7 ms·

I assume you are also against killing a process right? My ancestors have been killed before so I should be able to decide whether we use the word kill.

underyx 6y ago
It helps to picture that there's a spectrum of offensiveness of words. The n-word, even if it somehow arbitrarily and innocently showed up in a project, perhaps as an unfortunate acronym, is at the far end of the spectrum. "Kill", for one, is lower by comparison, I think this claim has no burden of proof. These debates can be broken down into two smaller, more focused ones: 1) Where does a specific word, e.g. "master", or "kill", exist on this linear spectrum of offensiveness? 2) What should be the cut-off point where we actively work towards replacing terminology? As for question number one, I feel like I'm in no position to join the conversation, as I'm not part of an oppressed class. The only thing I can do is defer to the judgement of those who feel harmed, and I have no ground for arguing with this understanding of theirs. As for the second question, I'm inclined to set the bar fairly low. This is because the cost associated with replacing terminology is miniscule in the long run. In fact, I believe an order of magnitude more human effort has been spent on debating terminology updates, than spent on adapting to updates that have happened, such as the one in Python documentation.
- dpau 6y ago
  good answer. (edit: i wasn't being facetious, i agreed with your comment.) and for anyone complaining about "wasting time" on this issue of terminology, i'd point them to the millions of hours lost due to tabs vs. spaces debates. it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.
  - underyx 6y ago
    I do recognize this debate as important. My intention was more to provide a comparison point as to how much it costs to update terminology, to support my stance of setting the bar for a justified update low.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do. In other words: if anyone says that something is to be renamed, do as they say. If you think it's nonsense or a waste of time, you're just not recognizing it as important, and they are.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Probably the same answer fits: if tabs (or spaces) is a problem for you then set your software environment to convert to your preference and convert back to the established use in the project. Just use what's customary and get on with your life. If it's hurting you to see it then get therapy, you've lost proper perspective.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  Just to flesh this out a little, suppose my work has 5 Christians, and they all feel "abort" is an insensitive term? 1. Whose opinions count on the issue? Just Christians? All women? 2. Do we take them any less seriously if the motivation seems vaguely political? I really do understand setting the bar low when everybody is arguing in good-faith. But on anything political, I think it's pretty much a stalemate and we have to recognize there's almost no overlap.
  - SambalOelek 6y ago
    Interesting point. I don't think the word "abort" evokes the entire loss of a culture due to systematic genocide of ancestors, but that's just me.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      You could try to word that in a less flippantly biased way. Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.
    - lolthisguy15 6y ago
      Everyone's ancestor was enslaved. The Europeans by the Romans for example. Civilizations conquered other civilizations and took the losing side as slaves, or killed them.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      I have seen some estimates that say there would over 35% more blacks in the US if they wasn't abortion. Maybe genocide isn't the correct word but the effects are the same.
      - neilp1 6y ago
        How many more black people would there be if there wasn’t poverty and discrimination?
        6y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Absurd. Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism. That's why the terminology we use matters. There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."
- loceng 6y ago
  How's it absurd? It's the same logic. He's offended but the difference is he's not claiming a specific race. Kill, master-slave etc. in a technical context aren't associated with race, yet now that someone's claiming the word "kill" is offensive you have a double standard and are dismissive, like you were in replies to me, that their logical assertion is absurd.
- f1refly 6y ago
  > Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism Yes. I also see the problem that mainly asian and white men are discriminated against in today's hiring world, i completely agree with you >That's why the terminology we use matters Your first statement has nothing to do with this. Why does terminology matter? We don't even have slaves in the modern first world, nor did we in living memory. > There's no equivalent dynamic around history of the word "kill" Wars happened. They still do. Murder happens, too. There is a problem with people dying all the time. I don't see how this is any different.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    White men are not discriminated against in tech. Terminology matters. Slavery was only a couple generations ago. The people marching in the street and the comments in this thread make it quite clear we still have a long way to go. This is a small step along that path in the right direction.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      >Slavery was only a couple generations ago. Just because it happens in a country you don't care about, doesn't mean that it no longer happens.

underyx 6y ago

It helps to picture that there's a spectrum of offensiveness of words. The n-word, even if it somehow arbitrarily and innocently showed up in a project, perhaps as an unfortunate acronym, is at the far end of the spectrum. "Kill", for one, is lower by comparison, I think this claim has no burden of proof. These debates can be broken down into two smaller, more focused ones: 1) Where does a specific word, e.g. "master", or "kill", exist on this linear spectrum of offensiveness? 2) What should be the cut-off point where we actively work towards replacing terminology? As for question number one, I feel like I'm in no position to join the conversation, as I'm not part of an oppressed class. The only thing I can do is defer to the judgement of those who feel harmed, and I have no ground for arguing with this understanding of theirs. As for the second question, I'm inclined to set the bar fairly low. This is because the cost associated with replacing terminology is miniscule in the long run. In fact, I believe an order of magnitude more human effort has been spent on debating terminology updates, than spent on adapting to updates that have happened, such as the one in Python documentation.

dpau 6y ago
good answer. (edit: i wasn't being facetious, i agreed with your comment.) and for anyone complaining about "wasting time" on this issue of terminology, i'd point them to the millions of hours lost due to tabs vs. spaces debates. it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.
- underyx 6y ago
  I do recognize this debate as important. My intention was more to provide a comparison point as to how much it costs to update terminology, to support my stance of setting the bar for a justified update low.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do. In other words: if anyone says that something is to be renamed, do as they say. If you think it's nonsense or a waste of time, you're just not recognizing it as important, and they are.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Probably the same answer fits: if tabs (or spaces) is a problem for you then set your software environment to convert to your preference and convert back to the established use in the project. Just use what's customary and get on with your life. If it's hurting you to see it then get therapy, you've lost proper perspective.
zug_zug 6y ago
Just to flesh this out a little, suppose my work has 5 Christians, and they all feel "abort" is an insensitive term? 1. Whose opinions count on the issue? Just Christians? All women? 2. Do we take them any less seriously if the motivation seems vaguely political? I really do understand setting the bar low when everybody is arguing in good-faith. But on anything political, I think it's pretty much a stalemate and we have to recognize there's almost no overlap.
- SambalOelek 6y ago
  Interesting point. I don't think the word "abort" evokes the entire loss of a culture due to systematic genocide of ancestors, but that's just me.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You could try to word that in a less flippantly biased way. Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.
  - lolthisguy15 6y ago
    Everyone's ancestor was enslaved. The Europeans by the Romans for example. Civilizations conquered other civilizations and took the losing side as slaves, or killed them.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    I have seen some estimates that say there would over 35% more blacks in the US if they wasn't abortion. Maybe genocide isn't the correct word but the effects are the same.
    - neilp1 6y ago
      How many more black people would there be if there wasn’t poverty and discrimination?
      - 6y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Absurd. Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism. That's why the terminology we use matters. There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."

loceng 6y ago
How's it absurd? It's the same logic. He's offended but the difference is he's not claiming a specific race. Kill, master-slave etc. in a technical context aren't associated with race, yet now that someone's claiming the word "kill" is offensive you have a double standard and are dismissive, like you were in replies to me, that their logical assertion is absurd.
f1refly 6y ago
> Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism Yes. I also see the problem that mainly asian and white men are discriminated against in today's hiring world, i completely agree with you >That's why the terminology we use matters Your first statement has nothing to do with this. Why does terminology matter? We don't even have slaves in the modern first world, nor did we in living memory. > There's no equivalent dynamic around history of the word "kill" Wars happened. They still do. Murder happens, too. There is a problem with people dying all the time. I don't see how this is any different.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  White men are not discriminated against in tech. Terminology matters. Slavery was only a couple generations ago. The people marching in the street and the comments in this thread make it quite clear we still have a long way to go. This is a small step along that path in the right direction.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >Slavery was only a couple generations ago. Just because it happens in a country you don't care about, doesn't mean that it no longer happens.