5 ms·

What drives me crazy about the "master" vs "main" branch name is that before this started the branch name "master" was in my mind a completely un-racist definit

by Cerium 6y ago

What drives me crazy about the "master" vs "main" branch name is that before this started the branch name "master" was in my mind a completely un-racist definition. Now the debate has changed my the link in my mind to the point where I feel like a branch name has racist history and I feel dirty typing it.

nitrogen 6y ago
That is where this movement is being counterproductive -- it's injecting racial division into places where there was none (neither systemic, nor overt, nor covert) before.
- yerwhat01010 6y ago
  You give them too much credit. Injecting racial division is the entire point. Critical race theorists want to divide everyone up by their immutable characteristics, discriminate on the basis of race, and make everyone as hyper-conscious about skin colour as possible. They explicitly say that they want to undermine the American liberal order and do away with such concepts as legal neutrality and equality under the law; here's a quote from page 3 of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, one of the leading textbooks: > Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. You saw this with Trump's anti-CRT executive order, widely misreported as "banning diversity training" or "banning federal employees and contractors from being taught about racism". People who claim that this is what the EO said either haven't read it or they're deliberately lying; section 10 of the order explicitly says that diversity training is still allowed. What the EO actually banned was "diversity" or other training which teaches any of nine specific things, all of which are perfectly reasonable ideas to not want in government, for example that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex." Look it up yourself; read the full list of nine points and tell me which ones you would want to see taught to government employees (or anyone else). Wokeists went nuts at this EO, and Biden reversed it on his first day. Why? Because they want to discriminate, scapegoat and spread stereotypes based on race and sex. What other possible explanation could there be? Wake up.
awb 6y ago
I think the discussion about “master” started within the context of “master/slave” DBs. “Master” has both a non-racist and racist definition. After seeing it used in the context of a “slave” DB, I can see why the innocence of the word was lost for many in the programming community.
- danenania 6y ago
  How can the definition of a word be racist? Making people slaves based on race was, obviously, horribly racist. But the words "master" and "slave" are not inherently racist.
  - awb 6y ago
    Sorry, I mean “master” can be used to describe a racist slaveowner or a non-racist skilled worker among many other definitions. But using the words master and slave together is to my knowledge primarily used in the context of describing a racist relationship, especially in America. The word pair has been co-opted by the programming community but I’m not sure why originally.
    - aksss 6y ago
      I was familiar with it in the hardware world before I was ever exposed to it in software, as in master and slave devices in SCSI, then later in context of data replication. People opposed to these words are making them racist (or acquiescing to those that want us to think that way) where their origin was never anything of the sort. The master/slave relationship predated the American continent and across the broad swath of human history has been a pretty color-blind enterprise. This accommodation to absurd American sensitivities is an embarrassing insult to basic intelligence that’s only getting worse. People need to grow the F up.
      - awb 6y ago
        > People opposed to these words are making them racist (or acquiescing to those that want us to think that way) where their origin was never anything of the sort I’m pretty sure actual masters and slaves were the origins of the words and predate your SCSI example. > The master/slave relationship predated the American continent and across the broad swath of human history has been a pretty color-blind enterprise But it’s never been healthy or admirable, wether based on racism, class, tribalism, religion, etc. So we’re upset that we can’t personify inanimate objects and describe mechanical processes using words that were originally used to describe horrible human behavior? Is this really the hill to fight on? Does renaming a DB pair primary/secondary really mark the downfall of our society? No one is trying to make you “acquiesce”. If personifying an application with the words master/slave is super important to you, go for it. It just seems more odd to me those that insist on using it rather than the multitude of words that aren’t associated with generational pain and suffering.

by Cerium 6y ago

nitrogen 6y ago

That is where this movement is being counterproductive -- it's injecting racial division into places where there was none (neither systemic, nor overt, nor covert) before.

yerwhat01010 6y ago
You give them too much credit. Injecting racial division is the entire point. Critical race theorists want to divide everyone up by their immutable characteristics, discriminate on the basis of race, and make everyone as hyper-conscious about skin colour as possible. They explicitly say that they want to undermine the American liberal order and do away with such concepts as legal neutrality and equality under the law; here's a quote from page 3 of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, one of the leading textbooks: > Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. You saw this with Trump's anti-CRT executive order, widely misreported as "banning diversity training" or "banning federal employees and contractors from being taught about racism". People who claim that this is what the EO said either haven't read it or they're deliberately lying; section 10 of the order explicitly says that diversity training is still allowed. What the EO actually banned was "diversity" or other training which teaches any of nine specific things, all of which are perfectly reasonable ideas to not want in government, for example that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex." Look it up yourself; read the full list of nine points and tell me which ones you would want to see taught to government employees (or anyone else). Wokeists went nuts at this EO, and Biden reversed it on his first day. Why? Because they want to discriminate, scapegoat and spread stereotypes based on race and sex. What other possible explanation could there be? Wake up.

awb 6y ago

I think the discussion about “master” started within the context of “master/slave” DBs. “Master” has both a non-racist and racist definition. After seeing it used in the context of a “slave” DB, I can see why the innocence of the word was lost for many in the programming community.

danenania 6y ago
How can the definition of a word be racist? Making people slaves based on race was, obviously, horribly racist. But the words "master" and "slave" are not inherently racist.
- awb 6y ago
  Sorry, I mean “master” can be used to describe a racist slaveowner or a non-racist skilled worker among many other definitions. But using the words master and slave together is to my knowledge primarily used in the context of describing a racist relationship, especially in America. The word pair has been co-opted by the programming community but I’m not sure why originally.
  - aksss 6y ago
    I was familiar with it in the hardware world before I was ever exposed to it in software, as in master and slave devices in SCSI, then later in context of data replication. People opposed to these words are making them racist (or acquiescing to those that want us to think that way) where their origin was never anything of the sort. The master/slave relationship predated the American continent and across the broad swath of human history has been a pretty color-blind enterprise. This accommodation to absurd American sensitivities is an embarrassing insult to basic intelligence that’s only getting worse. People need to grow the F up.
    - awb 6y ago
      > People opposed to these words are making them racist (or acquiescing to those that want us to think that way) where their origin was never anything of the sort I’m pretty sure actual masters and slaves were the origins of the words and predate your SCSI example. > The master/slave relationship predated the American continent and across the broad swath of human history has been a pretty color-blind enterprise But it’s never been healthy or admirable, wether based on racism, class, tribalism, religion, etc. So we’re upset that we can’t personify inanimate objects and describe mechanical processes using words that were originally used to describe horrible human behavior? Is this really the hill to fight on? Does renaming a DB pair primary/secondary really mark the downfall of our society? No one is trying to make you “acquiesce”. If personifying an application with the words master/slave is super important to you, go for it. It just seems more odd to me those that insist on using it rather than the multitude of words that aren’t associated with generational pain and suffering.