4 ms·

IMO if you take your own argument to its logical conclusion, you can see that it falls apart easily. If someone launched a project in 2020 where you “lynch” a p

by p49k 6y ago

IMO if you take your own argument to its logical conclusion, you can see that it falls apart easily. If someone launched a project in 2020 where you “lynch” a process to remove it and engage in “gassing” a connection pool to close all connections, then it’s blatantly obvious why such terms are problematic, despite the terms only being slightly removed from master/slave.

ColanR 6y ago
Eh. If I was managing a network with a ton of machines I needed to be able to turn off and on together (not that farfetched from what I'm currently doing), I'd probably label the scripts 'resurrection' and 'genocide'. Apt and descriptive. I think the difference is you chose words more emotionally charged, which isn't the point here.
- sk0g 6y ago
  I'd say genocide is a bit... Strong, something like terminate might be just as apt, and less likely to get you fired!
  - ColanR 6y ago
    Genocide = kill them all, which is exactly what the script would be doing.
    - sk0g 6y ago
      What do you think (ex)terminate means, while not being a quite direct reference to catastrophic events?
      - ColanR 6y ago
        It means kill one thing with extreme prejudice, which does not fit the description I gave you. The nice thing about a large vocabulary of both positive and negative words is that it's possible to use words that actually fit the context.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - jgwil2 6y ago
      Genocide means destroying an ethnic group by killing all of its members - it is in no way generalizable to "kill them all." Surely you can see why that's a poor use of language (even discounting the potential to offend). Save yourself a character and just go with "killall."
    - sriram_malhar 6y ago
      The word genocide has a much more sinister import than 'kill all'. It literally means kill all of one race ('geno'). I wouldn't call terminating a child process 'infanticide' either.
- p49k 6y ago
  I’m curious what you would do if a new hire/junior programmer joined your team and asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide and they would prefer not to be reminded every time they had to run the script? Would you be empathetic and spend three seconds renaming it or fight them tooth and nail on principle? Why would people so strongly resist practicing some pre-emptive effortless empathy toward people who have gone through similar things related to a small handful of specific words?
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide I'd change it. Why do you ask? > pre-emptive effortless empathy Because the world is filled with negativity, and our language changes to refect the world: if we kept dropping every word that gained a negative connotation, within a few generations we'd be left with nothing but a child's vocabulary - if that.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    I'm open to changing any problematic wording if it came from someone that was genuinely offended by it. However I am opposed to blanket changes like the one in this article not because of the wording itself but because the change is coming from the PR department as opposed to any actual minorities that might be offended by these words.
    - p49k 6y ago
      1. People who speak up are often putting their jobs at stake, especially in the US where people can (and often are) fired for almost anything. We shouldn’t have to ask anyone; it’s so not a big deal to search and replace some text to a more neutral term. 2. I’ve met plenty of people who felt uncomfortable about specific jokes being made, words being used and did not feel comfortable for speaking out for various reasons. In at least one case the person explained that it took years before they were able to make the transition from feeling demeaned by a term and being able to understand and articulate exactly why it was demeaning. We can be proactive and emphatic. There’s no good reason people have to be so insanely motivated to fight against something that barely has any effect on their life but that might improve things for others.
debaserab2 6y ago
Yet we kill “child” processes all the time, especially those pesky orphaned ones. No one has a problem with the phrasing above when the context is understood.
- p49k 6y ago
  Sure but there isn’t a growing population of people who actively support randomly killing children in the same way that hateful/racist movements are growing in the US and elsewhere. That context matters.
  - henriquez 6y ago
    Context does matter. A good portion of the U.S. believes that abortion is the same as killing children, but we aren’t changing tech companies, implementing codes of conduct, or devising newspeak to suit _those_ peoples’ political sensibilities, are we? When the pendulum swings the other way, after we’ve normalized the complete politicization of our day to day institutions, will we all be okay with potentially having an opposing political belief system forced upon us? Or do we need not think that far ahead?
    - imustbeevil 6y ago
      Luckily we aren't having any political belief system forced upon us. People are independently choosing to remove terms they personally don't want included in their projects. If someone feels the same way about the use of the term "child" in code they can freely update their projects today; they don't have to wait for any pendulum.
      - henriquez 6y ago
        Kind of like how you choose to accept the terms of service.
        imustbeevil 6y ago
        Sorry if I'm just missing it, but I'm not sure how this relates. Something I've noticed in my own writing is that the more I write the less likely it is to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. By that I mean, it would be easier to have a dialogue if I knew what connection you were drawing between people choosing to update their projects and my acceptance of terms of service. I can imagine many connections, but to respond to the connection you're making I'd need to know which one it is.
trabant00 6y ago
> it’s blatantly obvious why such terms are problematic To me it's not even clear what "problematic" means. I understand problems, I understand solutions, I can understand explanations of how one relates to another, but problematic... Not obvious at all.
rsweeney21 6y ago
This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
apta 6y ago
Except the terms you chose specifically applied to a known subset/race of humans globally. Slavery was not limited to African Americans.

by p49k 6y ago

ColanR 6y ago

Eh. If I was managing a network with a ton of machines I needed to be able to turn off and on together (not that farfetched from what I'm currently doing), I'd probably label the scripts 'resurrection' and 'genocide'. Apt and descriptive. I think the difference is you chose words more emotionally charged, which isn't the point here.

sk0g 6y ago
I'd say genocide is a bit... Strong, something like terminate might be just as apt, and less likely to get you fired!
- ColanR 6y ago
  Genocide = kill them all, which is exactly what the script would be doing.
  - sk0g 6y ago
    What do you think (ex)terminate means, while not being a quite direct reference to catastrophic events?
    - ColanR 6y ago
      It means kill one thing with extreme prejudice, which does not fit the description I gave you. The nice thing about a large vocabulary of both positive and negative words is that it's possible to use words that actually fit the context.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    Genocide means destroying an ethnic group by killing all of its members - it is in no way generalizable to "kill them all." Surely you can see why that's a poor use of language (even discounting the potential to offend). Save yourself a character and just go with "killall."
  - sriram_malhar 6y ago
    The word genocide has a much more sinister import than 'kill all'. It literally means kill all of one race ('geno'). I wouldn't call terminating a child process 'infanticide' either.
p49k 6y ago
I’m curious what you would do if a new hire/junior programmer joined your team and asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide and they would prefer not to be reminded every time they had to run the script? Would you be empathetic and spend three seconds renaming it or fight them tooth and nail on principle? Why would people so strongly resist practicing some pre-emptive effortless empathy toward people who have gone through similar things related to a small handful of specific words?
- ColanR 6y ago
  > asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide I'd change it. Why do you ask? > pre-emptive effortless empathy Because the world is filled with negativity, and our language changes to refect the world: if we kept dropping every word that gained a negative connotation, within a few generations we'd be left with nothing but a child's vocabulary - if that.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I'm open to changing any problematic wording if it came from someone that was genuinely offended by it. However I am opposed to blanket changes like the one in this article not because of the wording itself but because the change is coming from the PR department as opposed to any actual minorities that might be offended by these words.
  - p49k 6y ago
    1. People who speak up are often putting their jobs at stake, especially in the US where people can (and often are) fired for almost anything. We shouldn’t have to ask anyone; it’s so not a big deal to search and replace some text to a more neutral term. 2. I’ve met plenty of people who felt uncomfortable about specific jokes being made, words being used and did not feel comfortable for speaking out for various reasons. In at least one case the person explained that it took years before they were able to make the transition from feeling demeaned by a term and being able to understand and articulate exactly why it was demeaning. We can be proactive and emphatic. There’s no good reason people have to be so insanely motivated to fight against something that barely has any effect on their life but that might improve things for others.

debaserab2 6y ago

Yet we kill “child” processes all the time, especially those pesky orphaned ones. No one has a problem with the phrasing above when the context is understood.

p49k 6y ago
Sure but there isn’t a growing population of people who actively support randomly killing children in the same way that hateful/racist movements are growing in the US and elsewhere. That context matters.
- henriquez 6y ago
  Context does matter. A good portion of the U.S. believes that abortion is the same as killing children, but we aren’t changing tech companies, implementing codes of conduct, or devising newspeak to suit _those_ peoples’ political sensibilities, are we? When the pendulum swings the other way, after we’ve normalized the complete politicization of our day to day institutions, will we all be okay with potentially having an opposing political belief system forced upon us? Or do we need not think that far ahead?
  - imustbeevil 6y ago
    Luckily we aren't having any political belief system forced upon us. People are independently choosing to remove terms they personally don't want included in their projects. If someone feels the same way about the use of the term "child" in code they can freely update their projects today; they don't have to wait for any pendulum.
    - henriquez 6y ago
      Kind of like how you choose to accept the terms of service.
      - imustbeevil 6y ago
        Sorry if I'm just missing it, but I'm not sure how this relates. Something I've noticed in my own writing is that the more I write the less likely it is to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. By that I mean, it would be easier to have a dialogue if I knew what connection you were drawing between people choosing to update their projects and my acceptance of terms of service. I can imagine many connections, but to respond to the connection you're making I'd need to know which one it is.

trabant00 6y ago

> it’s blatantly obvious why such terms are problematic To me it's not even clear what "problematic" means. I understand problems, I understand solutions, I can understand explanations of how one relates to another, but problematic... Not obvious at all.

rsweeney21 6y ago

This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

apta 6y ago

Except the terms you chose specifically applied to a known subset/race of humans globally. Slavery was not limited to African Americans.