4 ms·

This is the crux of it. If something that takes nothing away from you makes things better for others why argue against it?

f3295cde 6y ago
It is not at all a fact this this takes away anything from anyone. It is not clear to me at all there is anything even close to a significant fraction of public opinion that agrees that using these words in this way is a problem.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Where are you getting that number from? Is it just your gut?
blackbrokkoli 6y ago
Because of opportunity cost, wasted space. Here we have 50+ HN readers and hundreds of OC readers wasting part of their limited patience/passion/tolerance/love for the topic of racial unjustice because someone is using their etymological ignorance (and inability to use Wikipedia) to project their own bias into completely unrelated matters.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  What makes you the arbiter of it?
- shahruz 6y ago
  Is etymology more important to you than the people who are telling you they find something offensive, unwelcoming, and a factor (regardless of size) in racial equality? Do you believe that there is limited space on the internet? Or that in the absence of this discussion every person here would instead be doing something highly productive?
  - syshum 6y ago
    Everything is offensive to someone. For example I know many people that would be offended by referred to has them or they instead of she/him. There is no perfect solution there you will never offend anyone. Offense is taken not given. In the words of Stephen Fry “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry Remember, you can please everyone some of the time, Some people all of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time
    - shahruz 6y ago
      It's unclear who or what you are replying to with this. There is nothing here that relates to my comment.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    The people who claim these words are offensive are a tiny fraction of the total population which, if the reasoning those offended people use were to hold true should be offended. When it comes to the use of terms like master/slave and blacklist/whitelist in source code or configuration data most people will not even be aware that this is a thing, let alone that they should be offended by it. Even more problematic is that the majority of the people who claim these terms are offensive use projection upon others to derive the offensive nature of said terms since they themselves are neither the descendants of slaves nor of former slave owners, nor are they truly offended by the supposedly positive connotation of the word 'white' in terms like 'whitelist'. In the last few years a cult has grown around the concept of 'white guilt' led by a priestly class of apostles like Robin DiAngelo (author of 'White Fragility', currently the #1 bestseller according to the New York Times). What the cult leaders don't seem to realise is that their narrative totally revolves around 'white' people who they put in the centre of their universe which' well-being depends on their actions and inactions. They are just as race-centred as white (or black) nationalists, they just approach the situation from a different position. They can both use Kipling's The White Man's Burden as a guide, they just view it as an indictment against 'the white man' instead of a proclamation of manifest destiny. They deny agency to 'non-white' people by claiming they can only truly reach their peak by grace of the 'white' people seceding from positions of power. In short, these cultists are racists, their racism being that of low expectations. Martin Luther King had it right, when it comes to race relations the ideal society is a colour-blind society. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!

f3295cde 6y ago

It is not at all a fact this this takes away anything from anyone. It is not clear to me at all there is anything even close to a significant fraction of public opinion that agrees that using these words in this way is a problem.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
Where are you getting that number from? Is it just your gut?

blackbrokkoli 6y ago

Because of opportunity cost, wasted space. Here we have 50+ HN readers and hundreds of OC readers wasting part of their limited patience/passion/tolerance/love for the topic of racial unjustice because someone is using their etymological ignorance (and inability to use Wikipedia) to project their own bias into completely unrelated matters.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
What makes you the arbiter of it?
shahruz 6y ago
Is etymology more important to you than the people who are telling you they find something offensive, unwelcoming, and a factor (regardless of size) in racial equality? Do you believe that there is limited space on the internet? Or that in the absence of this discussion every person here would instead be doing something highly productive?
- syshum 6y ago
  Everything is offensive to someone. For example I know many people that would be offended by referred to has them or they instead of she/him. There is no perfect solution there you will never offend anyone. Offense is taken not given. In the words of Stephen Fry “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry Remember, you can please everyone some of the time, Some people all of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time
  - shahruz 6y ago
    It's unclear who or what you are replying to with this. There is nothing here that relates to my comment.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  The people who claim these words are offensive are a tiny fraction of the total population which, if the reasoning those offended people use were to hold true should be offended. When it comes to the use of terms like master/slave and blacklist/whitelist in source code or configuration data most people will not even be aware that this is a thing, let alone that they should be offended by it. Even more problematic is that the majority of the people who claim these terms are offensive use projection upon others to derive the offensive nature of said terms since they themselves are neither the descendants of slaves nor of former slave owners, nor are they truly offended by the supposedly positive connotation of the word 'white' in terms like 'whitelist'. In the last few years a cult has grown around the concept of 'white guilt' led by a priestly class of apostles like Robin DiAngelo (author of 'White Fragility', currently the #1 bestseller according to the New York Times). What the cult leaders don't seem to realise is that their narrative totally revolves around 'white' people who they put in the centre of their universe which' well-being depends on their actions and inactions. They are just as race-centred as white (or black) nationalists, they just approach the situation from a different position. They can both use Kipling's The White Man's Burden as a guide, they just view it as an indictment against 'the white man' instead of a proclamation of manifest destiny. They deny agency to 'non-white' people by claiming they can only truly reach their peak by grace of the 'white' people seceding from positions of power. In short, these cultists are racists, their racism being that of low expectations. Martin Luther King had it right, when it comes to race relations the ideal society is a colour-blind society. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!