3 ms·

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 10

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.

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.