as "historical". IMO, remove that entry in the dictionary if you don't like it and stop schools from teaching the historical context of it. Then, after only a few years kids who have never heard the term in terms of slavery will never know and have no reason to be offended by a word. Judging by the responses everywhere, you're in the extreme minority if you think this word is a problem. The word is not going away, even if removed from some niche space such as GitHub. As a matter of fact, I'm going to double down on using it so that I can easily identify people who I'd never want to have a working relation with if they get offended.
      - tehwebguy 6y ago
        I think you’re missing the point, I’m not offended by the word at all. But a group of people said they were, and it was no skin off my nose to make life easier for them. Their explanation made total sense to me so I took it as a learning experience to see the world through someone else’s eyes instead of “doubling down” which is pretty alarming behavior tbh. On the word itself, “someone who has enslaved another human” doesn’t have to be the only definition, but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US). It probably doesn’t mean anything at all to most people, that’s okay. I don’t think they are racists or anything like that if the oppose this change.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        Thanks for not assuming I'm a racist. Looking back, I couched my response in terms of "if you are offended by the word, then..." and I don't think I directly indicated that I thought you were offended. To be honest, I don't think the people who even kicked this off at GitHub are offended. They're just trying to do something. There already is skin off your nose with this change though. First, because you're already here having to waste your attention on defending it. Second, because if Git and other tools surrounding GitHub don't change then there will be constant friction. (e.g. What now happens if you init a repo on your PC and push to GitHub with the default `master` branch? That's my exact workflow.) Third, if you have to do the work yourself to change it on your own projects. Fourth, because if you don't cover your ass 100% you'll potentially be targeted by this witch hunt. Maybe you don't mind one or two of those situations, but I doubt you would all of them. > ...but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US). I don't know what that means. Ideas are important. Words are constantly changing by meaning and usage and they're really only as important as a person allows them to be. In my opinion, assigning power or importance to inanimate things is folly. Power lies in controlling how you react to things. Philosophically it has been said that the only thing you can truly change in this world is how you react to things. At the end of the day, this is a GitHub company decision. I can't do anything about it other than exploring my thoughts and talking about it. If GitHub starts harassing me over not changing my branch names though, I'll leave the platform in a heartbeat.
- xellisx 6y ago
  I find it funny are people are willing to argue over this, which takes way more energy than actually doing the change. My boss was going to use trunk, but I was on my own for prod, until I brought up the points that it reflects what is for, we have a development branch and Git is graph base, then the CTO was on my side when he heard graph. After my boss made the change, he noticed that trunk wouldn't have read well thought-out the Atlastin suite and Production did. My only thing with the change was make sure we had proper nomenclature.
- drorh 6y ago
  It should very well hurt you because this is just the worm-up. The moment you start playing this games with language, people will become ever more sensitized and new words will become unspeakable hurting the freedom of speech. Do we now have Master becoming the new M-word? There were also slave owners so are you going to take down the file owner concept now because of 'slavery'? This is so wrong.
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    Easy question: Nope, because owning things (objects, files) is normal and not related to enslaving a human.
nr152522 6y ago
I’m not sure about this. I don’t think relationship between branches are considered slaves to their master branch (at least I never thought of it that way). If anything, they’re students that may eventually exceed the capabilities of their master. Much like the apprentice Luke Skywalker and master Yoda. If it does offend then by all means, make it happen, I’m just not entirely convinced.
Yetanfou 6y ago
I do not support this change since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation. Both words have been in use for a very long time. The insinuation that the use of these words is in any way racially insensitive is not just nonsensical, it is a way to gain control of the narrative by a politically motivated party. Control over the narrative gives power [1]: Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past [2]. Who controls the narrative, controls the present. [1] https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/ https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-controls-the-future-who-controls-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-...
- DanBC 6y ago
  > since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race https://www.etymonline.com/word/master https://www.etymonline.com/word/master > In the broadest sense, "one who has power to control, use, or dispose (of something or some quality) at will," from mid-14c. Also from mid-14c. as "one who employs another or others in his service" (in which sense the correlative word was servant, man, or apprentice); also "owner of a living creature" (dog, horse), also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia. This bit feels like it has a strong connection to racism. > also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    Nonsense, in the context of slavery - as in humans abusing other humans as forced labour - the word master has this meaning. In the context of a version control system it evidently does not.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      But that's a different claim, isn't it? > since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation "Nothing, absolutely nothing". "normal words without any racial connotation". That's untrue, isn't it? Perhaps you just need a better dictionary. https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st > master noun 1 someone especially a man, who commands or controls. 2 the owner, especially a male owner, of a dog, slave, etc.
drorh 6y ago
I am deeply offended when people call me 'white'. I do not reflect all light shown upon me and I do have all kinds of shades of brown, yellow and pink. I think calling someone black is just as racist - no person absorbs all light shown on them. This is ridiculous. How on earth is the word "master" relates specifically to black people slavery? One could use "slave owner" just as well so should we now abolish the word "owner" in Linux and avoid using file owner (you can't use file 'creator' because that would offend atheist). This is such a bullshit and thinking that adult people are playing with this shit... people just lost their minds.

StavrosK 6y ago

What is it that offends you about the terms, and why? Honest question, as I've never spoken to anyone who wasn't offended by proxy.

sagichmal 6y ago
> What is it that offends you about the terms, and why? Sorry for being unclear. I'm not offended, either. But (see my reply to sibling comment) I find the arguments that the term can be seen as offensive, and that it perpetuates a (small! subtle! but real!) form of systemic racism, essentially plausible, and I'm sympathetic to them.

tehwebguy 6y ago

Exactly! People said this terminology hurts to hear and use, explained why. It doesn’t hurt me to use more appropriate terms so it feels like an easy choice. I’m not surprised GitHub came to the same conclusion.

wayneftw 6y ago
I haven’t seen one explanation that makes any sense. Care to link to one in any of these threads here, on Twitter or reddit that made sense to you?
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  The explanation is that “master” is a slavery term. It has other meanings, sure. But for some people who are a descendant of people who were enslaved it is an unwelcome reminder of slavery every time they merge.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    Nobody anywhere uses the word "master" to mean a person who has slaves. The word has at least 14 other meanings. The one meaning that relates to "slavery" is 100% of the time tagged as "historical". IMO, remove that entry in the dictionary if you don't like it and stop schools from teaching the historical context of it. Then, after only a few years kids who have never heard the term in terms of slavery will never know and have no reason to be offended by a word. Judging by the responses everywhere, you're in the extreme minority if you think this word is a problem. The word is not going away, even if removed from some niche space such as GitHub. As a matter of fact, I'm going to double down on using it so that I can easily identify people who I'd never want to have a working relation with if they get offended.
    - tehwebguy 6y ago
      I think you’re missing the point, I’m not offended by the word at all. But a group of people said they were, and it was no skin off my nose to make life easier for them. Their explanation made total sense to me so I took it as a learning experience to see the world through someone else’s eyes instead of “doubling down” which is pretty alarming behavior tbh. On the word itself, “someone who has enslaved another human” doesn’t have to be the only definition, but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US). It probably doesn’t mean anything at all to most people, that’s okay. I don’t think they are racists or anything like that if the oppose this change.
      - wayneftw 6y ago
        Thanks for not assuming I'm a racist. Looking back, I couched my response in terms of "if you are offended by the word, then..." and I don't think I directly indicated that I thought you were offended. To be honest, I don't think the people who even kicked this off at GitHub are offended. They're just trying to do something. There already is skin off your nose with this change though. First, because you're already here having to waste your attention on defending it. Second, because if Git and other tools surrounding GitHub don't change then there will be constant friction. (e.g. What now happens if you init a repo on your PC and push to GitHub with the default `master` branch? That's my exact workflow.) Third, if you have to do the work yourself to change it on your own projects. Fourth, because if you don't cover your ass 100% you'll potentially be targeted by this witch hunt. Maybe you don't mind one or two of those situations, but I doubt you would all of them. > ...but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US). I don't know what that means. Ideas are important. Words are constantly changing by meaning and usage and they're really only as important as a person allows them to be. In my opinion, assigning power or importance to inanimate things is folly. Power lies in controlling how you react to things. Philosophically it has been said that the only thing you can truly change in this world is how you react to things. At the end of the day, this is a GitHub company decision. I can't do anything about it other than exploring my thoughts and talking about it. If GitHub starts harassing me over not changing my branch names though, I'll leave the platform in a heartbeat.
xellisx 6y ago
I find it funny are people are willing to argue over this, which takes way more energy than actually doing the change. My boss was going to use trunk, but I was on my own for prod, until I brought up the points that it reflects what is for, we have a development branch and Git is graph base, then the CTO was on my side when he heard graph. After my boss made the change, he noticed that trunk wouldn't have read well thought-out the Atlastin suite and Production did. My only thing with the change was make sure we had proper nomenclature.
drorh 6y ago
It should very well hurt you because this is just the worm-up. The moment you start playing this games with language, people will become ever more sensitized and new words will become unspeakable hurting the freedom of speech. Do we now have Master becoming the new M-word? There were also slave owners so are you going to take down the file owner concept now because of 'slavery'? This is so wrong.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Easy question: Nope, because owning things (objects, files) is normal and not related to enslaving a human.

nr152522 6y ago

I’m not sure about this. I don’t think relationship between branches are considered slaves to their master branch (at least I never thought of it that way). If anything, they’re students that may eventually exceed the capabilities of their master. Much like the apprentice Luke Skywalker and master Yoda. If it does offend then by all means, make it happen, I’m just not entirely convinced.

Yetanfou 6y ago

I do not support this change since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation. Both words have been in use for a very long time. The insinuation that the use of these words is in any way racially insensitive is not just nonsensical, it is a way to gain control of the narrative by a politically motivated party. Control over the narrative gives power [1]: Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past [2]. Who controls the narrative, controls the present. [1] https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/ https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-controls-the-future-who-controls-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-...

DanBC 6y ago
> since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race https://www.etymonline.com/word/master https://www.etymonline.com/word/master > In the broadest sense, "one who has power to control, use, or dispose (of something or some quality) at will," from mid-14c. Also from mid-14c. as "one who employs another or others in his service" (in which sense the correlative word was servant, man, or apprentice); also "owner of a living creature" (dog, horse), also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia. This bit feels like it has a strong connection to racism. > also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Nonsense, in the context of slavery - as in humans abusing other humans as forced labour - the word master has this meaning. In the context of a version control system it evidently does not.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    But that's a different claim, isn't it? > since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation "Nothing, absolutely nothing". "normal words without any racial connotation". That's untrue, isn't it? Perhaps you just need a better dictionary. https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st > master noun 1 someone especially a man, who commands or controls. 2 the owner, especially a male owner, of a dog, slave, etc.

drorh 6y ago

I am deeply offended when people call me 'white'. I do not reflect all light shown upon me and I do have all kinds of shades of brown, yellow and pink. I think calling someone black is just as racist - no person absorbs all light shown on them. This is ridiculous. How on earth is the word "master" relates specifically to black people slavery? One could use "slave owner" just as well so should we now abolish the word "owner" in Linux and avoid using file owner (you can't use file 'creator' because that would offend atheist). This is such a bullshit and thinking that adult people are playing with this shit... people just lost their minds.