4 ms·

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 i

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 I've seen people mix terminologies when discussing something, and oftentimes that has led to the person using the outdated instead using the updated, possibly with a conversation in between, but I've not seen someone call out "how DARE you use (technically-correct-but-outdated-term)!"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.

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.