3 ms·

Yes. You could argue that removing some of these phrasings went too far, sure, but it came from a good place. We casually use master/slave metaphors for databa

Yes. You could argue that removing some of these phrasings went too far, sure, but it came from a good place. We casually use master/slave metaphors for databases; it's not the #1 thing that needs to change but it's a move in the right direction. Again, aside from a slight eye roll, who is hurt or offended by us saying the phrase "master/slave" less? This attack on anything DEI is meant to terrorize and strike fear into anyone who isn't a straight white male. It's weaponizing decades of progress for marginalized folks into racist dogwhistles. Additionally, the original changes were optional and grassroots. This is a government directive. They're very different.

dingnuts 2y ago
master in the sense of a db or branch is not a master/slave metaphor, it's the meaning of master that is an antonym for "copy" or "replica" as when one creates a master from which to form a mold -- the whole issue is based on a linguistic misapprehension
- stanleykm 2y ago
  and what about slave?
- maximilianburke 2y ago
  So then when talking about database replication, why are the non-authoritative servers called slaves?
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    It really is like slavery, isn't it. The slave database does whatever it's master tells it to, and has no freedom to make up information.
ihsw 2y ago
[dead]
arwhatever 2y ago
I suspect that the place these removals came from was the desire to dictate other's behavior and/or to feel more enlightened than you, masquerading as protecting from hurt or offense, which is not really a very good place.
- gkoberger 2y ago
  Would you consider that... some people actually care about making the people around them more comfortable, especially if it comes at exactly zero cost to themselves?
wombatpm 2y ago
It’s not just an attack on DEI, it’s a return to cultural attitudes that were prevalent in the 1970’s. The new attitude is that anyone who is not a straight white male in any position of any responsibility must be a DEI hire and should be assumed to be incompetent until proven otherwise. All they need now is to bring back the 3 martini lunch and open sexual harassment and my 78 year old father would feel right at home.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>Again, aside from a slight eye roll, who is hurt or offended by us saying the phrase "master/slave" less? If you add up all the discomfort caused by being forced to change vocabulary. The man-hours wasted changing documentation everywhere. The time wasted, re-learning which were words weren't suddenly taboo. Then this is not some small quantity, however you want to quantify it. You basically taxed all of us... and though the tax was perhaps small per person, the total wasn't. Effort better spent elsewhere. Political capital wasted on nonsense. If you only saw eye rolls, it was because those rolling their eyes knew better than to say anything then. They picked their battles, and now what we see happening right now is a consequence of all that. >This attack on anything DEI is meant to terrorize and strike fear into anyone who isn't a straight white male. I'm reminded of the study that said something like 95% of the jobs created in the DEI era went to those who weren't white. Which might make sense if they were only 5% of the population. Thank goodness that the election tally wasn't predicated on that same notion of "fairness". >It's weaponizing decades of progress Progress towards what, exactly? And why would I want to progress towards whatever that is? It's only progress if it happens to be the "direction you want to go", but I don't think I want to go in that direction.
- gkoberger 2y ago
  "Progress towards what, exactly?" It wasn't until the 1960s that segregation in public places was made illegal. 1990s that the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It wasn't until the 2010s that gay marriage was legalized, and 2020s that it was ruled you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It took decades for many marginalized communities to be legally even allowed to have certain jobs due to their gender or color of their skin, and now those qualities are yet again being used to prevent them from employment under the implication that anyone who isn't a straight white male is a DEI hire.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >It wasn't until the 1960s that segregation in public places was made illegal. 1990s that the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It wasn't until the 2010s that gay marriage was legalized, and 2020s that it was ruled you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. All of that sounds wonderful to you, I'm sure. I don't even know what "gender identity" is supposed to mean though... it's one of those shared cultural delusions that is opaque to those who aren't a part of the culture. You believe it to be a real phenomenon because others believe it with you, and you wouldn't really fit in if you didn't. And "gay marriage" is laughably sad. That's your victory of progress? It will be nice to see it all rolled back. Pendulums swing.

dingnuts 2y ago

master in the sense of a db or branch is not a master/slave metaphor, it's the meaning of master that is an antonym for "copy" or "replica" as when one creates a master from which to form a mold -- the whole issue is based on a linguistic misapprehension

stanleykm 2y ago
and what about slave?
maximilianburke 2y ago
So then when talking about database replication, why are the non-authoritative servers called slaves?
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  It really is like slavery, isn't it. The slave database does whatever it's master tells it to, and has no freedom to make up information.

ihsw 2y ago

[dead]

arwhatever 2y ago

I suspect that the place these removals came from was the desire to dictate other's behavior and/or to feel more enlightened than you, masquerading as protecting from hurt or offense, which is not really a very good place.

gkoberger 2y ago
Would you consider that... some people actually care about making the people around them more comfortable, especially if it comes at exactly zero cost to themselves?

wombatpm 2y ago

It’s not just an attack on DEI, it’s a return to cultural attitudes that were prevalent in the 1970’s. The new attitude is that anyone who is not a straight white male in any position of any responsibility must be a DEI hire and should be assumed to be incompetent until proven otherwise. All they need now is to bring back the 3 martini lunch and open sexual harassment and my 78 year old father would feel right at home.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

>Again, aside from a slight eye roll, who is hurt or offended by us saying the phrase "master/slave" less? If you add up all the discomfort caused by being forced to change vocabulary. The man-hours wasted changing documentation everywhere. The time wasted, re-learning which were words weren't suddenly taboo. Then this is not some small quantity, however you want to quantify it. You basically taxed all of us... and though the tax was perhaps small per person, the total wasn't. Effort better spent elsewhere. Political capital wasted on nonsense. If you only saw eye rolls, it was because those rolling their eyes knew better than to say anything then. They picked their battles, and now what we see happening right now is a consequence of all that. >This attack on anything DEI is meant to terrorize and strike fear into anyone who isn't a straight white male. I'm reminded of the study that said something like 95% of the jobs created in the DEI era went to those who weren't white. Which might make sense if they were only 5% of the population. Thank goodness that the election tally wasn't predicated on that same notion of "fairness". >It's weaponizing decades of progress Progress towards what, exactly? And why would I want to progress towards whatever that is? It's only progress if it happens to be the "direction you want to go", but I don't think I want to go in that direction.

gkoberger 2y ago
"Progress towards what, exactly?" It wasn't until the 1960s that segregation in public places was made illegal. 1990s that the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It wasn't until the 2010s that gay marriage was legalized, and 2020s that it was ruled you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It took decades for many marginalized communities to be legally even allowed to have certain jobs due to their gender or color of their skin, and now those qualities are yet again being used to prevent them from employment under the implication that anyone who isn't a straight white male is a DEI hire.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >It wasn't until the 1960s that segregation in public places was made illegal. 1990s that the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. It wasn't until the 2010s that gay marriage was legalized, and 2020s that it was ruled you can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. All of that sounds wonderful to you, I'm sure. I don't even know what "gender identity" is supposed to mean though... it's one of those shared cultural delusions that is opaque to those who aren't a part of the culture. You believe it to be a real phenomenon because others believe it with you, and you wouldn't really fit in if you didn't. And "gay marriage" is laughably sad. That's your victory of progress? It will be nice to see it all rolled back. Pendulums swing.