4 ms·

So, two things (and I realize you aren't the person I originally replied to). 1. Your argument here is implicitly agreeing with my point number one. There ar

So, two things (and I realize you aren't the person I originally replied to). 1. Your argument here is implicitly agreeing with my point number one. There are terms that would be considered too offensive and so the conversation is about where the line falls. We can't just say "let's not ever talk about whether a term is offensive" because there are some that we really wouldn't want to use, and so we should be talking about what terms are too offensive and why. 2. This is the conversation what what's too offensive and why. "Master/slave" only has technical meaning because we've been using it that way for awhile. But master/slave was originally picked because of its meaning in the historical context of slavery. The terminology itself has no inherent technical meaning. So, to me at least, that is not a great argument for why we shouldn't change it now. But at least this part of the discussion is two people talking about the same premise and not arguing past each other.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
My point is that master/slave actually conveys a relationship between two things. It was picked for technical use because of that. Naming something "nigger", even in a technical would do what, offend some other piece of code? If somebody chose an offensive name arbitrarily (like, say, "git"), I would understand the impulse. Though the former is fraught with specific and awful connotations towards a very specific group (American blacks) whereas the latter is simply a general derogatory term (which is tacky, but not unbearably so).
- aaomidi 6y ago
  To me master and slave is soemthing that shouldn't convey a relationship. Slavery exists with the shitiness of our culture. That's not something that should be used to convey a relationship between things. Abuse shouldn't be part of our technical language.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - allarm 6y ago
    Maybe it’s you who should stop being abused by random words? Change yourself, leave me my technical language I’ve been using for decades, please. Also a fun part of it is that in my (non-english speaking) country the terms master/slave are being used in their technical meaning only (as loan words). Why do we need to change our technical language and adjust to the concept of guilt that is completely foreign to us? I find this offensive.
- whynaut 6y ago
  > My point is that master/slave actually conveys a relationship between two things. yes, it implies a negative one though. What about manager/worker? mentor/mentee? commander / responder? I could go on and on. So we do reach a point where one has to wonder what the point of clinging to master/slave is.

da_big_ghey 6y ago

My point is that master/slave actually conveys a relationship between two things. It was picked for technical use because of that. Naming something "nigger", even in a technical would do what, offend some other piece of code? If somebody chose an offensive name arbitrarily (like, say, "git"), I would understand the impulse. Though the former is fraught with specific and awful connotations towards a very specific group (American blacks) whereas the latter is simply a general derogatory term (which is tacky, but not unbearably so).

aaomidi 6y ago
To me master and slave is soemthing that shouldn't convey a relationship. Slavery exists with the shitiness of our culture. That's not something that should be used to convey a relationship between things. Abuse shouldn't be part of our technical language.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- allarm 6y ago
  Maybe it’s you who should stop being abused by random words? Change yourself, leave me my technical language I’ve been using for decades, please. Also a fun part of it is that in my (non-english speaking) country the terms master/slave are being used in their technical meaning only (as loan words). Why do we need to change our technical language and adjust to the concept of guilt that is completely foreign to us? I find this offensive.
whynaut 6y ago
> My point is that master/slave actually conveys a relationship between two things. yes, it implies a negative one though. What about manager/worker? mentor/mentee? commander / responder? I could go on and on. So we do reach a point where one has to wonder what the point of clinging to master/slave is.