3 ms·

> I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons. The same can NOT be said, to any extent, about...

> I have heard actual reports of people feeling uncomfortable with these terms, for somewhat obvious reasons. The same can NOT be said, to any extent, about... master branch Master branch is exactly the term that was in question. I did some research and found that it was related to "master recordings" in the audio production industry, which itself is a direct reference to a master/slave dichotomy and used as such in the recording industry. Changing the name of the "master" repository to "main" is no cost to me, doesn't impact the lesson plans at all, and makes my students more comfortable. Why wouldn't I make that change? > These documents are about policing the speech of all members of the organization, not self-censoring by the authors of this ridiculous list. At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide). > And no, my seeking to ridicule this list is not in itself an attempt at policing speech - as in the old tradition of intolerance against the intolerant. So you are policing speech, just speech which you deem to be policing you. > That is, they are a small group seeking to use their position of authority to police the speech of many many others, and I am seeking to defend myself pre-emptively by seeking to stop them from propagating the concept - not the speech itself. How are they seeking this? They say it's about their communications. They say the words only have only "potential" harms depending on the context. They say they are not looking to address informal uses of language. So how exactly are they "seeking" to abuse their authority? Because all they've done here is post a list to a website. Is that what you consider to be abusive? Or is it because employees are expected to abide by certain style guides? Because if that's the abuse, all corporations are equally abusive toward their employees free speech rights. Them: "Here's a list of words we don't want to use ourselves." You: "You shouldn't tell us the list of words you don't want to use, because then in the future someone might prevent me from saying those words." Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is?

tsimionescu 4y ago
> I did some research and found that it was related to "master recordings" in the audio production industry, which itself is a direct reference to a master/slave dichotomy and used as such in the recording industry. A master recording is one that copies are made from. It is much more likely to be related to the same sense of master used in a master's degree, related to teaching and learning (from the original Latin meaning of magister, teacher). Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves, or thinks of them as subservient to the master recording - or any similar uses for a master branch in git. So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. Either way, many of the students who would complain about the master branch will probably think about getting a Master's degree, or mastering their discipline, so they will inevitably have to come to terms with the fact the word master has very very common meanings that don't have anything to do with slave owning. > At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide). > Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is? This is what you are getting wrong. You are viewing this list as if it's a list that the Stanford University as a whole came up with, and organically adopted. Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization. If the HR department at my company adopts a similar list and forces everyone in the company to use it, that's not an example of "the organization self-policing", it is an example of "some idiots in one department trying to police the speech of the whole organization". As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions. I am particularly doing so in the hope that as many organizations as possible will see how absurd it is and will not accept their own speech being policed by its silly standard - at least the organization I work for.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves The student in question was a fan of Pharrell Williams, and started to understand the master/slave terminology in the recording industry through him. He was very distressed to find the field he wanted to get into, CS, was doing the same thing. Here's a comment I made about some of the research I did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 From that comment: > "The word master has two meanings: 1. The original recording made in the studio is called a master, because it is the master (meaning controlling entity) from which all copies are made (the machines making the copies are called slaves—master/slave; get it?). ... 2. The word master also means a recording of one particular song. Thus, you might say an album has “ten masters” (meaning ten selections) on it. These individual recordings are also called cuts, because of the historical fact that each selection was “cut” into vinyl." So it refers to control (master/slave) rather than expertise (master's degree). > So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. But I teach CS and not linguistics, so etymology doesn't fit the curriculum. Curious what would you say given the research in my comment history. > Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization. Look at the committee governing the IT department at Stanford: there's representation from across the University. Committees only have power through the rest of the organization. Are you saying this is a rogue committee? Are you saying they also have enforcement power over this list? Are you saying that no other committee's regulations override this list? Sorry, but I don't see any world where a small committee in the IT department holds sway over the entire org. What's more likely is that they've been given a specific remit by a larger committee with actual power, and this list is a work product of that committee. It only has as much power over you as you're willing to give it. > As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions. Great, agreed. Stanford is exercising their free speech, you are exercising your free speech. As it should be.
  - 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

> I did some research and found that it was related to "master recordings" in the audio production industry, which itself is a direct reference to a master/slave dichotomy and used as such in the recording industry. A master recording is one that copies are made from. It is much more likely to be related to the same sense of master used in a master's degree, related to teaching and learning (from the original Latin meaning of magister, teacher). Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves, or thinks of them as subservient to the master recording - or any similar uses for a master branch in git. So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. Either way, many of the students who would complain about the master branch will probably think about getting a Master's degree, or mastering their discipline, so they will inevitably have to come to terms with the fact the word master has very very common meanings that don't have anything to do with slave owning. > At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide). > Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is? This is what you are getting wrong. You are viewing this list as if it's a list that the Stanford University as a whole came up with, and organically adopted. Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization. If the HR department at my company adopts a similar list and forces everyone in the company to use it, that's not an example of "the organization self-policing", it is an example of "some idiots in one department trying to police the speech of the whole organization". As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions. I am particularly doing so in the hope that as many organizations as possible will see how absurd it is and will not accept their own speech being policed by its silly standard - at least the organization I work for.

ModernMech 4y ago
> Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves The student in question was a fan of Pharrell Williams, and started to understand the master/slave terminology in the recording industry through him. He was very distressed to find the field he wanted to get into, CS, was doing the same thing. Here's a comment I made about some of the research I did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 From that comment: > "The word master has two meanings: 1. The original recording made in the studio is called a master, because it is the master (meaning controlling entity) from which all copies are made (the machines making the copies are called slaves—master/slave; get it?). ... 2. The word master also means a recording of one particular song. Thus, you might say an album has “ten masters” (meaning ten selections) on it. These individual recordings are also called cuts, because of the historical fact that each selection was “cut” into vinyl." So it refers to control (master/slave) rather than expertise (master's degree). > So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. But I teach CS and not linguistics, so etymology doesn't fit the curriculum. Curious what would you say given the research in my comment history. > Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization. Look at the committee governing the IT department at Stanford: there's representation from across the University. Committees only have power through the rest of the organization. Are you saying this is a rogue committee? Are you saying they also have enforcement power over this list? Are you saying that no other committee's regulations override this list? Sorry, but I don't see any world where a small committee in the IT department holds sway over the entire org. What's more likely is that they've been given a specific remit by a larger committee with actual power, and this list is a work product of that committee. It only has as much power over you as you're willing to give it. > As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions. Great, agreed. Stanford is exercising their free speech, you are exercising your free speech. As it should be.
- 4y ago