5 ms·
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
by 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 agogood 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 agoI 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 agoProbably 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 agoJust 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 agoInteresting 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 agoYou 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 agoEveryone'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 agoI 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 agoHow many more black people would there be if there wasn’t poverty and discrimination?
- 6y ago