4 ms·
>only one master at a time and the slaves are not meant to be promoted. So not like a historical master-slave relationship. Master-slave may capture the relat
by el_oni 5y ago
>only one master at a time and the slaves are not meant to be promoted.
So not like a historical master-slave relationship.
Master-slave may capture the relationship, but humans still have to read, write and interact with those systems.
Some of those humans still suffer from the legacy of slavery, jim crow and voter suppression.
We can come up with analogies and metaphors which arent so evocative and make working with systems more pleasant just on account of not flippantly referencing the darkest part of societies history.
- skytreader 5y agoThis might be a difference in values but to describe the metaphor as "flippant" is rather puritan don't you think? It's not as if the metaphor is reducing the gravitas of the issue. It does not even make a value judgment on whether or not slavery is wrong. It is a neutral metaphor at best. If we as a society move to a state where a metaphor like so is verboten just because it is less pleasant or already considered "evocative" then how can we have deep and nuanced discussions on this period itself? You know the ones where we explicitly acknowledge the horrors of slave dehumanization, the terrible working conditions in the plantations, the violence stemming from these racist beliefs, among others. Those issues are too heavy to be evoked by the metaphor (and frankly irrelevant to its purpose) and yet our current trajectory would want people to do away with it when it only serves to illustrates the relationship between computing resources. It's not even a comment on social history.