5 ms·

I appreciate that you chimed in because it's a common perception. But stopping the use of the master-slave metaphor in tech has nothing to do with assuming the

I appreciate that you chimed in because it's a common perception. But stopping the use of the master-slave metaphor in tech has nothing to do with assuming there are "hyper-sensitive, fragile babies who cannot understand nuance of speech" it has to do with real metaphors that persist in tech, which hold problematic historical baggage. The IETF has a document with the clearest and most informative statement on this that I know about: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html Besides, "trunk" is an objectively more correct metaphor for the main "branch" in a "source tree".

swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
Master is used in many context like master key, mastering a song, master copy, having mastery in something. To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  I feel like that logic could be used to excuse every historical term with baggage. Plus, it's not really stirring up controversy saying "hey, we should probably change the term to ~this~, which is equally or more descriptive, in a way that doesn't rely on historically problematic contexts". I think what you're focusing on is chiding people who still use the older terms; I've never seen that happen. I've seen people mix terminologies when discussing something, and oftentimes that has led to the person using the outdated instead using the updated, possibly with a conversation in between, but I've not seen someone call out "how DARE you use (technically-correct-but-outdated-term)!" That said, I've also never seen anyone dispense with the word 'master' -except- in contexts where it is used to differentiate from 'slaves'. The parent post also only references in that context (though the great-grandparent calls both out separately, though one right after the other, which is likely what is muddling things).
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Every word has baggage. "The" was used in slave documents. So were receipts. Does this mean everytime a grocery store clerk gives you a receipt they are perpetuating slavery? Even Blacklist/Blackbook come not from anything to do with black people but Charles II and his list. If you are offended by it, it's because you chose to be.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      What's your point? Does that logic excuse every word with historical baggage, or not? You state every word has historical baggage; either you then disagree with the parent logic, or you agree with the parent logic, and taken together with every word having baggage means you're saying every word is okay to use regardless of the historical baggage attached to it. Which is an interesting take, certainly.
      - hobomatic 5y ago
        It is OK to use words that remind people of troubling things as long the point of using it is not to do this antagonistically. Someone could come along and tell me my name means 'short people are possessed by demons' and I would still go on using my name, even if someone said that was mean of me. Why? Because it's a ridiculous accusation, and you are a ridiculous person if you make such an accusation, or entertain it. Now if I started calling myself '4 foot tall demons' that would obviously be different. It is entirely implausible that the 'baggage' is coincidental. The point is that the sort of historical baggage you are talking about isn't relevant to the word or it's usage in context. There is nothing to excuse.
- softwarebeware 5y ago
  That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
  - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
    I believe strongly in freedom of speech. To allow assholes and bigots to reveal themselves. I believe the movement to alter what words we’re allowed to say in our vocabulary is lead by educated mostly white “allies”. These people don’t speak for the underprivileged, they’re creating ways to feel better about themselves through self-policing because they don’t have any real idea about how to solve the issues that actually affect people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
trackflak 5y ago
Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all. Its ok to have a master copy, it is desirable to master your soul, someone might be of high station and therefore a master. Etc. It is a useful word. We shouldn't aim to limit the range of expression or accuracy of our words.
- softwarebeware 5y ago
  That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
  - trackflak 5y ago
    It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it. And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word". Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

swagasaurus-rex 5y ago

Master is used in many context like master key, mastering a song, master copy, having mastery in something. To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.

lostcolony 5y ago
I feel like that logic could be used to excuse every historical term with baggage. Plus, it's not really stirring up controversy saying "hey, we should probably change the term to ~this~, which is equally or more descriptive, in a way that doesn't rely on historically problematic contexts". I think what you're focusing on is chiding people who still use the older terms; I've never seen that happen. I've seen people mix terminologies when discussing something, and oftentimes that has led to the person using the outdated instead using the updated, possibly with a conversation in between, but I've not seen someone call out "how DARE you use (technically-correct-but-outdated-term)!" That said, I've also never seen anyone dispense with the word 'master' -except- in contexts where it is used to differentiate from 'slaves'. The parent post also only references in that context (though the great-grandparent calls both out separately, though one right after the other, which is likely what is muddling things).
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Every word has baggage. "The" was used in slave documents. So were receipts. Does this mean everytime a grocery store clerk gives you a receipt they are perpetuating slavery? Even Blacklist/Blackbook come not from anything to do with black people but Charles II and his list. If you are offended by it, it's because you chose to be.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    What's your point? Does that logic excuse every word with historical baggage, or not? You state every word has historical baggage; either you then disagree with the parent logic, or you agree with the parent logic, and taken together with every word having baggage means you're saying every word is okay to use regardless of the historical baggage attached to it. Which is an interesting take, certainly.
    - hobomatic 5y ago
      It is OK to use words that remind people of troubling things as long the point of using it is not to do this antagonistically. Someone could come along and tell me my name means 'short people are possessed by demons' and I would still go on using my name, even if someone said that was mean of me. Why? Because it's a ridiculous accusation, and you are a ridiculous person if you make such an accusation, or entertain it. Now if I started calling myself '4 foot tall demons' that would obviously be different. It is entirely implausible that the 'baggage' is coincidental. The point is that the sort of historical baggage you are talking about isn't relevant to the word or it's usage in context. There is nothing to excuse.
softwarebeware 5y ago
That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  I believe strongly in freedom of speech. To allow assholes and bigots to reveal themselves. I believe the movement to alter what words we’re allowed to say in our vocabulary is lead by educated mostly white “allies”. These people don’t speak for the underprivileged, they’re creating ways to feel better about themselves through self-policing because they don’t have any real idea about how to solve the issues that actually affect people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

trackflak 5y ago

Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all. Its ok to have a master copy, it is desirable to master your soul, someone might be of high station and therefore a master. Etc. It is a useful word. We shouldn't aim to limit the range of expression or accuracy of our words.

softwarebeware 5y ago
That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
- trackflak 5y ago
  It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it. And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word". Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]