3 ms·

Like in real life - slavery isn't really banished, it's transformed into a less brittle, and perhaps more insidious, social relationship: Former bound slaves ar

Like in real life - slavery isn't really banished, it's transformed into a less brittle, and perhaps more insidious, social relationship: Former bound slaves are now employed as salaried servants, free to leave at any time. Except if they want to earn enough to feed their families, that is. So now, we still have masters and servants in the kernels, but the names are changed: > In their place coders will be expected to use alternatives > such as “primary” and “secondary” relationships, or refer > to “leaders” and “followers”, or even “directors” and > “performers”. If it's _actually_ primary foo's and secondary foo's, then fine; but I suspect these are just euphemisms. Now, in software, the effect is just a bit of obfuscation. What's annoying is the reflection of the real-life trade not to call a spade a spade. PS - I'm fine with changes like "denylists" instead of "blacklists".

thrownaway954 6y ago
so what are your suggestions then?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- einpoklum 6y ago
  Call things what they are. If one entity gives orders to other entities and they must carry them out, then don't call these the "primary" and the "secondary" entities, because then you've given them a vague and non-descriptive name. I'm not saying you _have_ to use "master" and "slave" when there are other reasonably descriptive names, just don't avoid it artificially because it reminds you of bad things.
  - thrownaway954 6y ago
    again... what are your suggestions then? that whole response was not "calling things what they are", it deflecting from actually answering the question. if you don't have good idea of the terms to use, you can just say that you don't know.
tehjoker 6y ago
We're only allowed to make superficial changes to the culture, anything that would change the fundamental power structure of wealthy people controlling armies of labor without any accountability is verboten. These cosmetic changes are good, but they are like sucralose, sating the public's immediate desire for change without providing any calories. It's like the discourse around statutes. Bringing down statutes is substituting for the actual change that was routed by power's refusal to actually defund the police. In the context of a revolution, bringing down a statue is a powerful statement. In the context of not-a-revolution, bringing down a statue is like rearranging furniture to make a room less garish and more tasteful. Reading this book "Democracy Inc." rn on "managed democracy" and "inverted totalitarianism": https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted...
Quekid5 6y ago
> Former bound slaves are now employed as salaried servants, free to leave at any time. Except if they want to earn enough to feed their families, that is. I mean, I certainly have "issues" with the system we have, but at least most people get to choose their 'master' these days? (Assumption being that there are multiple competing employers vying for the opportunity to employ 'servants'. Of course, if all 'masters' are equally shitty, the choice doesn't matter, but...)
- einpoklum 6y ago
  Concentration of capital is such that choice is effectively limited. This is particularly striking in a place like, say, South Africa (even though there it's post-Apartheid, not post-Slavery): Nearly all of the land and the large industrial and commercial enterprises are owned by white people. So, the black person who now has full political rights can choose which white proprietor to sell his labor power to.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    I believe you, but at the same time all countries have to go through the phases of development (and sometime regressions, like what's going on right now in the world) to get to better lives for people.
  - Quekid5 6y ago
    It depends a lot on where you live. It's not that bad where I live (EU, specifically Scandinavia), for example. Of course it goes without saying that we're generally quite privileged compared to a lot of the rest of the world. Anyway, my point was really just that at least there is a choice of "the least bad" rather than no choice at all. I realize that that may not amount to much.

thrownaway954 6y ago

so what are your suggestions then?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 6y ago
Call things what they are. If one entity gives orders to other entities and they must carry them out, then don't call these the "primary" and the "secondary" entities, because then you've given them a vague and non-descriptive name. I'm not saying you _have_ to use "master" and "slave" when there are other reasonably descriptive names, just don't avoid it artificially because it reminds you of bad things.
- thrownaway954 6y ago
  again... what are your suggestions then? that whole response was not "calling things what they are", it deflecting from actually answering the question. if you don't have good idea of the terms to use, you can just say that you don't know.

tehjoker 6y ago

We're only allowed to make superficial changes to the culture, anything that would change the fundamental power structure of wealthy people controlling armies of labor without any accountability is verboten. These cosmetic changes are good, but they are like sucralose, sating the public's immediate desire for change without providing any calories. It's like the discourse around statutes. Bringing down statutes is substituting for the actual change that was routed by power's refusal to actually defund the police. In the context of a revolution, bringing down a statue is a powerful statement. In the context of not-a-revolution, bringing down a statue is like rearranging furniture to make a room less garish and more tasteful. Reading this book "Democracy Inc." rn on "managed democracy" and "inverted totalitarianism": https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted...

Quekid5 6y ago

> Former bound slaves are now employed as salaried servants, free to leave at any time. Except if they want to earn enough to feed their families, that is. I mean, I certainly have "issues" with the system we have, but at least most people get to choose their 'master' these days? (Assumption being that there are multiple competing employers vying for the opportunity to employ 'servants'. Of course, if all 'masters' are equally shitty, the choice doesn't matter, but...)

einpoklum 6y ago
Concentration of capital is such that choice is effectively limited. This is particularly striking in a place like, say, South Africa (even though there it's post-Apartheid, not post-Slavery): Nearly all of the land and the large industrial and commercial enterprises are owned by white people. So, the black person who now has full political rights can choose which white proprietor to sell his labor power to.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  I believe you, but at the same time all countries have to go through the phases of development (and sometime regressions, like what's going on right now in the world) to get to better lives for people.
- Quekid5 6y ago
  It depends a lot on where you live. It's not that bad where I live (EU, specifically Scandinavia), for example. Of course it goes without saying that we're generally quite privileged compared to a lot of the rest of the world. Anyway, my point was really just that at least there is a choice of "the least bad" rather than no choice at all. I realize that that may not amount to much.