4 ms·

Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation. Basically, you don't understand

by js8 3y ago

Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation. Basically, you don't understand that "decolonization" is a metaphor for a broader historical perspective, and instead you're trying to interpret it literally and in a bad faith.

userbinator 3y ago
The only ones talking about "decolonization" are on one very extreme side of the political spectrum and trying to inject identity politics into everything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032
- js8 3y ago
  I don't understand your argument. Where is, aside from the word "decolonization", the author of that document trying to "inject identity politics"? And to what end? (And you certainly seem to be concerned by identity of the people making those claims..) Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds. It's like saying that "a group of extremist geeks who wrote Unix is trying to inject violence into everything". It's faux outrage that misses the point.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    To what end? You’d have to ask the author and hope for a grounded answer. Probably internal satisfaction, virtue signaling, or advancing ideology. > Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds. Why dont you tell him how you think it sounds instead of misrepresenting a consensus?
raincole 3y ago
People also got mad at Git for having default branch named master.
- js8 3y ago
  Yeah, and it was misguided and irrelevant all the same. People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor, just like people who are concerned about historical views being represented understand that "decolonization" is also a metaphor for this due dilligence. Context is everything. You're not gonna be killed by Unix command, enslaved by Github, and the land you own is not going to be confiscated by people who are writing an encyclopedia.
  - civilized 3y ago
    The difference is that "master" doesn't actually imply the existence of slaves in English, while "decolonization" does literally imply that there is some sort of colonialism that is being undone.
    - js8 3y ago
      That's irrelevant unless you assume that they use the word "decolonization" in a bad faith. I argue they don't, and so it's a non-issue (people are being offended for no reason). But IIRC, the first time I encountered the word "master" in computing, it was in the context of serial link data transfer, and there was a "slave".
      - civilized 3y ago
        It's irrelevant that the usage of a word, by the word's very construction, favors the formation of false beliefs, so long as there are good intentions behind it? The fact that a word can be used in the context of slavery doesn't mean the word always and everywhere carries the taint of slavery. What could possibly limit the reach of such a principle? Can I talk about how I like cotton shirts better than other fabrics, when the mere mention of cotton might bring some people back to an uncomfortable place?
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    > People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor I don’t think thats actually true. I think everyone knew the etymology was not slave owners. Which is the problem - its fighting a manufactured battle. Creating “systemic racism” out of thin air.
johnnyworker 3y ago
What "outrage"? Might as well ask why you are going insane with hatred over a simple question. How would that feel? Would you even bother to respond to something like that?
- js8 3y ago
  I responded in attempt to explain the viewpoint of the other side, by using an analogy (that can be familiar to people who do computers). There is no "insane hatred" in my response, on the contrary, I was trying to expand the PP's perspective. PP seemed to be concerned about the word "decolonization" specifically, rather than the actual goal of properly organizing the history, and seemed annoyed by it enough to comment here. I would say that justifies it to be called an "outrage", but it's hard to defend or concede now that it has been flagged. I think were they not outraged, they can simply ignore my comment as irrelevant, and they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > There is no "insane hatred" in my response I know. My point was just that it's a needless escalation (just like replying that to you would have been), since even annoyance isn't outrage. Either way it's talking about the inner emotions of a person on their behalf - flagged or not, how could someone possibly defend themselves against that? People can talk about their own feelings if they want, but talking about the feelings of others, feelings those other people didn't even express, just doesn't lead anywhere good, yet it's so common on the web nowadays. The wisdom of not reading feelings into text has been lost for a long time now. Let's bring it back I say :) In short, you can ask people how they feel, but you can't tell them. Certainly not via text in absence of a history of actually knowing that individual person (as opposed to "a category of person you perceive that individual to belong to", which is how this came across to me). > they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project. Yes, and I can't say I disagree with it being flagged because "is this a joke?" is just needlessly convoluted. Just make your point, state where you disagree with the content etc. instead of asking others to rephrase or confirm that yes, they're serious. To me that's just as annoying as saying "y u mad bro?". But since it's already agreed that that's no good, I didn't reiterate that.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation. The reaction is more similar to people who ARENT bothered by the use of kill, master, etc. The article about “decolonizing” functions is a shoehorned idealogical venture. A completely unnecessary political aside. I also wouldnt call it outrage. That just seems like a way to make the point sound unreasonable without addressing its logic. If his reaction is outrage then so yours.

by js8 3y ago

userbinator 3y ago

The only ones talking about "decolonization" are on one very extreme side of the political spectrum and trying to inject identity politics into everything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032

js8 3y ago
I don't understand your argument. Where is, aside from the word "decolonization", the author of that document trying to "inject identity politics"? And to what end? (And you certainly seem to be concerned by identity of the people making those claims..) Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds. It's like saying that "a group of extremist geeks who wrote Unix is trying to inject violence into everything". It's faux outrage that misses the point.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  To what end? You’d have to ask the author and hope for a grounded answer. Probably internal satisfaction, virtue signaling, or advancing ideology. > Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds. Why dont you tell him how you think it sounds instead of misrepresenting a consensus?

raincole 3y ago

People also got mad at Git for having default branch named master.

js8 3y ago
Yeah, and it was misguided and irrelevant all the same. People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor, just like people who are concerned about historical views being represented understand that "decolonization" is also a metaphor for this due dilligence. Context is everything. You're not gonna be killed by Unix command, enslaved by Github, and the land you own is not going to be confiscated by people who are writing an encyclopedia.
- civilized 3y ago
  The difference is that "master" doesn't actually imply the existence of slaves in English, while "decolonization" does literally imply that there is some sort of colonialism that is being undone.
  - js8 3y ago
    That's irrelevant unless you assume that they use the word "decolonization" in a bad faith. I argue they don't, and so it's a non-issue (people are being offended for no reason). But IIRC, the first time I encountered the word "master" in computing, it was in the context of serial link data transfer, and there was a "slave".
    - civilized 3y ago
      It's irrelevant that the usage of a word, by the word's very construction, favors the formation of false beliefs, so long as there are good intentions behind it? The fact that a word can be used in the context of slavery doesn't mean the word always and everywhere carries the taint of slavery. What could possibly limit the reach of such a principle? Can I talk about how I like cotton shirts better than other fabrics, when the mere mention of cotton might bring some people back to an uncomfortable place?
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor I don’t think thats actually true. I think everyone knew the etymology was not slave owners. Which is the problem - its fighting a manufactured battle. Creating “systemic racism” out of thin air.

johnnyworker 3y ago

What "outrage"? Might as well ask why you are going insane with hatred over a simple question. How would that feel? Would you even bother to respond to something like that?

js8 3y ago
I responded in attempt to explain the viewpoint of the other side, by using an analogy (that can be familiar to people who do computers). There is no "insane hatred" in my response, on the contrary, I was trying to expand the PP's perspective. PP seemed to be concerned about the word "decolonization" specifically, rather than the actual goal of properly organizing the history, and seemed annoyed by it enough to comment here. I would say that justifies it to be called an "outrage", but it's hard to defend or concede now that it has been flagged. I think were they not outraged, they can simply ignore my comment as irrelevant, and they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > There is no "insane hatred" in my response I know. My point was just that it's a needless escalation (just like replying that to you would have been), since even annoyance isn't outrage. Either way it's talking about the inner emotions of a person on their behalf - flagged or not, how could someone possibly defend themselves against that? People can talk about their own feelings if they want, but talking about the feelings of others, feelings those other people didn't even express, just doesn't lead anywhere good, yet it's so common on the web nowadays. The wisdom of not reading feelings into text has been lost for a long time now. Let's bring it back I say :) In short, you can ask people how they feel, but you can't tell them. Certainly not via text in absence of a history of actually knowing that individual person (as opposed to "a category of person you perceive that individual to belong to", which is how this came across to me). > they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project. Yes, and I can't say I disagree with it being flagged because "is this a joke?" is just needlessly convoluted. Just make your point, state where you disagree with the content etc. instead of asking others to rephrase or confirm that yes, they're serious. To me that's just as annoying as saying "y u mad bro?". But since it's already agreed that that's no good, I didn't reiterate that.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation. The reaction is more similar to people who ARENT bothered by the use of kill, master, etc. The article about “decolonizing” functions is a shoehorned idealogical venture. A completely unnecessary political aside. I also wouldnt call it outrage. That just seems like a way to make the point sound unreasonable without addressing its logic. If his reaction is outrage then so yours.