6 ms·

Sorry that this is off topic, but what’s the situation with the term “masterclass” now that we’ve determined that we shouldn’t use the word “master”. Same with

Sorry that this is off topic, but what’s the situation with the term “masterclass” now that we’ve determined that we shouldn’t use the word “master”. Same with “masterpiece,” “master craftsman,” “headmaster,” “master Jedi,” etc. edit: I’m genuinely curious about this, and don’t have a position on the “master” thing. Not trying to start a flame war.

dijit 6y ago
I think words like 'masterclass' will not change. "Mastery" of a skill or topic is largely different than being a 'master' of a set of nodes. Saddens me that you got downvoted for asking an earnest question, I guess people are scared of what this topic will devolve into.
- blacklivesmatr1 6y ago
  I'm curious as well. I 100% support black lives matter and started to rename some git repos from master to main but I notice this master used in git isn't a master/slave type of master but the master copy, the version that every thing looks to as the source of truth. This is not the same as the original. Version 75 is not the original, version 1 is, but it is the master. I don't mind renaming those to main in fact I started looking into automating the conversion but at the same time it does seem like mission creep. main doesn't actually have the same meaning. In pressing CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays we have "gold masters" which are used to create the molds for the presses for the discs. A master key opens all locks. Those usages all seem unrelated and arguably so does the git usage. Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem?
  - dijit 6y ago
    You can think of it more as a return to normalcy, "master" in VCS is relatively unique to git. p4/piper is MAIN SVN is 'trunk' mercurial is 'default' -- I'd be upset if we were changing commonly held terminology or if it had more meaning.. but it's completely arbitrary and all it costs is the minor reeducation of all github/git users and the invalidation of all prior documentation.
    - viklove 6y ago
      So let me get this straight, if p4/piper, svn, and mercurial all used "master," then you would be against the reeducation?
      - dijit 6y ago
        Very much, yes. The piety of those who wish everyone to be re-educated and the corpus of documentation to be rendered invalid would be sickening. At least in this instance it brings concepts more in line. We need less confusing and diverse verbiage in the industry generally speaking, when we refer to the same concepts (server/instance/machine/node being examples), so I think the change is welcome on those merits alone, and if it happens to make people feel better, though there's no evidence of that, then great. However it's important to understand that if the motivation is purely political, then this can be classified as political correctness, which has proven time and time again to be ineffective and actually /harmful/ to the left; as the right are clever to use it as a recruiting tool- often openly pissing off the left and making them hypersensitive to anyone not towing the line. This was true in the early 90's and it's true again today. To quote Stephen Fry on political correctness: "if someone wants to shout faggot at me, I don't care, as a gay man. I know I'm supposed to, but I'm supposed to care on behalf of people who are, supposedly weaker than me. and I think it's the most patronising thing in the world. It's exactly the same political correctness that I grew up with which was then, the kind of religious political correctness; which is people complaining about television programmes, about swearing and nudity and violence: 'I am not shocked myself, it's just the vulnerable young minds, you see!'; well, fuck that, that's just not good enough. It really isn't. and that's my objection. it's.. denouncing from the pulpit.. I mean, Russia has political correctness, but in Russia the political correctness is that you can't say Tchaikovsky was gay."[0] These comments were given before a debate (which unfortunately was derailed frequently) on the efficacy of political correctness; and he made detailed points about words being immediately co-opted to mean hateful things, if there is hateful intent, and largely intent is the most important factor to control for, certainly not language. I will link to the full debate below;[1] So, typically I'm against these kinds of measures, and that's the foundation on what this change was about. If a change can stand by other merits, then sure, but to assume that this will help even a little, with no evidence provided- and to attribute such little weight to the human time in reconfiguring and reeducating is not just patronising in of itself, it's a little dehumanising to those it supposedly supports and forces re-education and labour on the entire development world. I believe that to be immoral; unless, of course, the change can stand on other merits. [0]: https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=422 https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=422 (13m) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0 (2h)
  - rvz 6y ago
    > Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem? Given that GitHub and git-scm approved of removing this somewhat "problematic" terminology despite the original context being unrelated to master/slave, etc. Where would you draw the line on replacing these terms?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Master as a word doesn't even have to do anything with slave master, anymore so than "owner" has to do with slave owner. Slave master is just a subcategory of uses of the word master. Here's the etymology, as per the dictionary: master: from late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"
    - p_l 6y ago
      mægester comes from latin magister, which in fact did include aspects of slavery - in the sense that a magister is in control of X, whether it be a domain of a science, particular skillset, or people. The corresponding word for slaves was in turn explicit about "someone who can't refuse order".
- agustamir 6y ago
  Will there be some nuance in changing said problematic terms, or will this wave of corrections swallow everything in its way. imo, there are some obvious problems with 'whitelist-blacklist'. But 'master' tends to be on the harmless side on the spectrum of problematic terms? I'm open to changing my views, tbh.
- simonh 6y ago
  I suspect the downvotes are concerning the assertions that 'we' have determined something.
khazhoux 6y ago
In tech at least, the word "master" isn't by itself a problem, as much as the term "master/slave" in systems architecture. Or at least... I hope that the word "master" is not completely verboten now.
rvz 6y ago
Well that depends on 'how far do they want to take this' i.e. where do they draw the line on what should be replaced or not. Does Mastercard apply to this change? Perhaps being a blacksmith is 'offensive' as well. Maybe having a 'Masters' degree from Yale is just as bad as saying Headmaster or 'Dark mode' and the list goes on. As soon as you remove the context and start racializing everything, it doesn't make any sense to immediately associate it as 'racist'. It will get to the point where someone will eventually reject such changes and will risk of being called a racist for not supporting it.
- dijit 6y ago
  I recently had the following exhange on the subject: [reply to me, after I suggested the word "master" is not a bad one but the act is] >> I agree that the word isn't necessarily bad itself, but the issue is that humans don't operate on dictionary definitions; we operate on connotations. Master/slave terminology is kind of vague alongside it referencing/being a product of immoral history, so why not make our terminology more accurate and stop normalizing the old terminology? >> If you were a person whose ancestors were systematically enslaved getting started in tech, would you say "oh those aren't bad words, they're just words" or would you be a little off put that the field glorifies historically racist terminology by using it everywhere that it's vaguely related? [my reply] > If you were a person whose ancestors were systematically enslaved I am such a person. > would you be a little off put that the field glorifies historically racist terminology I think this is the distinction, there's no glorification being given, the words we tend to use in computer science and operating system design are relatively clinical. There are many points here to argue; you could say that people without parents may be put off by 'orphan', or people who have had siblings or loved ones killed as children could be put of by the terms "kill" and "child" especially as they're often used in conjunction. In fact that last one also applies to me as one of my childhood friends was murdered. There's other, potentially less harmful terms, like "class-based" programming, if you know anything about Britain and especially the British Raj you know that this is a very touchy subject. In fact it has far reaching implications in India today. The application of a word should not be marred by the history of a word, especially words that near-universally apply. > so why not make our terminology more accurate and stop normalizing the old terminology? This is a well meaning intention, and you know what they [say about the path to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with...). I can think of three arguments against, and they are weakly held so don't think I'm being absolutist or combative or that I can't see reason: 1) There exists a concept called the euphemism treadmill: simply stated it says that the words we typically use to refer to "bad things" is co-opted and abused until it becomes a bad word itself. If we cannot refer to slavery, then we will likely use other words which are loosely related and then those will become bad words also. It is better to simply state that we're not referring to the /human/ slavery, merely the relationship of components. 2) There is a large corpus of work and workers in the world; it might be meaningless to change a few words universally, but you're implicitly asking that potentially hundreds of thousands of people use new language (where english may not be their primary language and so attach to key-words) AND potentially making breaking changes between software revisions AND invalidating any existing documentation/blogspam that refers to these words. 3) There's no actual end to these kinds of changes. As soon as you draw a line you exclude people. My examples above about orphans and people who have been affected by child murder may seem absurd, but why are they less important? Twitter already announced that they would avoid using 'dummy value' because dummy can affect people. reason 3 is not an application 'the slippery slope fallacy', it's the fact that you _must_ exclude some subset of people if you chase this way of thinking, there must be a line drawn at some point as it's fractal and the human brain is exceptional at finding reasons to be upset. It is infinite. Think, even momentarily how a woman must feel upon persistently hearing the word ABORT. And, I'm mostly for changing these terms in new software; but changing existing software in this manner makes it political and not technical; the truth will always be that there was no racist intent when people chose master/slave to refer to the relationship between worker objects and controller objects- it was the clearest term to denote the relationship (and, continues to be if you didn't already know this relationship, try it each way with a few nontechnical friends). You may disagree but I think this conversation with Stephen Fry is telling (directly in relation to this topic, and not generally): https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=420 https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=420
lstamour 6y ago
It has to be taken with context, partially. “Craftsman” is gendered and therefore its usage is sometimes problematic. “Headmaster” also. The word “mastery” is not at fault, but “master” to denote male gender or indeed relationships, that’s a problem. In this case though, it was a default GitHub had established or continued... so they’ve tweaked the language to make people feel a bit more comfortable. Change is annoying but in this case, I see it as inconsequential and unrelated to words like “masterclass” or “masterpiece”... for now, at least. Word usage and meaning can change over time...
- baron816 6y ago
  Thanks for the response. I’m also curios how other languages are contending with the backlash against gendered words. Everything in French, Spanish, Italian, etc. is gendered, right?
  - lstamour 6y ago
    My understanding is that outside of names or ways of describing yourself, others and actions, in other languages you’d tend to disassociate the gender of a word from the word’s usage. As in, a word is not problematic because it has a masculine gender, but rather in its usage and meaning if it excludes women/minorities/doesn’t use inclusive language. Perhaps a similar word in English would be “perfume” which is perhaps similar to a feminine-gendered word. The male version would be “cologne”. Neither word is especially problematic — the concept, scent products, doesn’t particularly exclude either gender, though related social uses and norms might. That said, language definitely changes viewpoints. Things don’t always map 1-to-1 between languages, and a lot of cultures have different ideas about when and how to make these kinds of corrections. Sometimes language is set centrally, sometimes slang and memes propagate new terminology or reference current events. Words change the way culture changes, or so it’s been my experience...
- kbenson 6y ago
  "master" isn't gendered when used as a verb or adverb, and I would think masterclass refers to those usages. For example, it makes sense to say "she mastered her fears" but not that "she mistressed her fears". Similarly, "she mastered fer field" works but "she mistressed her field" does not. Really, it's just the usage as a noun that's problematic from a logical standpoint, as I see it. If the usage relates to "control" as master denotes as a noun, then it might be problematic (even if the historical use of controlling slaves is not the only use). If it refers to proficiency, or overcoming a hurdle, then it's not really related to the control aspect of the word, and the problematic history that comes along with it. Now, whether society, or parts of it, are able to distinguish those usages from each other or whether that causes contention that is better avoided, I don't know.
hashmal 6y ago
currently it's about the "master/slave" dichotomy, not about "master" in the "skill mastery" sense. I think you're on something though. There will be no end.
- ksec 6y ago
  I dont ever view the Master in Github as something that relates to slavery. It is like Master Key, where the secondary is change key. But it turns out I cant even use the word Master Key any more.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Master just means "primary" here.
eplanit 6y ago
No, _we_ didn't decide anything regarding the perfectly acceptable use of the word "master". The enraged mob has demanded it -- don't reward mobs. To use the word to make light of the history of slavery is vulgar and socially unacceptable. The myriad other perfectly innocent uses of it are just fine. Personally, I have no intention of obeying any of the new rules of the new Cultural Revolution.
coldtea 6y ago
>now that we’ve determined We've never "determined" that. It's merely that some obsessive bossy people suggested it. And mainly people from just one country with particular issues -- whereas English is spoken in just about everywhere in the world. Not to mention the word master has a history beyond slavery, and was used in all kinds of contexts historically with absolutely no reference to slavery. The etymology itself has nothing to do with slave masters (any more than "owner" implies "slave owner"). master: from late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vincentmarle 6y ago
Very relevant and important issue. Like the other commenter in this thread we have also already started the process of renaming all our “master” branches to “main” for this reason.
renewiltord 6y ago
Classic flamebait. This is like a top-class early 2000s Slashdot comment. I almost felt the nostalgia wash over me.

dijit 6y ago

I think words like 'masterclass' will not change. "Mastery" of a skill or topic is largely different than being a 'master' of a set of nodes. Saddens me that you got downvoted for asking an earnest question, I guess people are scared of what this topic will devolve into.

blacklivesmatr1 6y ago
I'm curious as well. I 100% support black lives matter and started to rename some git repos from master to main but I notice this master used in git isn't a master/slave type of master but the master copy, the version that every thing looks to as the source of truth. This is not the same as the original. Version 75 is not the original, version 1 is, but it is the master. I don't mind renaming those to main in fact I started looking into automating the conversion but at the same time it does seem like mission creep. main doesn't actually have the same meaning. In pressing CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays we have "gold masters" which are used to create the molds for the presses for the discs. A master key opens all locks. Those usages all seem unrelated and arguably so does the git usage. Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem?
- dijit 6y ago
  You can think of it more as a return to normalcy, "master" in VCS is relatively unique to git. p4/piper is MAIN SVN is 'trunk' mercurial is 'default' -- I'd be upset if we were changing commonly held terminology or if it had more meaning.. but it's completely arbitrary and all it costs is the minor reeducation of all github/git users and the invalidation of all prior documentation.
  - viklove 6y ago
    So let me get this straight, if p4/piper, svn, and mercurial all used "master," then you would be against the reeducation?
    - dijit 6y ago
      Very much, yes. The piety of those who wish everyone to be re-educated and the corpus of documentation to be rendered invalid would be sickening. At least in this instance it brings concepts more in line. We need less confusing and diverse verbiage in the industry generally speaking, when we refer to the same concepts (server/instance/machine/node being examples), so I think the change is welcome on those merits alone, and if it happens to make people feel better, though there's no evidence of that, then great. However it's important to understand that if the motivation is purely political, then this can be classified as political correctness, which has proven time and time again to be ineffective and actually /harmful/ to the left; as the right are clever to use it as a recruiting tool- often openly pissing off the left and making them hypersensitive to anyone not towing the line. This was true in the early 90's and it's true again today. To quote Stephen Fry on political correctness: "if someone wants to shout faggot at me, I don't care, as a gay man. I know I'm supposed to, but I'm supposed to care on behalf of people who are, supposedly weaker than me. and I think it's the most patronising thing in the world. It's exactly the same political correctness that I grew up with which was then, the kind of religious political correctness; which is people complaining about television programmes, about swearing and nudity and violence: 'I am not shocked myself, it's just the vulnerable young minds, you see!'; well, fuck that, that's just not good enough. It really isn't. and that's my objection. it's.. denouncing from the pulpit.. I mean, Russia has political correctness, but in Russia the political correctness is that you can't say Tchaikovsky was gay."[0] These comments were given before a debate (which unfortunately was derailed frequently) on the efficacy of political correctness; and he made detailed points about words being immediately co-opted to mean hateful things, if there is hateful intent, and largely intent is the most important factor to control for, certainly not language. I will link to the full debate below;[1] So, typically I'm against these kinds of measures, and that's the foundation on what this change was about. If a change can stand by other merits, then sure, but to assume that this will help even a little, with no evidence provided- and to attribute such little weight to the human time in reconfiguring and reeducating is not just patronising in of itself, it's a little dehumanising to those it supposedly supports and forces re-education and labour on the entire development world. I believe that to be immoral; unless, of course, the change can stand on other merits. [0]: https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=422 https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=422 (13m) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0 (2h)
- rvz 6y ago
  > Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem? Given that GitHub and git-scm approved of removing this somewhat "problematic" terminology despite the original context being unrelated to master/slave, etc. Where would you draw the line on replacing these terms?
- coldtea 6y ago
  Master as a word doesn't even have to do anything with slave master, anymore so than "owner" has to do with slave owner. Slave master is just a subcategory of uses of the word master. Here's the etymology, as per the dictionary: master: from late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"
  - p_l 6y ago
    mægester comes from latin magister, which in fact did include aspects of slavery - in the sense that a magister is in control of X, whether it be a domain of a science, particular skillset, or people. The corresponding word for slaves was in turn explicit about "someone who can't refuse order".
agustamir 6y ago
Will there be some nuance in changing said problematic terms, or will this wave of corrections swallow everything in its way. imo, there are some obvious problems with 'whitelist-blacklist'. But 'master' tends to be on the harmless side on the spectrum of problematic terms? I'm open to changing my views, tbh.
simonh 6y ago
I suspect the downvotes are concerning the assertions that 'we' have determined something.

khazhoux 6y ago

In tech at least, the word "master" isn't by itself a problem, as much as the term "master/slave" in systems architecture. Or at least... I hope that the word "master" is not completely verboten now.

rvz 6y ago

Well that depends on 'how far do they want to take this' i.e. where do they draw the line on what should be replaced or not. Does Mastercard apply to this change? Perhaps being a blacksmith is 'offensive' as well. Maybe having a 'Masters' degree from Yale is just as bad as saying Headmaster or 'Dark mode' and the list goes on. As soon as you remove the context and start racializing everything, it doesn't make any sense to immediately associate it as 'racist'. It will get to the point where someone will eventually reject such changes and will risk of being called a racist for not supporting it.

dijit 6y ago
I recently had the following exhange on the subject: [reply to me, after I suggested the word "master" is not a bad one but the act is] >> I agree that the word isn't necessarily bad itself, but the issue is that humans don't operate on dictionary definitions; we operate on connotations. Master/slave terminology is kind of vague alongside it referencing/being a product of immoral history, so why not make our terminology more accurate and stop normalizing the old terminology? >> If you were a person whose ancestors were systematically enslaved getting started in tech, would you say "oh those aren't bad words, they're just words" or would you be a little off put that the field glorifies historically racist terminology by using it everywhere that it's vaguely related? [my reply] > If you were a person whose ancestors were systematically enslaved I am such a person. > would you be a little off put that the field glorifies historically racist terminology I think this is the distinction, there's no glorification being given, the words we tend to use in computer science and operating system design are relatively clinical. There are many points here to argue; you could say that people without parents may be put off by 'orphan', or people who have had siblings or loved ones killed as children could be put of by the terms "kill" and "child" especially as they're often used in conjunction. In fact that last one also applies to me as one of my childhood friends was murdered. There's other, potentially less harmful terms, like "class-based" programming, if you know anything about Britain and especially the British Raj you know that this is a very touchy subject. In fact it has far reaching implications in India today. The application of a word should not be marred by the history of a word, especially words that near-universally apply. > so why not make our terminology more accurate and stop normalizing the old terminology? This is a well meaning intention, and you know what they [say about the path to hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with...). I can think of three arguments against, and they are weakly held so don't think I'm being absolutist or combative or that I can't see reason: 1) There exists a concept called the euphemism treadmill: simply stated it says that the words we typically use to refer to "bad things" is co-opted and abused until it becomes a bad word itself. If we cannot refer to slavery, then we will likely use other words which are loosely related and then those will become bad words also. It is better to simply state that we're not referring to the /human/ slavery, merely the relationship of components. 2) There is a large corpus of work and workers in the world; it might be meaningless to change a few words universally, but you're implicitly asking that potentially hundreds of thousands of people use new language (where english may not be their primary language and so attach to key-words) AND potentially making breaking changes between software revisions AND invalidating any existing documentation/blogspam that refers to these words. 3) There's no actual end to these kinds of changes. As soon as you draw a line you exclude people. My examples above about orphans and people who have been affected by child murder may seem absurd, but why are they less important? Twitter already announced that they would avoid using 'dummy value' because dummy can affect people. reason 3 is not an application 'the slippery slope fallacy', it's the fact that you _must_ exclude some subset of people if you chase this way of thinking, there must be a line drawn at some point as it's fractal and the human brain is exceptional at finding reasons to be upset. It is infinite. Think, even momentarily how a woman must feel upon persistently hearing the word ABORT. And, I'm mostly for changing these terms in new software; but changing existing software in this manner makes it political and not technical; the truth will always be that there was no racist intent when people chose master/slave to refer to the relationship between worker objects and controller objects- it was the clearest term to denote the relationship (and, continues to be if you didn't already know this relationship, try it each way with a few nontechnical friends). You may disagree but I think this conversation with Stephen Fry is telling (directly in relation to this topic, and not generally): https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=420 https://youtu.be/vsR6LP7Scg0?t=420

lstamour 6y ago

It has to be taken with context, partially. “Craftsman” is gendered and therefore its usage is sometimes problematic. “Headmaster” also. The word “mastery” is not at fault, but “master” to denote male gender or indeed relationships, that’s a problem. In this case though, it was a default GitHub had established or continued... so they’ve tweaked the language to make people feel a bit more comfortable. Change is annoying but in this case, I see it as inconsequential and unrelated to words like “masterclass” or “masterpiece”... for now, at least. Word usage and meaning can change over time...

baron816 6y ago
Thanks for the response. I’m also curios how other languages are contending with the backlash against gendered words. Everything in French, Spanish, Italian, etc. is gendered, right?
- lstamour 6y ago
  My understanding is that outside of names or ways of describing yourself, others and actions, in other languages you’d tend to disassociate the gender of a word from the word’s usage. As in, a word is not problematic because it has a masculine gender, but rather in its usage and meaning if it excludes women/minorities/doesn’t use inclusive language. Perhaps a similar word in English would be “perfume” which is perhaps similar to a feminine-gendered word. The male version would be “cologne”. Neither word is especially problematic — the concept, scent products, doesn’t particularly exclude either gender, though related social uses and norms might. That said, language definitely changes viewpoints. Things don’t always map 1-to-1 between languages, and a lot of cultures have different ideas about when and how to make these kinds of corrections. Sometimes language is set centrally, sometimes slang and memes propagate new terminology or reference current events. Words change the way culture changes, or so it’s been my experience...
kbenson 6y ago
"master" isn't gendered when used as a verb or adverb, and I would think masterclass refers to those usages. For example, it makes sense to say "she mastered her fears" but not that "she mistressed her fears". Similarly, "she mastered fer field" works but "she mistressed her field" does not. Really, it's just the usage as a noun that's problematic from a logical standpoint, as I see it. If the usage relates to "control" as master denotes as a noun, then it might be problematic (even if the historical use of controlling slaves is not the only use). If it refers to proficiency, or overcoming a hurdle, then it's not really related to the control aspect of the word, and the problematic history that comes along with it. Now, whether society, or parts of it, are able to distinguish those usages from each other or whether that causes contention that is better avoided, I don't know.

hashmal 6y ago

currently it's about the "master/slave" dichotomy, not about "master" in the "skill mastery" sense. I think you're on something though. There will be no end.

ksec 6y ago
I dont ever view the Master in Github as something that relates to slavery. It is like Master Key, where the secondary is change key. But it turns out I cant even use the word Master Key any more.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Master just means "primary" here.

eplanit 6y ago

No, _we_ didn't decide anything regarding the perfectly acceptable use of the word "master". The enraged mob has demanded it -- don't reward mobs. To use the word to make light of the history of slavery is vulgar and socially unacceptable. The myriad other perfectly innocent uses of it are just fine. Personally, I have no intention of obeying any of the new rules of the new Cultural Revolution.

coldtea 6y ago

>now that we’ve determined We've never "determined" that. It's merely that some obsessive bossy people suggested it. And mainly people from just one country with particular issues -- whereas English is spoken in just about everywhere in the world. Not to mention the word master has a history beyond slavery, and was used in all kinds of contexts historically with absolutely no reference to slavery. The etymology itself has nothing to do with slave masters (any more than "owner" implies "slave owner"). master: from late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

vincentmarle 6y ago

Very relevant and important issue. Like the other commenter in this thread we have also already started the process of renaming all our “master” branches to “main” for this reason.

renewiltord 6y ago

Classic flamebait. This is like a top-class early 2000s Slashdot comment. I almost felt the nostalgia wash over me.