Twitter engineers replacing racially loaded tech terms like 'master,' 'slave'(cnet.com)
cnet.com
Twitter engineers replacing racially loaded tech terms like 'master,' 'slave'
https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-engineers-replace-racially-loaded-tech-terms-like-master-slave/
171 comments
I don't think of those words in terms of race either, but it's such an easy thing to change. It might be worth considering that a lot of the people who are speaking up have to feel that way about race being a part of everything all the time and they hate it too.
Everyone's trying to get to a level playing field where race isn't an issue. Maybe equality can seem like it's oppression if you're used to not having to worry about that stuff.
Everyone's trying to get to a level playing field where race isn't an issue. Maybe equality can seem like it's oppression if you're used to not having to worry about that stuff.
It's likely that you have something that has a particular word that some how 'offends' someone.
Given the word 'Master' would asking 'MasterCard' to change its name make it less racist? Can't say Masters degree anymore because someone has dragged race into it and has been 'offended' by it. Perhaps you know some academic who's in a dilemma and can't cite a quote from a paper because the terminology contains the scary 'Master' word in it due to fear of being called a 'racist' if they use it. See where this goes? Where do you draw the line and how far will this be taken?
At some point, someone is going to draw the line somewhere and disagree with renaming for the sake of virtue signalling.
Given the word 'Master' would asking 'MasterCard' to change its name make it less racist? Can't say Masters degree anymore because someone has dragged race into it and has been 'offended' by it. Perhaps you know some academic who's in a dilemma and can't cite a quote from a paper because the terminology contains the scary 'Master' word in it due to fear of being called a 'racist' if they use it. See where this goes? Where do you draw the line and how far will this be taken?
At some point, someone is going to draw the line somewhere and disagree with renaming for the sake of virtue signalling.
I'm wondering if "Master" isn't the problem — it's "Slave" that's not so good.
And, when changing "Slave" to e.g. "Follower", it makes sense to rename "Master" to "Leader" too.
I'm surprised some people want to rename the Git "master" branches to "main", although the word "slave" is absent in this context. That's similar to your MasterCard example? (Rename to "MainCard".) But I'm not a native speaker or color minority person where I am currently, so what do I know.
At the same time, "main branch" is shorter than "master branch" and simpler to understand for beginners? I think it's a better name.
And, when changing "Slave" to e.g. "Follower", it makes sense to rename "Master" to "Leader" too.
I'm surprised some people want to rename the Git "master" branches to "main", although the word "slave" is absent in this context. That's similar to your MasterCard example? (Rename to "MainCard".) But I'm not a native speaker or color minority person where I am currently, so what do I know.
At the same time, "main branch" is shorter than "master branch" and simpler to understand for beginners? I think it's a better name.
So it's not worth doing anything because there's a line somewhere ahead? At some point whatever startup you're working on will definitely reach an end in some form, so you should definitely stop working now.
Sorry astronomers, black holes and white dwarfs are cancelled.
A lot of flagged responses to this that are completely reasonable and respectful. I would encourage the moderators to take a look here.
Some people are constantly marginalised in their everyday, who are constantly reminded negatively of their race, and don’t have the luxury of forgetting about race for even a day.
If changing branch names makes them even just a little bit more comfortable I don’t care if they rename master jiggerypokery.
If changing branch names makes them even just a little bit more comfortable I don’t care if they rename master jiggerypokery.
[deleted]
It's the most absurd waste of human energy. Nothing is being solved, it's energy which goes directly into amplifying whatever actual racial tensions there already were.
Nobody who is actually racist goes "oh. I guess I shouldn't be racist anymore because they changed the name of the default Git branch" -- I refuse to pretend this is anything other than complete totalitarian Marxist nonsense.
Nobody who is actually racist goes "oh. I guess I shouldn't be racist anymore because they changed the name of the default Git branch" -- I refuse to pretend this is anything other than complete totalitarian Marxist nonsense.
Separo(1)
Race has always been everywhere. You've just been able to ignore it.
Are you white? What if a black person finds those terms offensive?
This is your privilege.
Here's a really great article that helped me notice my own privilege - https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf
Here's a really great article that helped me notice my own privilege - https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf
(Non-US opinion) I don't mind changing the usage of loaded terms, either racially or in other ways (like grooming).
Changing the usage doesn't harm me in any way and if it arguably provides a more welcoming environment for people then why not.
Changing the usage doesn't harm me in any way and if it arguably provides a more welcoming environment for people then why not.
it distracts from the real problem and from actual solutions as I mentioned in my other comment[1]. companies actions (such as using off-shore havens, and funding surveillance Tech) need to stop. by playing the culture war we make ourselves feel good without stopping anything.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727420
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727420
You're not wrong. These are two separate issues and they should both be improved. It's not like we can only do one without the other, and the first steps to bigger change will almost always start with small steps that many feel are too small.
> by playing the culture war we make ourselves feel good without stopping anything.
Thank god I'm not alone.
Thank god I'm not alone.
Not only are you not alone, that's both the default view of many (most?) programmers and the stated claim of many closeted racists who want to detract from incremental steps by referencing orthogonal issues and derailing conversations.
I don't want to detract anything, I just find it absurd. You can call me what you want, don't really care at this point.
This is the crux of it. If something that takes nothing away from you makes things better for others why argue against it?
Because of opportunity cost, wasted space.
Here we have 50+ HN readers and hundreds of OC readers wasting part of their limited patience/passion/tolerance/love for the topic of racial unjustice because someone is using their etymological ignorance (and inability to use Wikipedia) to project their own bias into completely unrelated matters.
Here we have 50+ HN readers and hundreds of OC readers wasting part of their limited patience/passion/tolerance/love for the topic of racial unjustice because someone is using their etymological ignorance (and inability to use Wikipedia) to project their own bias into completely unrelated matters.
Is etymology more important to you than the people who are telling you they find something offensive, unwelcoming, and a factor (regardless of size) in racial equality?
Do you believe that there is limited space on the internet? Or that in the absence of this discussion every person here would instead be doing something highly productive?
Do you believe that there is limited space on the internet? Or that in the absence of this discussion every person here would instead be doing something highly productive?
Everything is offensive to someone.
For example I know many people that would be offended by referred to has them or they instead of she/him.
There is no perfect solution there you will never offend anyone. Offense is taken not given.
In the words of Stephen Fry
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry
Remember, you can please everyone some of the time, Some people all of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time
For example I know many people that would be offended by referred to has them or they instead of she/him.
There is no perfect solution there you will never offend anyone. Offense is taken not given.
In the words of Stephen Fry
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry
Remember, you can please everyone some of the time, Some people all of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time
It's unclear who or what you are replying to with this. There is nothing here that relates to my comment.
The people who claim these words are offensive are a tiny fraction of the total population which, if the reasoning those offended people use were to hold true should be offended. When it comes to the use of terms like master/slave and blacklist/whitelist in source code or configuration data most people will not even be aware that this is a thing, let alone that they should be offended by it.
Even more problematic is that the majority of the people who claim these terms are offensive use projection upon others to derive the offensive nature of said terms since they themselves are neither the descendants of slaves nor of former slave owners, nor are they truly offended by the supposedly positive connotation of the word 'white' in terms like 'whitelist'. In the last few years a cult has grown around the concept of 'white guilt' led by a priestly class of apostles like Robin DiAngelo (author of 'White Fragility', currently the #1 bestseller according to the New York Times). What the cult leaders don't seem to realise is that their narrative totally revolves around 'white' people who they put in the centre of their universe which' well-being depends on their actions and inactions. They are just as race-centred as white (or black) nationalists, they just approach the situation from a different position. They can both use Kipling's The White Man's Burden as a guide, they just view it as an indictment against 'the white man' instead of a proclamation of manifest destiny. They deny agency to 'non-white' people by claiming they can only truly reach their peak by grace of the 'white' people seceding from positions of power.
In short, these cultists are racists, their racism being that of low expectations. Martin Luther King had it right, when it comes to race relations the ideal society is a colour-blind society.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
Even more problematic is that the majority of the people who claim these terms are offensive use projection upon others to derive the offensive nature of said terms since they themselves are neither the descendants of slaves nor of former slave owners, nor are they truly offended by the supposedly positive connotation of the word 'white' in terms like 'whitelist'. In the last few years a cult has grown around the concept of 'white guilt' led by a priestly class of apostles like Robin DiAngelo (author of 'White Fragility', currently the #1 bestseller according to the New York Times). What the cult leaders don't seem to realise is that their narrative totally revolves around 'white' people who they put in the centre of their universe which' well-being depends on their actions and inactions. They are just as race-centred as white (or black) nationalists, they just approach the situation from a different position. They can both use Kipling's The White Man's Burden as a guide, they just view it as an indictment against 'the white man' instead of a proclamation of manifest destiny. They deny agency to 'non-white' people by claiming they can only truly reach their peak by grace of the 'white' people seceding from positions of power.
In short, these cultists are racists, their racism being that of low expectations. Martin Luther King had it right, when it comes to race relations the ideal society is a colour-blind society.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
It's unclear who or what you are replying to with this.
The reply is to your question as to whether ... etymology [is] more important ... than the people who are telling you they find something offensive....
Got it. Most of your comment went off in a different direction that sounds like a white supremacist diatribe. No interest in discussing that with you, it's nonsense and I'm sorry you believe something like that.
Do you have a source for the "tiny fraction" claim? And do you have a similar number for how much of the population cares about etymology?
Do you have a source for the "tiny fraction" claim? And do you have a similar number for how much of the population cares about etymology?
You got that backwards, when you make a claim which in your opinion is representative of a given fraction of a population the onus is on you to prove that it actually does represent these people, not on those who cast doubt on your agency for the group.
Also, most of my reply was a direct quote from Martin Luther King's famous speech. The rest of the reply is a statement of fact on the cultist nature of the concept of 'white guilt'. Please explain to me in what way this sounds like a white supremacist diatribe, as far as I understand white supremacists are not wont to cast aspersion on their 'white brethren'.
Stop throwing these labels around, they can not replace rational arguments and are just a form of academic laziness.
Also, most of my reply was a direct quote from Martin Luther King's famous speech. The rest of the reply is a statement of fact on the cultist nature of the concept of 'white guilt'. Please explain to me in what way this sounds like a white supremacist diatribe, as far as I understand white supremacists are not wont to cast aspersion on their 'white brethren'.
Stop throwing these labels around, they can not replace rational arguments and are just a form of academic laziness.
If you care this much about racial justice I hope you are making more efforts than trying to tell people how they should interpret Martin Luther King.
Also maybe consider that etymology is about not just the origin of words, it's also about their evolution over time as cultures evolve.
Not replying anymore, have a nice day!
Also maybe consider that etymology is about not just the origin of words, it's also about their evolution over time as cultures evolve.
Not replying anymore, have a nice day!
What makes you the arbiter of it?
It is not at all a fact this this takes away anything from anyone. It is not clear to me at all there is anything even close to a significant fraction of public opinion that agrees that using these words in this way is a problem.
If a man screams "slaaaaaaaaveeeee" in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still cause offence?
The answer is yes. It does. Because it's not about sparing the feelings of the person who hears it. It's about controlling language to control thought. It's about control.
Think about why people go looking for things to be offended by. If they only wanted to feel welcome would they really go looking?
The answer is yes. It does. Because it's not about sparing the feelings of the person who hears it. It's about controlling language to control thought. It's about control.
Think about why people go looking for things to be offended by. If they only wanted to feel welcome would they really go looking?
Please explain to me how "sanity check" or "dummy value" can reasonably be considered non-inclusive.
There are multiple definitions of these words including:
Sanity - reasonable and rational behaviour.
Dummy - an object designed to resemble and serve as a substitute for the real or usual one.
It strikes me as incredibly sensitive to say these are unacceptable for use. Sure, we can use different words but that is not the point - the point is how can words used as commonly defined and with no spite or foul intention be banned?
The comedian Stewart Lee has an excellent routine on this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zdyz5
There are multiple definitions of these words including:
Sanity - reasonable and rational behaviour.
Dummy - an object designed to resemble and serve as a substitute for the real or usual one.
It strikes me as incredibly sensitive to say these are unacceptable for use. Sure, we can use different words but that is not the point - the point is how can words used as commonly defined and with no spite or foul intention be banned?
The comedian Stewart Lee has an excellent routine on this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zdyz5
Copy-pasted my comment here, but similar to how we no longer use "retarded" to be sensitive to the disabled, people have been rethinking words like "crazy", "insane", or "sanity" to be sensitive towards those with mental illness. For people with mental illness those words may be loaded with negative meaning and there are often more neutral or descriptive terms that can be used instead.
Update: Not sure why I got downvoted for stating the rationale for why people are making this change. Objectively I haven't even stated my opinion on the change, just the rationale I've seen for it. If you want a source here's one from NPR around this language: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739643765/why-people-are-argu...
Update: Not sure why I got downvoted for stating the rationale for why people are making this change. Objectively I haven't even stated my opinion on the change, just the rationale I've seen for it. If you want a source here's one from NPR around this language: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739643765/why-people-are-argu...
I fundamentally disagree that you can't use a word in one context because of its use in another. If I call someone a bastard I do not mean that they were born out of wedlock the context and use of the word are entirely different.
Sure, I agree everything has nuance and context to it. I was really just stating the rationale I've seen given for avoiding those words rather than offering my opinion.
That being said, given your example I'd ask you to consider this situation: If you call someone a bastard jokingly and they happened to be a child who was born out of wedlock and it was a sensitive subject for them, do you think it would potentially be hurtful? Is there another word you could choose to get the same point across that might have been less hurtful? If so, is there a significant downside to using that other word instead? If you found out that someone was literally a bastard and the word made them unhappy, would you continue to use it when talking with them?
That being said, given your example I'd ask you to consider this situation: If you call someone a bastard jokingly and they happened to be a child who was born out of wedlock and it was a sensitive subject for them, do you think it would potentially be hurtful? Is there another word you could choose to get the same point across that might have been less hurtful? If so, is there a significant downside to using that other word instead? If you found out that someone was literally a bastard and the word made them unhappy, would you continue to use it when talking with them?
Stewart Lee: "What is political correctness? It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language. And there's all sorts of problems with it. But it's better than what we had before."[1]
[1] https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM
[1] https://youtu.be/x_JCBmY9NGM
There were masters and slaves thousands of years before it existed here in America. To claim the terms are only referencing slavery in America is rather short sighted.
Right. How are these terms 'racially loaded'? The concept of masters and slaves have been a part of humanity for a long time in many different cultures and countries.
Great that they're working on this, but how about them engineers work on improving their API stability.
Great that they're working on this, but how about them engineers work on improving their API stability.
I'm not sure i saw that claim in TFA. Did i miss it?
It’s only “racial” if master/slave is racial. There has been racial slavery in America. But the master/slave are themselves are not inherently racial words. To be hyperbolic, it’d be like avoiding the use of the word “cotton”.
That will change a lot of stuff.
I really have an inside battle when I read this sort of stuff here on HN, because I don't want to post derailed political comments, I want this place to be like it is, keep it cool and avoid kulturwars, but man it's hard.
Look, I'm not in the US, so maybe I can't even think how it is with racism there, but I just can't help to think this is kind of stupid-naive virtue signaling. It feels like some bunch of uber-priviledged SV guys who think too high of themselves want to feel good about something and they come up with this BS that everyone will forget a week later.
Man, it's so surreal. Don't you have poor people in your city? What about helping your local NGOs? What about working for them for free? One week you help feed the people, another in the kitchen and another one in accounting.
Dunno, it feels sooooo far away from my reality. I don't know what is to be earning +100k year and thinking this is a great idea! It was even difficult to write this comment because I find it funny and just feel the impulse to mock this.
I really have an inside battle when I read this sort of stuff here on HN, because I don't want to post derailed political comments, I want this place to be like it is, keep it cool and avoid kulturwars, but man it's hard.
Look, I'm not in the US, so maybe I can't even think how it is with racism there, but I just can't help to think this is kind of stupid-naive virtue signaling. It feels like some bunch of uber-priviledged SV guys who think too high of themselves want to feel good about something and they come up with this BS that everyone will forget a week later.
Man, it's so surreal. Don't you have poor people in your city? What about helping your local NGOs? What about working for them for free? One week you help feed the people, another in the kitchen and another one in accounting.
Dunno, it feels sooooo far away from my reality. I don't know what is to be earning +100k year and thinking this is a great idea! It was even difficult to write this comment because I find it funny and just feel the impulse to mock this.
> I just can't help to think this is kind of stupid-naive virtue signaling. It feels like some bunch of uber-priviledged SV guys who think too high of themselves want to feel good about something
Except that’s not what happened. This was spearheaded by Black developers who don’t want to have to read about “slaves” being “rekicked” at their jobs. Is that not a reasonable request?
Except that’s not what happened. This was spearheaded by Black developers who don’t want to have to read about “slaves” being “rekicked” at their jobs. Is that not a reasonable request?
That is straight up infantile. Plenty of people have horrible ancestral histories. If you choose to obsess over it at every moment, that's not really anybody else's issue. As another comment said earlier, it is very similar to no longer using the word 'cotton', because it might remind you of black slavery in America.
It's a childish waste of time that has nothing to do with solving real world problems. Changing terms used in technology contexts doesn't do anything for racial injustice in any capacity whatsoever.
It's a childish waste of time that has nothing to do with solving real world problems. Changing terms used in technology contexts doesn't do anything for racial injustice in any capacity whatsoever.
I think many words are polysemic (that's how it's called in english right?) and you shouldn't be offended by them, but who I am to judge, I'm not a black developer at Twitter.
I don’t think they’re offended, per se — I just think they don’t want intermittent reminders of the atrocities committed against their ancestors at their workplace.
Everyone has ancestors and grievances. Hell, my country has been invaded pretty much by everyone near us at least once, and we have vocabulary from a variety of surrounding languages. Let's speak esperanto everyone.
I'm sorry, but this fixes nothing. It's just to feel good about themselves, pure virtue signaling.
I'm sorry, but this fixes nothing. It's just to feel good about themselves, pure virtue signaling.
Basically every single thing someone does is “virtue signaling”. Even your use of that term is meant to indicate a certain set of conservative values.
I’m glad you were able to reclaim whatever historic signifiers of oppression you’re talking about. For Black people in the US, that oppression is still ongoing, and the developers at Twitter would rather avoid using terms with that baggage in the context of their work.
I’m glad you were able to reclaim whatever historic signifiers of oppression you’re talking about. For Black people in the US, that oppression is still ongoing, and the developers at Twitter would rather avoid using terms with that baggage in the context of their work.
> Basically every single thing someone does is “virtue signaling”. Even your use of that term is meant to indicate a certain set of conservative values.
¿? Mmm, no? You can help feed poor people or lobby for better housing regulations and you don't need to be signaling anything.
And I don't know what "conservative values" I hold, since I'm a social democrat.
> I’m glad you were able to reclaim whatever historic signifiers of oppression you’re talking about.
We didn't reclaim any historic signifiers. We have architecture, statues and museums about such invaders, everything is fine. In fact this "cancel culture" came from the anglophone world, thankfully without that much success, but enough to distract people from real issues we have here.
> For Black people in the US, that oppression is still ongoing, and the developers at Twitter would rather avoid using terms with that baggage in the context of their work.
I'm having a hard time believing that black developers at twitter are not in the top of the food chain. Also, the previous point I made about polysemic words. Knowing that words have multiple meanings seems useful for communication.
¿? Mmm, no? You can help feed poor people or lobby for better housing regulations and you don't need to be signaling anything.
And I don't know what "conservative values" I hold, since I'm a social democrat.
> I’m glad you were able to reclaim whatever historic signifiers of oppression you’re talking about.
We didn't reclaim any historic signifiers. We have architecture, statues and museums about such invaders, everything is fine. In fact this "cancel culture" came from the anglophone world, thankfully without that much success, but enough to distract people from real issues we have here.
> For Black people in the US, that oppression is still ongoing, and the developers at Twitter would rather avoid using terms with that baggage in the context of their work.
I'm having a hard time believing that black developers at twitter are not in the top of the food chain. Also, the previous point I made about polysemic words. Knowing that words have multiple meanings seems useful for communication.
> you shouldn't be offended by them,
Why not?
Why not?
I’m left handed. Should I get offended at “sinister” or “gauche”?
Isn’t this like a simple lesson from children’s Harry Potter books? Why give words like “Voldemort” so much power. Words are just pointers for communication. the contextual intent isn’t what matters not what you read into it.
Isn’t this like a simple lesson from children’s Harry Potter books? Why give words like “Voldemort” so much power. Words are just pointers for communication. the contextual intent isn’t what matters not what you read into it.
Let me know when the police target you for being left handed
And therein lies the distance between this effort and what we care about.
There’s real profiling and brutality going on and having word police ain’t gonna change that.
Dispute English’s effort to demonize me, no one has even noticed.
There’s real concrete nuts and bolts problems with policing, the laws, the justice system. Swapping out a few words is less than spitting on a fire.
There’s real profiling and brutality going on and having word police ain’t gonna change that.
Dispute English’s effort to demonize me, no one has even noticed.
There’s real concrete nuts and bolts problems with policing, the laws, the justice system. Swapping out a few words is less than spitting on a fire.
Ah yes, I've heard this before.
Let's not worry about this because there are much bigger problems to worry about. Never mind that those bigger problems are much harder to solve and these are quite simply and within reach.
Lol.
Let's not worry about this because there are much bigger problems to worry about. Never mind that those bigger problems are much harder to solve and these are quite simply and within reach.
Lol.
Even though the etymology of the phrase does not support the conclusion, I am less troubled by replacing slave with other terms
However Grandfather? Dummy Value? Sanity Check? Enforced speech codes for Pronouns?
However Grandfather? Dummy Value? Sanity Check? Enforced speech codes for Pronouns?
Please don't capitalise the term 'black' here, leave that to political pamphlets like the New York Times (who seem to be the ones who started this). The more people start identifying themselves with their inalienable characteristics like skin colour, hair colour or eye colour , the further we'll get away from the ideal of a colour-blind society.
Yes, that is the ideal, that the colour of your skin does not matter. If you don't want to take my word on it, maybe Martin Luther King can convince you:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
[1] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Yes, that is the ideal, that the colour of your skin does not matter. If you don't want to take my word on it, maybe Martin Luther King can convince you:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
[1] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
I genuinely believe people who don't see the colourblind society as the ideal are so deeply racist that they would froth at the mouth at any MLK quote that they didn't know came from him.
Please don't capitalise the term 'black' here
[0] example: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/03/protesters-march-to-s...
I don’t see that quote as advocating for color–blindness. There is a difference between seeing the color of someone’s skin and judging them for it.
But if you adopt MLK’s views like this, can I take it that you then support reparations and civil unrest in response to racial oppression? That you think the biggest obstacle to racial justice are white moderates? That you oppose capitalism and support socialism?
But if you adopt MLK’s views like this, can I take it that you then support reparations and civil unrest in response to racial oppression? That you think the biggest obstacle to racial justice are white moderates? That you oppose capitalism and support socialism?
> But if you adopt MLK’s views like this, can I take it that you then support reparations and civil unrest in response to racial oppression
Why would you think that? MLK was his own agent and so am I. Just like he agreed with some of the things e.g. Fredrick Douglas said but disagreed with others, I agree with some things he said and disagree with others. On the subject of the response to racial oppression I can, in some cases, support civil unrest as that is often the only way of breaking a status-quo. I do not support direct reparations because a) this does not solve the problem and b) neither those who would pay nor those who get paid are either guilty of enslaving people or having been enslaved. Targeted investments in areas which still suffer from the effects of earlier redlining and similar Jim Crow laws are something I can stand behind, as long as they are just that: targeted and effective. I do not support "Socialism" since I interpret that as being the precursor to Communism which has cost enough lives by now that it should be clear to even the most stubborn observer that it is a dead-end street - literally. I do not oppose Capitalism as it is implemented in e.g. north-western Europe, i.e. an economically liberal social democracy. Is it perfect? No, certainly not. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Given all that it still seems to be a reasonable compromise between individual liberty and social responsibility, both terms which when taken to the extreme lead to (extreme liberty) chaos and (extreme social responsibility) oppression.
Why would you think that? MLK was his own agent and so am I. Just like he agreed with some of the things e.g. Fredrick Douglas said but disagreed with others, I agree with some things he said and disagree with others. On the subject of the response to racial oppression I can, in some cases, support civil unrest as that is often the only way of breaking a status-quo. I do not support direct reparations because a) this does not solve the problem and b) neither those who would pay nor those who get paid are either guilty of enslaving people or having been enslaved. Targeted investments in areas which still suffer from the effects of earlier redlining and similar Jim Crow laws are something I can stand behind, as long as they are just that: targeted and effective. I do not support "Socialism" since I interpret that as being the precursor to Communism which has cost enough lives by now that it should be clear to even the most stubborn observer that it is a dead-end street - literally. I do not oppose Capitalism as it is implemented in e.g. north-western Europe, i.e. an economically liberal social democracy. Is it perfect? No, certainly not. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Given all that it still seems to be a reasonable compromise between individual liberty and social responsibility, both terms which when taken to the extreme lead to (extreme liberty) chaos and (extreme social responsibility) oppression.
SV has one of the highest homeless populations in the US, I do not see any of them giving up larges parts of the salary to fix that problem, or even demanding the cities stop preventing building of new housing.
You "think this is kind of stupid-naive virtue signaling" because that is exactly what it is.
The real problems we face as a society can not be fixed with a Twitter post and a image outlining the Newspeak we must all follow in the totalitarian superstate that SV wishes upon us
You "think this is kind of stupid-naive virtue signaling" because that is exactly what it is.
The real problems we face as a society can not be fixed with a Twitter post and a image outlining the Newspeak we must all follow in the totalitarian superstate that SV wishes upon us
Soon:
Chess is racist, blacks always move second and are thus at a disadvantage. Cancel chess.
Daoism is racist, yin is black and has negative connotations. Cancel Daoism.
Star Wars are racist. Droids are enslaved, C3P0 even calls his owner 'Master Luke', a racially-charged word. Cancel Star Wars.
Education is racist. Issued Master's degrees use a racially-charged word. Cancel education.
"To kill a mockingbird" is racist. It is full of insensitive language and it makes reader feel uncomfortable. Cancel "To kill a mockingbird".
"Mysterious island" by J.Verne is racist. The only black character is a servant to a wise white engineer and serves mostly as a comedic relief. Cancel "Mysterious island".
Coal industry is racist, miners are always mocking blacks wearing blackface after every shift. Cancel coal mining. (Good for environment, too!)
Disclaimer: I'm so insensitive because I was born with a white privilege, which I greatly enjoyed since my early childhood in an industrial/mining town in the Ural Mountains, near the eastern border of Siberia.
Chess is racist, blacks always move second and are thus at a disadvantage. Cancel chess.
Daoism is racist, yin is black and has negative connotations. Cancel Daoism.
Star Wars are racist. Droids are enslaved, C3P0 even calls his owner 'Master Luke', a racially-charged word. Cancel Star Wars.
Education is racist. Issued Master's degrees use a racially-charged word. Cancel education.
"To kill a mockingbird" is racist. It is full of insensitive language and it makes reader feel uncomfortable. Cancel "To kill a mockingbird".
"Mysterious island" by J.Verne is racist. The only black character is a servant to a wise white engineer and serves mostly as a comedic relief. Cancel "Mysterious island".
Coal industry is racist, miners are always mocking blacks wearing blackface after every shift. Cancel coal mining. (Good for environment, too!)
Disclaimer: I'm so insensitive because I was born with a white privilege, which I greatly enjoyed since my early childhood in an industrial/mining town in the Ural Mountains, near the eastern border of Siberia.
Saying that these terms are racially loaded is, well, racist.
I can kind of understand the argument that there is a history of racism connected with slavery, but the concept of "slave" predates discrimination of coloured people by millenia, closely followed by the word itself, which is actually derived from "Slav" (like you sometimes hear Russians being referred as). But fair enough, seeing a connection to racism is maybe just misinformed.
But "blacklist" (and "whitelist") is just completely absurd. "Blacklist" is a term from a play, referring to a literally black list. Whitelist is just an antonym. Such color metaphors are incredibly common, think wedding dresses or "black death", or black flags, or white lie. Obviously, none of this is connected to skin color. How exactly does your mind have to be wired to come to the opposite conclusion?
As one of the largest (and most criticized) players in political information, one would think that Twitter could maybe do something better about the current situation than engaging in etymological misinformation...
I can kind of understand the argument that there is a history of racism connected with slavery, but the concept of "slave" predates discrimination of coloured people by millenia, closely followed by the word itself, which is actually derived from "Slav" (like you sometimes hear Russians being referred as). But fair enough, seeing a connection to racism is maybe just misinformed.
But "blacklist" (and "whitelist") is just completely absurd. "Blacklist" is a term from a play, referring to a literally black list. Whitelist is just an antonym. Such color metaphors are incredibly common, think wedding dresses or "black death", or black flags, or white lie. Obviously, none of this is connected to skin color. How exactly does your mind have to be wired to come to the opposite conclusion?
As one of the largest (and most criticized) players in political information, one would think that Twitter could maybe do something better about the current situation than engaging in etymological misinformation...
This is going to be controversial; thus flagged, but I'd like to have an actual conversation about this.
It's my understanding that slavery has very little to do with race, blacklist has nothing to do with black people and "man" is the default term of humanity that comes from a completely different etymology than the word we use to refer to a male person.
I'm generally pretty stubborn but given the amount of traction this is getting, can someone _please_ explain to me the logic here? I'm perfectly willing to change my mind but right now I cannot fathom that these terms were harming people- unless those people were looking for reasons to be harmed.
It's my understanding that slavery has very little to do with race, blacklist has nothing to do with black people and "man" is the default term of humanity that comes from a completely different etymology than the word we use to refer to a male person.
I'm generally pretty stubborn but given the amount of traction this is getting, can someone _please_ explain to me the logic here? I'm perfectly willing to change my mind but right now I cannot fathom that these terms were harming people- unless those people were looking for reasons to be harmed.
Not all slavery is race but the vast majority of US slavery was race-based against black people. Black people don't care about the general history of all slavery, they care that at one point the vast majority of blacks in America were slaves.
Ok, but do you not think that this kind of mental colonialist attitude is a bit problematic?
The world is not the US and does not share your culture, yet you're imposing it on us.
The world is not the US and does not share your culture, yet you're imposing it on us.
This story is about internal practices at an American company.
This might shed some light on the thinking that motivates this sort of thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
The simple way that I think of it is how black/white list is constantly reinforcing in your head that black is bad and white is good.
There were eras where slavery had little to do with race (see: the Roman Republic and Empire) but the history of slavery in the last half-millennium had everything to do with race; it is the edifice on which white supremacy was built.
You're not "controversial" for skipping over the blindingly obvious, but we're not allowed to insult people on this forum, so feh!
You're not "controversial" for skipping over the blindingly obvious, but we're not allowed to insult people on this forum, so feh!
> but the history of slavery in the last half-millennium had everything to do with race;
Slaves in Russian Empire were freed a few years earlier than slaves in the USA. There were roughly 5 times more slaves in Russia than in USA, and I can pretty confidently say that zero of them were black. Even if you add ~2 million black slaves from Brazil, the number of black slaves would be dwarfed by the white slave population from Russia.
Based on this calculation, I don't think that your thesis about the history of slavery in the last 500 years holds well.
Slaves in Russian Empire were freed a few years earlier than slaves in the USA. There were roughly 5 times more slaves in Russia than in USA, and I can pretty confidently say that zero of them were black. Even if you add ~2 million black slaves from Brazil, the number of black slaves would be dwarfed by the white slave population from Russia.
Based on this calculation, I don't think that your thesis about the history of slavery in the last 500 years holds well.
There was also the Barbary Slave Trade, which lasted until the early 19th Century and during which over a million Europeans were removed from Europe during raids and enslaved in North Africa. Not to mention slavery in Africa itself, which goes from pre-history to today. The Atlantic Slave Trade is a stain on the history of the West, but it is by no means unique.
[deleted]
There's been a movement at my employer to replace some of these terms for years, though it seems to be getting more widespread attention lately.
Some of the terms, especially 'whitelist' and 'blacklist', are also very confusing to many non-native english speakers. 'Allowlist' and 'denylist' are just a lot clearer in those cases.
Some of the terms, especially 'whitelist' and 'blacklist', are also very confusing to many non-native english speakers. 'Allowlist' and 'denylist' are just a lot clearer in those cases.
Moving away from race a bit and totally anecdotally, but my wife was looking at my screen once while I was using the command line and she remarked how it seemed like all the commands were chosen by men: kill, terminate, spawn, mount, push etc. It may be subtle but words matter and they do attract or repel people. And then we complain why there are too few women in tech. Inclusion is not just about race.
>Sanity check becomes quick check, confidence check or coherence check
why?
why?
Similar to how we no longer use "retarded" to be sensitive to the disabled, people have been rethinking words like "crazy", "insane", or "sanity" to be sensitive towards those with mental illness.
Update: Not sure why I got downvoted for stating the rationale for why people are making this change. Objectively I haven't even stated my opinion on the change, just the rationale I've seen for it. If you want a source here's one from NPR around this language: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739643765/why-people-are-argu...
Update: Not sure why I got downvoted for stating the rationale for why people are making this change. Objectively I haven't even stated my opinion on the change, just the rationale I've seen for it. If you want a source here's one from NPR around this language: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739643765/why-people-are-argu...
Yes, but this is very much part of the Euphemism Treadmill[0]
I would fervently argue that 'sanity' has nothing to do with denigrating persons, merely ensuring that the solution remains "sane" in light of many people pouring time on things in different contexts.
Unless we're saying sanity in of itself is bad?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Evolution
I would fervently argue that 'sanity' has nothing to do with denigrating persons, merely ensuring that the solution remains "sane" in light of many people pouring time on things in different contexts.
Unless we're saying sanity in of itself is bad?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Evolution
An interesting tangent is-- "retarded, moron, imbecile" all were relatively neutral medical terms once upon a time.
Labels applied to disadvantaged groups linguistically develop a pejorative connotation over time.
Labels applied to disadvantaged groups linguistically develop a pejorative connotation over time.
It doesn't really help that a lot of what we used to consider mental illness was mostly just behavior not conforming with the mainstream. US suffragettes hunger-striking were institutionalized and force-fed under the guise of mental illness, and being gay itself used to be classified as a mental illness.
[deleted]
But confidence check can hurt people with low self-esteem. It’s turtles all the way down.
I'm not downvoting you. I just don't see an argument against sanity or coherence. These are things are objectively good. Don't hear a lot of "hey, that's awfully coherent, how about maybe walk that back a little..."
I'm good with the rest of it. I have no need to call anything master/slave. I worry about analysis paralysis though. Primary/secondary has caste connotations, if you ask me...
I'm good with the rest of it. I have no need to call anything master/slave. I worry about analysis paralysis though. Primary/secondary has caste connotations, if you ask me...
also the US has a pretty ugly history of throwing up nonconforming people in mental institutions when it's convenient (see: suffragettes, gay people, etc.)
"Confidence check" is insensitive toward individuals with low self-esteem.
I'm guessing because there might be a possibility someone might be offended?
Because according to a woke worldview, there is no such thing as insanity.
[deleted]
I'm not american and don't know what do these words _mean_ for a lot of people. My sidestory that I only feel "bad" because as a non-native english speaker it's really hard sometimes to speak correctly PC-ish. For example my native tongue doesn't have gender pronouns. Grammatical gender doesn't exist at all. So third person singular doesn't make a difference between gender like english. It doesn't exist when I address that person. But when I go to Twitter or check people's profile they more and more ask how they should be addressed or what pronoun to use. Just interesting how the language can affect your way of thinking about the world.
It is hard for native speakers to keep up with the demands too.
Are they going to rename their servers as well? The word 'server' comes from the Latin word 'servus' which means slave.
Also, the word 'twit' has several meanings which might not fall so well with certain people. Ask Google Translate what it means and this is what you get:
Twit: (noun) a silly or foolish person. Syonyms: idiot ass halfwit nincompoop blockhead buffoon dunce dolt ignoramus cretin imbecile dullard moron simpleton clod dope ninny chump dimwit nitwit goon dumbo dummy dum-dum dumbbell loon jackass bonehead fathead numbskull dunderhead chucklehead knucklehead muttonhead pudding-head thickhead wooden-head airhead pinhead lamebrain peabrain birdbrain zombie jerk nerd dipstick donkey noodle nit numpty clot goat plonker berk prat pillock wally git wazzock divvy nerk twerp charlie mug muppet nyaff balloon sumph gowk gobdaw schmuck bozo boob lamer turkey schlepper chowderhead dumbhead goofball goof goofus galoot dork lummox klutz putz schlemiel sap meatball gink cluck clunk ding-dong dingbat wiener weeny dip simp spud coot palooka poop squarehead yo-yo dingleberry wing nut drongo dill alec galah nong bogan poon boofhead mompara tomfool noddy clodpole loggerhead spoony mooncalf
While I personally think they chose a name which fits the product very well indeed I do get the feeling that, if the current witch hunt continues, they'll eventually fall foul of the mob and be either forced to bend to their will or find themselves in the position now reserved for Facebook, i.e. the whipping boy of the social media giants.
Also, the word 'twit' has several meanings which might not fall so well with certain people. Ask Google Translate what it means and this is what you get:
Twit: (noun) a silly or foolish person. Syonyms: idiot ass halfwit nincompoop blockhead buffoon dunce dolt ignoramus cretin imbecile dullard moron simpleton clod dope ninny chump dimwit nitwit goon dumbo dummy dum-dum dumbbell loon jackass bonehead fathead numbskull dunderhead chucklehead knucklehead muttonhead pudding-head thickhead wooden-head airhead pinhead lamebrain peabrain birdbrain zombie jerk nerd dipstick donkey noodle nit numpty clot goat plonker berk prat pillock wally git wazzock divvy nerk twerp charlie mug muppet nyaff balloon sumph gowk gobdaw schmuck bozo boob lamer turkey schlepper chowderhead dumbhead goofball goof goofus galoot dork lummox klutz putz schlemiel sap meatball gink cluck clunk ding-dong dingbat wiener weeny dip simp spud coot palooka poop squarehead yo-yo dingleberry wing nut drongo dill alec galah nong bogan poon boofhead mompara tomfool noddy clodpole loggerhead spoony mooncalf
While I personally think they chose a name which fits the product very well indeed I do get the feeling that, if the current witch hunt continues, they'll eventually fall foul of the mob and be either forced to bend to their will or find themselves in the position now reserved for Facebook, i.e. the whipping boy of the social media giants.
Really sad seeing a flagship company making headlines with something this superficial.
With its 140 character limit and its desire for "engagement", I always felt that Twitter was optimising for superficiality.
As an Asian American. I find Yellowstone national park offensive and oppressive.
Sorry but you have to wait your turn. We will burn down buildings, tear down statues, loot and protest for you after the blacks.
I get dibs after Asians, as a person who has some rosacea. For too long we have been disadvantaged.
I get dibs after Asians, as a person who has some rosacea. For too long we have been disadvantaged.
To say that these terms are racist, one must start with a racist point of view.
+100. Race is a product of racism, not the other way around. One is not born of a particular race and the practice of racism is what makes being of certain colors the same as being associated with a certain race. Would recommend reading "Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life" by Karen E Fields.
No, one just needs to live in a racist society with a racist history.
I am not a fan of ignoring context but I get why American companies, with their specific history would want to do that.
I am not a fan of ignoring context but I get why American companies, with their specific history would want to do that.
ridiculous. context is king
I would think racism and slavery are two different things. Usually slaves and masters are of the same race. But I understand why this might be a good move, the word “slave” itself is pretty loaded with negative connotations.
> Usually slaves and masters are of the same race.
Not for the last 500 years.
Not for the last 500 years.
In the last 500 years, too, without any doubt. There were 21 million white slaves in Russia, emancipated only in 1861. USA and Brazil had ~4,5+2 million black slaves, combined.
My friend, I'm sure you mean well, but there are more slaves today than any other time in history, and I can assure you; they are not of one race.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-...
"Usually" is not the best word here, I agree. What I meant is that it's "often the case". There are multitude of examples from Middle Ages in Europe(and before that), and Vikings etc. Not only people from Africa were were victims of slave trade.
Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723433
This endeavor is doubleplus good!
The whole idea is to remove the subconscious bias that it creates in our minds, always associating black with bad and white with good in the case of blacklist and white list.
None of this has any effect on me and I don't see the negative side of changing it.
None of this has any effect on me and I don't see the negative side of changing it.
Black is not always associated with bad and white is not always associated with good - their general associations with bad/good respectively are independent of race.
Judging by your response (and the amount of comments you've made in this thread) I don't think you really took the time to think about my comment.
We obviously didn't chose black list or white list to donate race but regardless it's another brick in wall for black to equate to bad.
As a white European this has no impact on me in any way shape or form apart from wanting a more inclusive space for my friends.
Out of interest why are you so against the idea of changing terms? In your comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=f3295cde) you make the comparison of "will replace the word 'football' as it is offensive to people with limb difference", you do realise these are fundamentally different issues right? People aren't looking to replace the words for the fun of it.
We obviously didn't chose black list or white list to donate race but regardless it's another brick in wall for black to equate to bad.
As a white European this has no impact on me in any way shape or form apart from wanting a more inclusive space for my friends.
Out of interest why are you so against the idea of changing terms? In your comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=f3295cde) you make the comparison of "will replace the word 'football' as it is offensive to people with limb difference", you do realise these are fundamentally different issues right? People aren't looking to replace the words for the fun of it.
It's a troll account made just to stink up this specific thread, report it and move on.
This is controversial but shouldn't be flagged. It's a link to a factual news story. Dang could you unflag this or otherwise explain why this remains flagged?
Anyone else find it ironic the official announcement on twitter about a major programming change about inclusivity was posted in a non-accessible way?
Tl'dr the list of words to be replaced:
>Whitelist becomes allowlist.
>Blacklist becomes denylist.
>Master/slave becomes leader/follower, primary/replica or primary/standby.
>Grandfathered becomes legacy status.
>Gendered pronouns (for example "guys") become folks, people, you all, y'all.
>Gendered pronouns (for example "he" or "his") become they or their.
>Man hours becomes person hours or engineer hours.
>Sanity check becomes quick check, confidence check or coherence check.
>Dummy value becomes placeholder value or sample value.
>Whitelist becomes allowlist.
>Blacklist becomes denylist.
>Master/slave becomes leader/follower, primary/replica or primary/standby.
>Grandfathered becomes legacy status.
>Gendered pronouns (for example "guys") become folks, people, you all, y'all.
>Gendered pronouns (for example "he" or "his") become they or their.
>Man hours becomes person hours or engineer hours.
>Sanity check becomes quick check, confidence check or coherence check.
>Dummy value becomes placeholder value or sample value.
Seems like mostly also strictly better names. Though being German replacing master with leader is ironic in our cultural context (the literal translation of leader is Führer...).
>Gendered pronouns (for example "he" or "his") become they or their.
For the love of grammar, just invent a neutral pronoun.
"He" or "she" is singular.
"They" is plural.
These things are not like each other.
For the love of grammar, just invent a neutral pronoun.
"He" or "she" is singular.
"They" is plural.
These things are not like each other.
"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375" https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
If thou takest thy authority from a 1375 education, methinks the chasm betwixt us doth yawn overbroadly for debate.
They is already used as a singular pronoun. Just because you want to play the grammar police won’t stop people from using it as a singular pronoun. It has already been invented, you’re welcome to use it.
So what's the plural third person pronoun?
Ever overloaded a function? You can infer the meaning from the context. “They” works as both.
I have. And I try not to make a habit of doing so for reasons of expediency. Here, there doesn't seem any clear benefit to overloading.
Depending on context to post-hoc disambiguate definition collision is a slippery slope. Especially given that language tends to be immutable once it's popularized.
Given that, why not push for a "ze" or equivalent that solves the need more optimally?
Depending on context to post-hoc disambiguate definition collision is a slippery slope. Especially given that language tends to be immutable once it's popularized.
Given that, why not push for a "ze" or equivalent that solves the need more optimally?
Wonder if "yinz" would be acceptable, too...
Could "Spartan" and "Helot" work? Or would Greeks be offended?
And yet they allow Trump to tweet his hatred.
Orange is the New Purple
Thank you twitter engineers. To the people trying to deflect, consider this as an opportunity to learn and progress.
So much of the tech language is filled with insensitivity.
So much of the tech language is filled with insensitivity.
It seems that there is a movement that values "sensitivity" more than understanding. How does this so-called progress lead to greater understanding?
Ahhh it allows minorities feel welcome, more involved and free to be themselves.
It certainly was a relief for me ( I am a dark Indian) when SQLServer went from master/slave to publisher/subscriber.
I don't have to second guess intonations when people say master/slave as a sly joke or a sincere discussion in tech meetings.
It certainly was a relief for me ( I am a dark Indian) when SQLServer went from master/slave to publisher/subscriber.
I don't have to second guess intonations when people say master/slave as a sly joke or a sincere discussion in tech meetings.
Most of the replacement terms are more accurate or more precise.
We now live in clown world.
There is a lot of "white" and "black" out there to replace, especially on paper.
github (owned by Microsoft) also was on the FP just recently for renaming master.
this feels like empty (if not hypocritical) when (as Cory Doctrow writes) the same companies:
"spend 20-45% of their budgets on policing on but cops run foundations that solicit millions from large corporations, which then take tax breaks for their donations. The money goes into a slushfund used to procure off-the-books military and surveillance gear. " -- https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1278391796733669378
this just fuels the culture wars but does nothing to address the problem of racism
this feels like empty (if not hypocritical) when (as Cory Doctrow writes) the same companies:
"spend 20-45% of their budgets on policing on but cops run foundations that solicit millions from large corporations, which then take tax breaks for their donations. The money goes into a slushfund used to procure off-the-books military and surveillance gear. " -- https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1278391796733669378
this just fuels the culture wars but does nothing to address the problem of racism
To everyone whose first reaction to this is negative, can I ask why? Do you really have an emotional investment in these specific terms?
We have the opportunity to make tech marginally more hospitable to Black developers at basically zero cost to everyone else. Let’s not mess it up!
We have the opportunity to make tech marginally more hospitable to Black developers at basically zero cost to everyone else. Let’s not mess it up!
It is not about the specific words, it is language and the use of words. Let's say ESPN came out tomorrow and said they will replace the word 'football' as it is offensive to people with limb difference - would you nod and toe the line without raising an eyebrow?
Sure. Again, why is that a problem? I have literally zero emotional investment in being able to call football “football”. Why would I not make a tiny change that has no pragmatic impact on my life in order to be more considerate?
No, it’s more like trying to get the Redskins to change their name - which many people support.
Because I'm a black developer and I am deeply, savagely offended by such empty pandering gestures. It's like being patted on the head. The thought that a professional like me is disturbed by industry standard terminology is truly degrading. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend there being any good faith motivation behind any of this.
I presume the reaction is not about investment in any specific term but against the general principle of changing names because someone feels that they're somehow related to something offensive. And of course there's the general natural resistance to someone else demanding that you change your behavior.
In essence, it's a defence of the slippery slope. And not the slippery slope fallacy, as the list included in this article already demonstrates that the slippery slope is very real, extending the approach from terms where the connection makes sense (e.g. the master/slave relationship) to terms where the connection is much weaker (e.g. dummy value).
I'll gladly support the changing of a particular term e.g. master/slave if we draw the line at discussing that term alone on it's merits and justify it's change with specific arguments that for this particular case the benefits outweigh the cost - and the cost is not "basically zero", it requires work on many, many people to change many, many things, it's a nontrivial cognitive cost of changing the habitual terminology of literally millions of people. If it's only about this particular case and we don't concede that "word policing" is generally acceptable behavior.
But if the position is explicitly about the general case, as it seems to be in the article; if we lump together the master/slave terminology with dummy value and expect to extend it further (e.g. the RuboCop debacle not so long ago), then I can't consider that acceptable. If it's piecemeal, then we can discuss specific cases, but if it's all-or-nothing, then I'm strongly on the side of free speech and against the policing of what words are permitted.
If there's no clear, defensible line of changing master/slave terminology that ensures that neutral-seeming (to me) terms won't be attacked as well, then I must defend the general concept and assert that no terms should be changed. The big issue at stake here is whether it's appropriate to make demands to change terminology because someone feels offended, as opposed to making requests (where "no" is accepted) and awaiting consensus. So there's some "line in the sand" (which I don't want to see crossed) at the implied moral right to make demands at the choice of words others use for technical terms. Because it's absolutely unacceptable to have people verbally assaulted and 'cancelled' for things that weren't meant in offence, it's absolutely unacceptable to require everyone to self-censor everything that might be misinterpreted. I've seen how it went back some decades ago in USSR, trust me, we don't want that. If ensuring this means that we'll also have to permit racists to say racist things, oh well, too bad; some things are more important than others, and freedom of speech (practical freedom, including social consequences, not the first amendment about government restrictions) is far more important than freedom from being offended. I strongly support a social climate where misinterpretable things are tolerated and people are free to just live their lives without worrying about stepping on social landmines. So if person A uses a misinterpretable term (like most of this list) in a technical discussion and person B loudly protests its use and calls for social ostracism, I'd want person A to be safe and person B to be ostracized for making unreasonable demands.
And to put it clearly, if someone demands the rest of the world to change from "dummy value" to "placeholder value", then that is an unreasonable demand. If you want to speak differently, you're free to do so, but requiring a whole field to change without a very strong reason is unreasonable chutzpah that should not even warrant attention - and it's sad that here it is, requesting attention.
In essence, it's a defence of the slippery slope. And not the slippery slope fallacy, as the list included in this article already demonstrates that the slippery slope is very real, extending the approach from terms where the connection makes sense (e.g. the master/slave relationship) to terms where the connection is much weaker (e.g. dummy value).
I'll gladly support the changing of a particular term e.g. master/slave if we draw the line at discussing that term alone on it's merits and justify it's change with specific arguments that for this particular case the benefits outweigh the cost - and the cost is not "basically zero", it requires work on many, many people to change many, many things, it's a nontrivial cognitive cost of changing the habitual terminology of literally millions of people. If it's only about this particular case and we don't concede that "word policing" is generally acceptable behavior.
But if the position is explicitly about the general case, as it seems to be in the article; if we lump together the master/slave terminology with dummy value and expect to extend it further (e.g. the RuboCop debacle not so long ago), then I can't consider that acceptable. If it's piecemeal, then we can discuss specific cases, but if it's all-or-nothing, then I'm strongly on the side of free speech and against the policing of what words are permitted.
If there's no clear, defensible line of changing master/slave terminology that ensures that neutral-seeming (to me) terms won't be attacked as well, then I must defend the general concept and assert that no terms should be changed. The big issue at stake here is whether it's appropriate to make demands to change terminology because someone feels offended, as opposed to making requests (where "no" is accepted) and awaiting consensus. So there's some "line in the sand" (which I don't want to see crossed) at the implied moral right to make demands at the choice of words others use for technical terms. Because it's absolutely unacceptable to have people verbally assaulted and 'cancelled' for things that weren't meant in offence, it's absolutely unacceptable to require everyone to self-censor everything that might be misinterpreted. I've seen how it went back some decades ago in USSR, trust me, we don't want that. If ensuring this means that we'll also have to permit racists to say racist things, oh well, too bad; some things are more important than others, and freedom of speech (practical freedom, including social consequences, not the first amendment about government restrictions) is far more important than freedom from being offended. I strongly support a social climate where misinterpretable things are tolerated and people are free to just live their lives without worrying about stepping on social landmines. So if person A uses a misinterpretable term (like most of this list) in a technical discussion and person B loudly protests its use and calls for social ostracism, I'd want person A to be safe and person B to be ostracized for making unreasonable demands.
And to put it clearly, if someone demands the rest of the world to change from "dummy value" to "placeholder value", then that is an unreasonable demand. If you want to speak differently, you're free to do so, but requiring a whole field to change without a very strong reason is unreasonable chutzpah that should not even warrant attention - and it's sad that here it is, requesting attention.
There is a lot of downvoting going on in here on very valid comments. I know it goes against the guidelines to complain about downvotes, but it’s surprisingly toxic in this comment section. I expected better on HN, it’s pretty disappointing.
People on each side are downvoting the other side. I changed that in a few cases, but I'm also not seeing a lot of fine comments here that are downvoted. It's mostly flamewar stuff that breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you have links to other examples, I'd appreciate them. You can always send them to [email protected].
If you have links to other examples, I'd appreciate them. You can always send them to [email protected].
Race is being dragged into everything now and I hate it.