Merge tag 'inclusive-terminology' into Linux kernel | Hacker News Reader

Merge tag 'inclusive-terminology' into Linux kernel

git.kernel.org

95 pointsandxor472 comments

This same conversation came up at my job. I personally don't think that the effort put in is worth the advantages that it affords, or if there are any real advantages at all. However, I largely kept my mouth shut because I was afraid of the social repercussions.

I wonder how much of this is occurring in tech companies because of the same phenomenon - people are just probably don't want to risk their jobs over something so unimportant.

As always, paycheck comes in, jira ticket gets dragged from left to right. Whatever.

>if there are any real advantages at all.

If it brings just one more person into OS isn't it worth it?

Only if it doesn't drive >0 people away from the OS

If it just puts off one person isn't it not worth it?

You seem unconcerned about the people who might feel marginalized and harmed by the rampant use of offensive language, and really concerned about people who could simply substitute another word with no impact.

It's a really, really false equivalence.

If you're offended by being asked to behave civilly you really have a bigger problem to deal with.

I don't feel you're arguing in good faith.

We should define "offensive language." How will we measure it fairly? Will we poll the english-speaking and set a thresh-hold?

Because I sure hope we don't find out "aborting" a process is offensive language to religious coders with a polical agenda.

I mean one way to do it would be that when someone brings up a specific term that they feel is a problem, we decide to change the term or not, and if we choose not to, we can revisit later.

If someone brings up that they feel the verb abort is an issue, the community can have that conversation. There are no shortage of idioms that are synonymic -- halt, stop, terminate, end -- and it would be trivial to make the changes if it came to that. Either the decision will be to replace with another idiom, or to keep the existing one.

If Linux had never used master/slave, and instead used primary/secondary, no one would open up a discussion to say "replace primary with master, primary is unclear and too much work to type" or whatever. So clearly there's no obligation to use the disputed terms, just as there wouldn't be for "abort". Are you hung up on using "abort"?

Like, we don't need some cosmic answer once and for all about whether or not ever possible term will ever be offensive. We can just respond to people who bring the issues up. If they seem to be bringing it up in bad faith (for example, if the username is "DefendTheWestGroyper" and they have an anime avatar, probably you don't need to take them seriously) then that can be part of the conversation too.

If this is the worst bikeshedding you're experiencing in a team project then you've got an uncommonly productive group. But also you can just opt out of the conversation. If you try to submit a PR later with a banned word in it, someone will flag it. The consequences on the code side seem de minimis.

I'm not being asked to behave civilly though, I'm being asked to coddle infantile behavior of thin-skinned people taking things out of context.

I'd much rather have a civil discussion about substantive changes we can make to society as whole, not wasting everyone's time with trivial and performative conformance.

If it puts off any Alt-Right White Supremacists and drives them away from the Linux community, then that's an excellent outcome.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/silicon-valley-...

>Meet Silicon Valley’s Secretive Alt-Right Followers. I investigated the role of “alt-techies” in the extremist movement emboldened by Trump.

>“The average alt-right-ist is probably a 28-year-old tech-savvy guy working in IT,” white nationalist Richard Spencer insisted when I interviewed him a few weeks before the election.

> If it puts off any Alt-Right White Supremacists and drives them away from the Linux community, then that's an excellent outcome.

What?! Why?

How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing? Or is it just that anything bad or exclusionary happening to your political enemies is a good thing?

How are White Supremacists not your political enemies, and why are you so concerned about their feelings?

And why are you advocating driving away minorities and anti-racist people from working on the Linux kernel by tolerating White Supremacists in violation of the Linux Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, who consider other human beings genetically inferior and not deserving of the same rights and respect as white people? Are you ok with rapists and murderers, too, or do you just have a special place in your heart for defending White Supremacy?

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...

>Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

>The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

>Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

>Public or private harassment

>Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

>Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

White Supremacy is clearly inappropriate in a professional setting. Or do you disagree? Do you have a dog in this battle? Can you name any White Supremacist kernel hackers who the community can't get along without?

You really need to take a deep look at yourself, and decide which side of history you're on. Advocating and defending White Supremacy online could and should have detrimental effect on your employability. Do you stand by your beliefs enough to share your real name with us, or do you insist on remaining anonymous?

"Advocating driving away minorities" There is no evidence that the term "master" drives away minorities. As to driving away anti-racist people, a reason that comes to mind is that they make changes like this rather than actual productive work; in other words, their contribution seems so far to be clearly net-negative.

That's a pretty pro-racist thing of you to say.

You're the one arguing for tolerating White Supremacists, in direct violation of the Linux Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.

Do you really object to black people and other minorities working on the Linux kernel?

> Are you ok with rapists and murderers, too, or do you just have a special place in your heart for defending White Supremacy?

Well I got in trouble at work for defending pedophiles, so no, it's not just white supremacists I defend. It's everyone, including Muslims, fundamentalist YEC Christians, racists, trans people and the very woke. I mostly defend them by encouraging no politics where it isn't topical, but have also spoken up plenty of times.

This is all horrifically off topic though...

Well you've been very purposefully deceptive in your defense of racists in this thread, repeatedly attributing words and thoughts to me that I did not say and think, so there is probably a very good reason you got in trouble at work.

You seem to have a lot of preconceived false notions that you project onto other people, and you're spending a lot more energy attacking people than defending them. I'm sure you co-workers and managers really cherish your argumentation techniques. If you get fired, Tucker Carlson is looking for a head writer.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-addresses-raci...

I'm sure you can find some other forum more appropriate for defending White Supremacy, like the ones Tucker Carlson's previous head writer hangs out on -- why don't you take it there instead of here, edgelord?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Edgelord

> Well you've been very purposefully deceptive in your defense of racists in this thread, repeatedly attributing words and thoughts to me that I did not say and think, so there is probably a very good reason you got in trouble at work.

Having read this and a number of your other replies I'm now reasonably sure you're confusing me with someone else.

Would you object to me sending you an email so we can get on the same page and we can talk without replies being scattered about the place?

> How is getting a less feature rich/buggier kernal due to less devs a good thing?

You don't really believe driving out the alt-right white supremacists would result in a smaller overall community, do you? They're a small group that has an outsized ability to repel other people.

It's convenient when people explicitly confirm all your secretly held preconceptions.

"It's about marginalized people." Nope, it's about owning the right. Any supposed benefit for marginalized people is an afterthought.

What are you talking about? Are you even responding to the right message?

Tell me please, what are my secretly held preconceptions exactly, and how do you know that?

By writing double quotes around the sentence "It's about marginalized people." you are clearly claiming that I said that, which I absolutely did not. When and where do you claim that I say that?

Why are you deceptively trying to attribute a quote to me that I didn't say?

Do you have no better argument than blatantly misquoting me to make a straw man to attack?

Sorry, let me clarify what I'm saying, because I agree that message was too brief.

In the first sentence, I was talking about my preconceptions, not yours. The fundamental premise of changing 'master' to 'main', as I understand it, is that this supposed to make Linux "more inclusive" by preventing black people from being exposed to a term that has slavery connotations. However, I hold the preconception that the actual point is that certain people in the "left-progressive-online/idpol" cluster want to feel good by exercising power to make other people do things that will, as an added benefit, piss off the right (basically the left equivalent of "own the libs") which is not as beneficial a purpose as making Linux more inclusive for minorities. Then your comment, being a plain description of the latter sentiment, confirmed this preconception outright, which amused me. The quote wasn't meant to be attributed to you but rather the general claimed motivation for this change and changes like it.

I never said your message was too brief, so no, we don't agree your message was too brief, because I didn't say that at all.

I said your message was deceptive. Do you agree with me that your message was deceptive?

And are you going to tell me what my secretly held beliefs are, and how you know, like I asked you to?

Why do you feel the need to deceive, by quoting me saying something I clearly did not say, and claiming to know what my secretly held beliefs are? Are straw man arguments and deception and putting words I didn't say into my mouth and beliefs I don't hold into my mind the best you have?

If fighting against racism pisses off the right, then so be it. That just means they're racist, and they deserve to be pissed off. How about coming up with a political ideology you're not ashamed to put your real name next to, anonymous coward?

Depends if it actually does. And if that person can code.

Is there a net benefit of coddling unreasonable people to such a degree that we're no longer allowing words to have different meanings, and holding integrity through requiring critical thinking to understand language properly? Organizations playing into this are either pandering to the mob and/or aren't grounded in reason. Let's be strong for our brothers and sisters, even if discomfort increases temporarily due to a mob.

Do you actually know the people in the linux kernel community who are discussing this change and do you know they are unreasonable people who can be described as a mob? Genuinely asking because I don't know them, and therefore I can't judge on who they are as people, but you are clearly judging them as people so I'm assuming you know them?

I didn't call them a mob - try reading what I said again. Also the length of your argument repeating the same (wrong) thing doesn't strengthen it either.

Many people's reading comprehension in this thread suits the arguments they want to make, setting up straw man arguments seemingly without realizing it.

Perhaps you could be clearer who you’re calling a mob.

You instead accused the Linux kernel team of either "pandering to a mob" or "ungrounded in reason".

Hardly charitable. Do you think everyone who has a different view from you total scum of the earth?

Maybe they came to a totally rational conclusion, using a completely different set of axioms than you would, that this change is worth it?

Initiated by what? They decided to review the terminology prior to a mob existing? I'm not sure if you're purposefully ignoring the context that all of this is unfolding under.

I believe the people those terms affect that they hurt them and subtly reinforce bias. That doesn't feel unimportant to me. What's unimportant is using antiquated, hurtful terms when it would be easy to simply not do that.

Instead of actually helping these people we coddle them further by changing words? That's equivalent to defunding the police, a simple shallow action, but doesn't actually address the actual racism and lack of accountability (that affects all races) of police actions. It's coddling and it's lazy - and the mob will start calling people, if they haven't already started, people and organizations who don't change the language as racists - a false accusation but it rallies the mob and doesn't lead to critical thinking.

False dichotomy. Progress can be made along multiple fronts simultaneously. 'Defunding police' isn't a single action so can hardly be labeled 'shallow' but it's definitely a step towards addressing racism since it's quite clear to anyone who's been paying attention that ridiculous levels of over-policing in America is a major propagator of racial inequality. All of this stuff is related. Nobody is wrong for focusing more or less on one battle than another...

Are you saying we should coddle people as an option? I wasn't arguing an either/or, we can and should look at all options - I was highlighting the shallow nature of both actions vs. actually changing systems - and arguably defunding the police is the wrong mantra, inaccurate; demilitarize the police, yes. That doesn't mean we should give into unreasonable options.

Edit to add: it's interesting my top comment was quickly downvoted 3 times right around the time of the above reply, and then my reply here got 3 downvotes quickly too.

Again, why are you framing this as coddling?

Why is your position the one of critical thinking and "understanding language properly" while the people you disagree with want "unreasonable options?"

As the original article shows, what's being asked for is straightforward and simple to do.

There's no mob. No one is getting canceled. We're just changing some terms we use in a software project to be more appropriate.

The phrase "he doth protest too much" comes to mind every time I see comments like the above.

More appropriate? Don't you think people should be able understand these words have different contexts than race related, instead you want to shelter them in case they haven't developed that capability yet?

You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity.

> You're argument tactic is to just dismiss which at minimum is lacking integrity.

Sorry, but your framing of this as "coddling" is itself dismissive. That, combined with complaining about downvotes, might be driving the unpopularity of your comments.

Reducing funding of police is almost entirely orthogonal to action against racism. It can reduce the harm caused but it's not going to reduce racism.

I can't see how you can demilitarise police in USA without restricting access to deadly weapons across the board. Who's going to enforce the law if the citizenry have access to disproportionately greater force than the police do.

USA needs to start with rule of law, as the current administration, at least, has subverted that you've no chance to move forward IMO.

Although access to force is important in some cases, it's not the most important issue here and not the most important effect that would come from defunding the police.

One more important issue here is that police have been trained only to use force to execute their duties. An alternative would be for cops to focus on de-escalating conflict.

Another more important issue here is that police forces are used to handle problems that are better served by smaller, more specialized agencies. Psychologists and Psychiatrists for mentally ill people. Social workers for the homeless.

A third issue here that is more important than access to excessive force is the rampant and catastrophic lack of oversight for cops. Protests went on for days before George Floyd's murderer was arrested. If video hadn't made the news that man would still be policing today. George Floyd's death didn't involve a gun, it involved a cop who didn't expect consequences.

Beyond all that, police agencies have empirically demonstrated that they have significant and deep seated racial bias across the board. Even if that can be fixed the simplest way to stop the bleeding is to reduce the funding and therefore power of the police. Once they show they can uphold the law without a tax of innocent lives they can have their funding back, but TBH at that point I doubt they'll need it.

The rule of law doesn't need an arms race to enforce it. If anything that's an unwinnable war. Police typically enforce the law after it has been broken. It appears that in the US there many low impact changes to society and communities which would significantly reduce the crime from happening in the first place.

How is this coddling anyone? And why are you viewing "these people" as somehow separate rather than just "us?"

Defunding the police is a simple to understand slogan that covers a lot of possibilities. Plenty of places have abolished their police and rebuilt from the ground up. When people use the slogan that's generally what they mean. Saying they literally expect there to be no police and everything is anarchy is a strawman position no one besides a couple bros in hoodies in seattle actually takes seriously.

Being specially catered for sets you apart from the rest, promoting a damaging us vs them distinction.

I don't really think framing one side of the discussion as "the mob" particularly encourages critical thinking.

Are you ready to loose the black and red in red black tree? Because that’s skin color right there... Are you willing to rename all your code variables when you used « whitelist » or « blacklist »?

This has to stop. Slavery was long gone and finished when master/slave began being used in computer science. They were not used as a meaning to reproduce and glorify the past, they are simple words that explain how the protocol works. Would you rather « master » and « servant »? King and serf? Bully and victim?

This is to me just as irrelevant as continuing the superstitions about 13 and 666: a reactionnary behavior that people should tame and focus on something more important, like actual code correctness, fuzzing or something actually useful.

Have we actually asked the demographics these changes are supposed to empower? We definitely have black engineering organizations. What does the National Society of Black Engineers say about this? What does Black In Tech say about this?

Before we assume that such things are stupid superstitions or applying race on a term (or choosing not to apply terms in race context) we should listen to the other side of the plate.

Sounds like more work to me, than just accepting that PR

If we follow that line of argument to its conclusion, declining the PR is the least work of all.

I find the terminology uncomfortable. I dislike it. Keeping those names is lazy naming, and we can do a hell of a lot better. The words have a ton of emotional imagery tied up, and no need to invoke it just when we are talking about IDE disk protocols.

We don't have to rename it all immediately, but let's start with the easy stuff and ripple it thru. How hard can it be?

In any case, blocklist, allowlist is way more descriptive than blacklist and whitelist. It describes WHAT the thing does, whereas the black/white relies on a cultural mnemonic that black is bad and white is good. Just name things for what they do, how hard is that?

I can get behind your first and second paragraph. I understand the idea that we can do better, and there's no bad in doing this.. but the last is just too much.

Why not use pastel colors for chess and checkers because colors black and white are so effing bad?

Should we review the Yin and Yang color semantics too ? Am I offending people when I print my financial statement on WHITE paper? With BLACK ink?

Will there be forbidden words everywhere soon? Should I be able to pronounce the word "slave" in public or will I get stoned for it? Is there going to be a police dedicated to monitor people's use of "disturbing words" that we collectively decided would hurt the sensibility of communities, and started enforcing?

Am I going to loose my job if I commit a diff with forbidden words by the Great List Of Acceptable Words That Don't Discriminate Any Minority In The World? Will my commits to the linux kernel be refused if I chose one word badly, regardless of the actual VALUE of my code? Are we going to cleanse the Kernel from words like fuck or shit or arab? Will there be a PG rating when opening github's project pages so that we don't expose our children to these subversive tractations?

People are starting to confuse their own sensibilities and the greater good. When people start banning words and ideas, they slowly start communitarism and self-isolating rhetorics. They restric their views by hiding the rest of the things they don't like. This just looks like another puritan American move, and it's spreading like karens around the developer community.

This is just like the fake inclusivity where devs are starting to put in their repos what they call "Code of Conduct" where you are now asked to think about the cultural impact of your "Typo FIX" commit over the N communities that would prefer that you call your global variable "allowedList" rather than "whiteList". Oh my.. I don't care. I want my code to be functionally correct, not make BHL happy. Shit, I'm not writing to make a political statement, I'm fixing my SCSI driver implementation.

Well, $white_list and $black_list was easy for me to change to $pass_list and $fail_list. Saves one char and is more explicit about the code intent.

I've never like colour based names anyway too ambiguous.

Also it depends on the cultural understanding that white is good and black is bad. Ditto white-hat hacker vs black-hat hackers.

If you really want to build something for all times, don't load it up with cultural baggage that will go obsolete.

I would have guessed that fail_list is a list of items that have failed.

That's the problem with replacing an actual word with a new term. You get something that would be equivalent, but it doesn't have that innate understanding.

It's not a big sacrifice, but it's less immediately clear.

> Slavery was long gone and finished when master/slave began being used in computer science.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but this is such an America-centric statement. Slavery is alive and well today. There are more slaves now than at any past time.

Slavery wasn't and still isn't that long gone.

The reductio ad absurdum where any mention of a color is considered harmful is based in the assumption that the issue is with mentioning color. It might be useful to distinguish when a color is just a color (e.g. red/black trees), and when a metaphor is borrowed from an actual crime against humanity (e.g. master/slave).

>"This has to stop. Slavery was long gone and finished [bla bla bla]..."

Funny how you're much more hysterical about how renaming things has to stop, than you are concerned about how slavery has to stop, when you directly deny the harsh objective reality that there are actually many more slaves today than ever before in history.

Get your priorities right. Renaming things isn't taking away your freedom or cramping your lifestyle.

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/perth/programs/focus/modern-sla...

>There are more slaves in the world today than ever before in human history. Its estimated that there are 40.3 million slaves throughout the world today, more than at any other time in human history.

https://bis.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/categories/governance-risk...

>There are more slaves today than EVER before in the history of the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-...

>One in 200 people is a slave. Why? Slavery affects more than 40 million people worldwide – more than at any other time in history.

> hysterical

That's not called for.

As for the rest, it seems to me that it's slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term. Obviously all slavery is a horrible problem, but other kinds of slavery are much less relevant to the terminology debate.

It seemed to be a totally factual description of the poster. Wrapping your comment up in a "that's not called for" false-call for civility while ignoring the reality on the ground that our friends, our fellow citizens may be affected by this kind of ongoing language, yet people REFUSE to help, because of... why?

Leon, why did you flip the tortoise on its back? You aren't helping it, why is that?

No, it's an insult, and any sentiment expressed in using it is entirely subjective opinion, not "fact".

> false-call for civility

Is this another "fact"? Got the proof that the call for civility is false? Otherwise this is bad-faith.

> ignoring the reality

The "reality" you describe is disputed.

> people REFUSE to help

they refuse to participate in a bad-faith, antagonistic discourse. There is no attempt at "help" here, just demanding your perspective be accepted as fact, and insulting all who do not obey.

This doesn't meaningfully help the people on the ground. Even for a positive change, the worst possible outcome of this is people feeling like they've done their part and then putting less effort into changing things like discriminatory social policies.

And I'm still not seeing which part was "hysterical".

Sure it's called for, and you're being irrational and hysterical, too.

Exactly who besides you says "slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term" and why? Give me some evidence, or retract what you said, because it's outrageously wrong. And where did you get that ridiculous unfounded belief? And what motivates you to propagate it, despite it being false? Just because it "seems to you" doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

It seems to the person who I was replying to, and many other people in this thread, that slavery no longer happens, and they're terribly wrong. Do you also falsely believe there is no more slavery, too? (Yes you do, I see from your other comment: "Nobody is enslaving anyone" -Dylan16807) Is that the basis of your false belief that "it seems to me that it's slavery based on race that is the biggest motivator to changing the term"?

It really puzzles me what motivates people like you to make such unsubstantiated statements whitewashing slavery, and then feign outrage at having your feelings hurt, while so many human beings are currently suffering from slavery every day, more than at any time in history, that you refuse to acknowledge. Can you explain why?

Renaming things does nothing to help anyone. Just further reinforces the idea that we need to tiptoe around certain demographics, propagating an isolating us-and-them mentality.

If language is so unimportant, then it doesn't matter if things are renamed, right?

But language DOES matter, and it DOES help people. It's a bit more abstract and decoupled, but shit, you're supposed to be a coder (you ARE on a programming forum), so I'm sure you can handle adding 1 and 1 and getting to 2.

I don't think anything you've said addresses anything I've said...

You can lead a horse to water ...

Then address what I said: Do you deny the evidence I just posted about there being more slavery today than ever before in history? What is your evidence that "Slavery was long gone and finished when master/slave began being used in computer science"?

So you're against renaming the Redskins? Explain why. Exactly how does that take away your freedom and cramp your lifestyle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contr...

https://www.mediaite.com/sports/breaking-washington-redskins...

>BREAKING: Washington Redskins Expected to Announce Retirement of Team Name on Monday

I think/hope you wrote "tiptoe around" when you meant "respecting the opinions".

The problem is the us and them mentality exists, is very prevalent but basically invisible to or ignored by those on one side of the divide. Addressing issue already present isn't significantly furthering the divide, it's making people aware of what's already there. All the people saying "look how divided we are now!" fail to realise this has always been the way.

Sorry, how is NOT using the terms master and slave helping actual slaves? I used to be bullied in school when I was young. I'm sure if people removed the term nerd and bully from some software projects I'd be much better off. Thank god for the word police.

In what context can we use the terms master and slave?

The term slave means to be controlled by another entity in its most basic definition. Just because there are loads of people who are slaves in the world doesn't make that term less accurate for its other uses.

I’ve never seen the words nerd or bully in code or software architecture, so that seems to be a spurious example.

Businesses already tend not to use sensitive words, especially publicly. This is just adding to that list. For example, whilst you can kill a process we don’t use the word murder. Same for lots of other negatively emotional words.

People do get hung up on naming & terminology. But as has been mentioned elsewhere, master/slave is often chosen through convention when other names would be clearer. We have a whitelist application at work that is actually an event routing gateway. If we renamed it it’d be easier to explain.

To me it seems an easy task to not use master/slave and white/black when I’m naming things, not something worth arguing about, especially if there’s a chance it removes some negativity for some people. I’m happy to spend a few minutes helping someone with a chore and I see this as the same low level of effort and impact.

I understand the need to change the words if a different word is clearer. But the intent behind this particular case is more of a matter of bowing to the outrage culture rather than for usefulness purposes.

It's not "outrage culture", it's being considerate and thoughtful, which is something most of us practice every day.

You can frame it as "bowing down" either way. The other option is to "bow down" to those who do no want to change but have no good reasons beyond that it's what they are used to and, typically, negative partisanship (that on principle they object to anything promoted by the other side of the political divide, simply because). People need to find better arguments than emotionally & illogically driven defensiveness.

It is outrage culture. It wasn't a problem for decades and all of a sudden it is.

I think the same argument can be had about the other side. People who push for changing words like this need to find better arguments that emotionally driven ones.

The other option is to have a nuanced debate from both sides where one side isn't thought of as hateful and evil. One side is saying "hey this is a slippery slope" the other side is saying "no you're wrong and you're what's wrong with the world today".

Also, where has my defensiveness been at all illogical or emotional? The arguments presented against doing this seem pretty sound from the people who can explain their reasons.

You are talking as if changing the name of a variable in your computer program will actually do something to help those affected by slavery. I hope you don't actually belive that.

I would hazard the guess that enforcing a different naming policy doesn't hurt either.

In all honesty, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it, and I'm Native Mexican, and I have very strong feelings about my ancestors being enslaved. I was taught these words in the context of colonialism and slavery.

I'm assuming you weren't.

Edit: Glad to see the true nature of your culture. I probably won't come back.

> it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it

I think that's pretty much the gist of everything these days.

Comments deleted due to brigading

>> You don't get to feel ...

I don't think you get to tell other people what they get to feel.

I encourage working on your empathy here. Who gets to decide "what's polite"? What if people disagree? Who gets to decide whose opinion counts?

> In all honesty, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it

So you feeling strongly about it means that you get to decide another person, who has been a member of this community much longer than you, no longer gets a say? Ideas like this are infinitely more damaging than any technical terminology could ever be.

This is the core of identity politics, and why it must be rejected outright anywhere it is promoted.

It’s toxic to any reasonable and rational discourse.

You do realize every culture and race on planet earth has owned slaves right? It isn’t an exclusively American thing.

Exactly, all the more reason to move on from using that language. I'm glad you get it.

Clearly you are missing the point. The context of the language in the Kernel has nothing to do with race or slavery.

Where do we stop? I’m assuming next we want to remove the words entirely from the dictionary?

Because we wouldn’t want to prevent anyone reading the dictionary would we?

If removing those words from the dictionary helps even one person more read it, then that’s a win.

You lost me. The word ”slave” has nothing to do with slavery? It might not have to do with slavery in the US, but it very clearly refers to slavery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homograph

That doesn't mean what you think it means. To use an example from the link:

> sow (verb) – to plant seed

> sow (noun) – female pig

Not only are these words pronounced differently, etymologically they have different roots. [0] Do you have any source that would demonstrate that the technical term 'slave' here has nothing to do with the historical enslavement of people?

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/sow#etymonline_v_23936

Homographs and homonyms are traditionally defined by words that share the same spelling (like the example you posted) and/or pronunciation (like the other example in the link immediately following the one you posted), when those words have or can have different meanings, regardless of etymology.

As an aside, I wonder if the semantic satiation from using homographs that have negative connotations for some could have a positive effect overall by diluting the connotations of what someone thinks of when they hear the word "slave", etc.

Of course, any time I make any kind of comment on this I get told that my skin color makes my opinion moot (even though my ancestors were, also, slaves). I switched to primary/replica last year (in projects where I could), but the never ending tide of other arbitrary words to change gets pretty tiring -- and two different bouts of harassment, death threats, and vandalism when I haven't made changes has really put a sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing.

> when those words have or can have different meanings, regardless of etymology

Indeed, but the GP comment was claiming that the word 'slave' had nothing to do that slavery. Because your comment only had a link to the Homography, it seemed to me to imply that you were saying two words were separate in meaning. That's why I asked for a source saying they weren't.

> It could even be argued that the semantic satiation from using words that have negative connotations for some could have a positive effect overall by diluting the connotations of what someone thinks of when they hear the word "slave", etc.

It could, but, are you making that argument? Should we then dilute the meaning of other words to make their negative effect less impactful? How many words? When do we choose to dilute a word, and how negative should a word be in order to motivate us to dilute its meaning?

> Of course, any time I make any kind of comment on this I get told that my skin color makes my opinion moot (even though my ancestors were, also, slaves). I switched to primary/replica last year (in projects where I could), but the never ending tide of other arbitrary words to change gets pretty tiring -- and two different bouts of harassment, death threats, and vandalism when I haven't made changes has really put a sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing.

I'm really sorry to hear that. I agree that the veracity of the backlash and counter-backlash is not helping anyone, and in on the whole hurtful and not constructive. But is that an argument for not using primary/replica? Is that an argument for never changing anything, since there will almost always be some kind of backlash to a change?

I'm happy to move on from the word "slave". I'm more attached to using the term "master", a useful term associated with various and sundry forms of authority and responsibility, whether that be the master of ceremonies (e.g. MC Hammer), the quartermaster in the Army, or simply "mastery of your craft".

In this case, the relationship of "master" and "slave" is intrinsically linked. No one is telling you to stop using "master" in other contexts. It is the master-slave relationship here that is the issue. You are beating down a strawman that wants to remove the term master in all contexts.

In the context of this thread it might be a strawman, but there clearly exists an initiative to remove usage of the word master, even when not paired with ”slave”. One such example is the use of ”master” in Git contexts.

> In this case, the relationship of "master" and "slave" is intrinsically linked.

Absolutely not.

The only link between them are as words written in your post.

Or a Masterclass in Culture and Diversity.

https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/education/professional-lea...

Many people from Europe were enslaved for example by the Ottoman empire. We moved on by being strong and not letting ourselves be defined by this dark episode in our history.

Demanding that certain words are banned is not moving on, it's being perpetually stuck in a victim's mentality.

Don't forget the Romans, the Mongols and the Greek... they enslaved plenty of uncooperative Europeans. It's just older history.

I think we all agree slavery of people is bad, but I think it's ok if a computer process is a slave. Computer processes don't have feelings.

This is not about the feelings of processes. It's about the feeling of engineers who have to work in this environment. Names are arbitrary; why not pick a better name that isn't tied to scars in our society that have not healed, and wrongs in our wealth distribution that have not been corrected by reparations?

But if we excised every word linked to some horrible thing people did from names of things, we'd have no words left to use to describe things.

Look, I get it. I can't tell you how many times people are discussing a problem and describe their "final solution" and I cringe a little inside. But I don't say anything, and I don't ask them to change their language because those are the correct words to use, they just have an unfortunate association. But of course the people saying it are not thinking that at all, nor do I suspect they even know the connection most of the time.

Cleansing nomenclature is a fool's errand and won't actually address the real issues we face today.

Indeed, think of the poor right wing engineers who feel the ever tightening noose as they walk on eggshells as the tech industry gets more anti-right.

There are tons of rightwingers in tech or wanting to get in to tech who are feeling excluded and unsafe due to the modern political environment, way more than there are potential black/minority software engineers put off by use of terms like "blacklist".

Have they?

So it's impossible for you to create a new context where those words mean something different?

“SambalOelek 9 minutes ago [–]

In all honesty, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it, and I'm Native Mexican, “

So let me get this right. Your Mexican views count but his white views don’t matter? Ok..

How about don’t discount someone’s view just because they are or aren’t a certain skin color.

I said nothing about skin color. I said my ancestors were enslaved.

Whose ancestors haven't been enslaved?

My ancestors were probably farmers oppressed by some kings. Your point?

Mine certainly were too.

master/slave just describes a type of relationship between two entities. there is nothing to feel strongly about. the context is what matters. using master/slave in a technical context is not immoral. using it to describe the relationship between people is.

it's not even immoral to describe human relationship this way if that's actually what's happening between the given humans.

We've became offended by words, without context. It's just crazy... Master and slave , black and white. are becoming curse words.

This. People got so confused they started fighting with words. What's interesting is that the reverse is happening. These words were completly innocuous, especially in this context. Now whenever I see a "blackilist" I think about black people and how this would offend them. Before I say something, I think a bit if I don't pronounce any word that might be assigned a negative value by someone. I speak less often.

What is even more ridiculous is that it's an American thing. English speakers in other parts of the world look in amazement what is happening and how it's going to end.

Let's say you are training a black intern. Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

On some level, you must know these words have meaning.

Done it a few times down here in Africa. Was never a problem.

Presumably you'll now update your position based on my personal anecdote? [Or is that not how it works]

On some level, you must know that meanings change based on the context a word is used in.

The sentence "i love you" changes its meaning based on the context. you can say it to your mom, your partner, your friend or even complete strangers after they helped you. every time the meaning changes.

Why do you say "black intern"? Why the obsession with black people? Do you understand that slavery is a global problem that has both been perpetrated by and victimised people of all races?

I'm Polish. My great-grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp, as a slave. Would you care to be offended on my behalf too? Or will you tell me that I am no longer allowed to use words with multiple meanings in case I might offend myself?

>Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

Yes? Master/slave in computers is not the same as slavery in the real life, which is why we can actually do things like switch a server from a master to a slave and vice versa.

Think about how that sounds from the perspective of someone learning this: “we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”

What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?

>“we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”

Words can have more than one meaning. Besides, computer terminology has a lot of words that have different meaning in the context of computers than outside of it. We have the desktop, we have the mouse, we have cookies, viruses, buses, servers, clients and so on.

Should we get rid of the "virus" since it can be so easily confused for the thing that is upending the world right now?

“Virus” follows closely with the biological behavior, and it doesn’t have a recent history of being targeted at specific groups.

Master/slave is technically inaccurate in most use and, unlike mouse, it bothers some people. Why are you so attached to keeping incorrect terms when changing will have no impact on your life?

I mean, it'll only have no impact on my life as long as I don't have to go and change my master/slave instances to be something else.

And again, it's no less "incorrect" than any of those other terms.

How many seconds will it take you to replace “master” with “primary”? Compare that with the amount of time spent on this thread.

Arguing that the term is not more incorrect, which you have conspicuously failed to do, is missing the point. If you want to argue that a mouse is a confusing name, feel free but also note that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history. Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence: your database master doesn’t torture its slaves if they make errors, or threaten to sell their children, etc. When the master died, they were replaced by their children or someone else but never a former slave. If you’re just talking about parceling out work, try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers” and how that would call your motives into question.

Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.

>How many seconds will it take you to replace “master” with “primary”?

It'll take more time than I care to spend on a matter that doesn't have any effect on anything. Unless someone wants to go update all of the servers and all of their documentation for free on our behalf, then fine, sure, have at it.

>that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history

This reeks of Americentrism. How is slavery "recent history"? Are we talking about world history or American history?

>Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence

And viruses (the real world ones) are usually not crafted by criminals, yet we call them viruses since the basic premise of the two concepts is similar enough. A mouse has fuck-all to do with a mouse yet we call it that since they have a somewhat similar shape. Now that the wireless mouse is commonplace, this naming is just completely inaccurate and yet it doesn't matter since we can separate the etymology from the meaning.

>try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers”

So if I just call a server that has to obey its superior to the T or it's broken a "worker", everything is fine and dandy? That kinda seems like brushing away the issue.

>how that would call your motives into question.

Maybe my motive is that I'm enjoying the status quo (as humans tend to do) and I don't exactly want to start doing all of this renaming just because Americans are upset at it. Or maybe I'm just a massive BDSM fan.

>Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.

Killing also has a negative connotation but I don't really feel like I need to spare my processes from this cruel, unpleasant and inaccurate word.

> Compare that with the amount of time spent on this thread.

Less time than not changing it.

> Why are you so attached to keeping incorrect terms when changing will have no impact on your life?

Master/slave terminology is absolutely accurate here and changing it will have an impact on my life.

> "Think about how that sounds from the perspective of someone learning this: “we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”"

A bus doesn't have four wheels. An interpreter isn't a human being with language fluency. A bit doesn't refer to the business end of a drill. A port isn't a place where you find cargo ships. People manage to deal with jargon just fine.

> "What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?"

The time wasted reeducating (and I use that word intentionally) everyone?

Again, the problem isn’t jargon as a concept but that a few specific terms have negative connotations. “Slave” has baggage which “bus” does not. There isn’t a call to rename the mouse because the name isn’t inextricably linked to a horrible part of history.

As for the cost of switching, one nice benefit to using more accurate terms is that they’re already familiar - if you swap “slave” for “worker” or “replica”, nobody is going to need extensive retraining to adjust.

What historical baggage does whitelist/blacklist have?

white = good black = bad

Does that seem like a great association to defend when it can trivially be changed with no confusion or loss of meaning?

Educate yourself please. This narrow worldview is disingenuous and does you no Good.

Black is positive in finance.

You should read my comment more carefully: I was specifically referring to the whitelist / blacklist usage where there is no common usage reversing the relationship of the terms. I have no objection to finance using it because it’s positive and doesn’t resemble past racist usage.

Light = white Darkness = black

Just out of curiosity, is chess master gives also bad connotations ?

Do chess pieces color seem racial to you ?

No, because the white and black pieces are exactly the same. This is unlike whitelist/blacklist where you’re specifying a preference where white is desirable and black is not.

They are not same, white moves first, and first move is an advantage in a chess game.

> Let's say you are training a black intern. Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

It would never, ever cross my mind there is any relationship between my colleague being black and the terminology used in the system. Moreover, I think it would be racist to even suggest so.

The color of the person I'm explaining this to has no relevance.

Unrelated: Do you think black people are the only people who have suffered in slavery?

i sincerely hope this remain an american thing, but given the cultural influence the US has over the rest of the world, i wouldn't be so confident.

Which is why people should absolutely make a stand whenever they can to not let this craziness reach the rest of the world.

I assume you are also against killing a process right? My ancestors have been killed before so I should be able to decide whether we use the word kill.

It helps to picture that there's a spectrum of offensiveness of words. The n-word, even if it somehow arbitrarily and innocently showed up in a project, perhaps as an unfortunate acronym, is at the far end of the spectrum. "Kill", for one, is lower by comparison, I think this claim has no burden of proof.

These debates can be broken down into two smaller, more focused ones:

1) Where does a specific word, e.g. "master", or "kill", exist on this linear spectrum of offensiveness?

2) What should be the cut-off point where we actively work towards replacing terminology?

As for question number one, I feel like I'm in no position to join the conversation, as I'm not part of an oppressed class. The only thing I can do is defer to the judgement of those who feel harmed, and I have no ground for arguing with this understanding of theirs.

As for the second question, I'm inclined to set the bar fairly low. This is because the cost associated with replacing terminology is miniscule in the long run. In fact, I believe an order of magnitude more human effort has been spent on debating terminology updates, than spent on adapting to updates that have happened, such as the one in Python documentation.

good answer. (edit: i wasn't being facetious, i agreed with your comment.) and for anyone complaining about "wasting time" on this issue of terminology, i'd point them to the millions of hours lost due to tabs vs. spaces debates. it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.

I do recognize this debate as important. My intention was more to provide a comparison point as to how much it costs to update terminology, to support my stance of setting the bar for a justified update low.

> it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.

In other words: if anyone says that something is to be renamed, do as they say. If you think it's nonsense or a waste of time, you're just not recognizing it as important, and they are.

Probably the same answer fits: if tabs (or spaces) is a problem for you then set your software environment to convert to your preference and convert back to the established use in the project.

Just use what's customary and get on with your life. If it's hurting you to see it then get therapy, you've lost proper perspective.

Just to flesh this out a little, suppose my work has 5 Christians, and they all feel "abort" is an insensitive term?

1. Whose opinions count on the issue? Just Christians? All women?

2. Do we take them any less seriously if the motivation seems vaguely political?

I really do understand setting the bar low when everybody is arguing in good-faith. But on anything political, I think it's pretty much a stalemate and we have to recognize there's almost no overlap.

Interesting point. I don't think the word "abort" evokes the entire loss of a culture due to systematic genocide of ancestors, but that's just me.

You could try to word that in a less flippantly biased way.

Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.

I have seen some estimates that say there would over 35% more blacks in the US if they wasn't abortion. Maybe genocide isn't the correct word but the effects are the same.

How many more black people would there be if there wasn’t poverty and discrimination?

I haven't seen any estimates but it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

I don't think we should consider weak hypotheticals like yours when we have real-world examples of issues related to "master/slave", including at least one civil rights complaint against the use of the terminology.

This topic has appeared many times on HN. At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763739 I quote and link to several earlier real-world examples.

I think those examples show that the spectrum is NOT "offensiveness of words". I see it as one of workplace hostility, quite in line with existing civil rights laws, and within a reasonable existing legal framework. As such, I don't think your #1 or #2 have much bearing at all.

Here's a real-world event from May 2003, at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/ :

> a black employee of the county’s Probation Department filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance after spotting “master” and “slave” labels on a videotape machine, whereupon the Internal Services Department was obligated to issue notification requesting that vendors refrain from using the master/slave terminology.

To answer your #1, as an affirmative action topic, the opinion which counts is the relevant court which judges violations of civil rights laws or, in the L.A. case, the opinion of the administrative department overseeing civil rights enforcement.

Your hypothetical isn't structured as an affirmative action issue. Presumably the 5 people feel its insensitive because they are against abortion. In the US, most Christians, most women, and most men support abortion rights, so it's tough to see how being a Christian or woman is at all relevant as the protected class.

It's certainly possible to refine your hypothetical, but I still don't see how it would ever fit under civil rights laws anywhere near as well as "master/slave" does.

FWIW, if you are working for a small evangelical Christian anti-abortion organization, and you use "abort" as the name of the method to cancel a meeting, then yes, you should change it. There are better names for the metaphor you are trying to describe, and generally the only answer to "whose opinions count" is "the ones who can fire you", or more broadly, negatively affect your job.

Their opinions in turn are often based on sales and PR. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of white supremacy, colonialism, and tragic horror, then go ahead. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of women's rights, then go ahead. If no one cares, then they won't do anything.

There's been over a decade of raising awareness of issues with "master/slave" terminology, and many people now care. That hasn't existed with "abort". Given the number of groups actively removing the "master/slave" term, I don't see how you can call it a "stalemate" - the abolitionists are winning yet again. And rightly so.

These hypothetical scenarios don't "flesh anything out a little," they distract from the real world in front of us.

It's very obnoxious when as a real world person with a real world request, I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."

I am descended in part from African slaves. I work in tech. I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society. All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS, and that also makes me sure that the diversity issues in tech are not just a pipeline issue, it's an issue of this work environment not being welcoming to people with different backgrounds. All of these issues are additive - few people want to enter a pipeline for hostile working environment in the end, and those that did have to endure constant bullshit in order to be retained.

Efforts to use more inclusive language aren't going to fix nearly any of the big problems, but it is very, very nice to see /any/ effort here, given the history of none at all. Seeing the effort makes these space more bearable, and in my estimation that justifies the very, very minimal cost of committing to trying to use inclusive language going forward (as a software engineer I'm not keen on renames for renames sake, but we're not talking about renames anywhere - we're talking about preferring inclusive names for new things). Likewise it's disheartening to see how many white folks want to proclaim that there are no diversity and inclusion issues in tech.

I get that.

I'd be quite content to concede renaming master/slave in the linux kernel if that was the end of it. I think what I want to fight against most is the amount of distraction/canceling/fear involved in ever-changing semantic rules. The reason people like me get very hesitant to concede any ground is for fear it would empower even more fear of job security at work (over constantly changing correctness rules).

So you can understand where I'm coming from:

- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and if some places do it, then all places will feel pressure to do it, and be called out on twitter if they don't, and create a huge amount of distraction from actually building good products for the customer

- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that more words might be included (class, caste, abort, kill, black, white, race, male port, female port, dongle)

- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that these words in other contexts won't be allowed (mastery, pop culture Britney Spear's Slave4U song, BDSM, Master's ranks in videogames)

(I've seen this in my own lifetime with the word "retard," which used to be the most correct medical term for certain mental deficiencies, and due to a constantly shifting correctness window is now basically worse than "Fuck.")

Now traditionally "slippery slope" is sometimes considered a philosophical fallacy. But perhaps you can say, if the momentum kept going would you be against it? Because if that train didn't stop, I think all the consequences I listed would be much too high a price to pay.

I don't view any of this through the lens of changing our language for language sake. I view it through the lens of trying to rectify the injustices of slavery and legalized discrimination, and the inequality that permeates our society as a result.

So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.

If there are others who are suffering who want to advocate for ways to improve our language to reduce the unintended harm it has, they're of course welcome to.

Also c'mon this slippery slope argument sounds like this to me: "Where does it stop? Will people object to every word and I'll be forced to express myself just through grunts? What if they then come for my grunts? Therefore I should continue to call things whatever I want because slippery slope."

Where does it stop? It stops when people stop pushing.

> What if they then come for my grunts?

Definitely not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is every time we take a safe word and make it a "bad" word we sweep up a lot of people along the way, most of whom in my experience aren't really bad people, they're usually just stubborn, caught unawares, a standup comedian, or taken out of context.

Maybe these language changes should have a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice.

I think my other question isn't just where it stops, but when it stops. Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever? Because if the answer is "no" then I'm probably not able to side with this change-the-language movement as a good use of our limited political energy.

Why do you think "master/slave" was "a safe word" in the first place?

The current narrative is that tech industry inherited the dominant white supremacist culture. (To be specific, "master/slave" entered as a tech term in the 1950s there was wide support by whites for the existing laws enforcing white supremacy)

As such, the term was "safe" because those who used it - white people in tech - were also nearly always those people who gain from the underlying dynamics of white supremacy.

Another narrative comes from "Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature" by Ron Eglash" available from https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 :

> ... being unconscious of social mores was a good sign for a future physicist, because physics transcends culture. Perhaps this kind of emphasis on a technical identity is at work here, too, and the master-slave metaphor is attractive to engineers because its free use “proves” that they inhabit a nonsocial or culture-free realm, which is a matter of professional pride

There are other certainly other narratives, which is why I'm asking why you think it was a safe word, even when others do not, and have not for years.

Note that Eglash's paper quotes a Black researcher who had problems with that term back in 1992.

To re-ask your earlier question, whose opinions count on the issue of why a term is "safe"?

You mentioned "a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice".

The "notifications" started well more than 5 years ago. Even here on HN, Django changed 6 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7801646 .

Drupal changed its terminology 12 years ago, which lead to discussion 6.5 years ago here at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6826918 .

The earliest discussion on the topic was 11 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466188 .

When would you consider that proper notice has been sent?

Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.

Why use your limited political energy to, e.g., construct hypotheticals against language change when language always changes?

> Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.

This has connections with the right of a particular group of people to decide how their group gets named. Wikipedia indicates that "black" was once considered the offensive term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro#United_States . However, most black people today prefer either the term black, or for some Americans, African-American.

This is similar to the issue of whether it's ok to use master/slave to relationships between people, but not whether the usage in tech relates to people or is unacceptable because it parallels historical relationships with groups that in the United States were seperated by race

I was questioning why it was "safe" to use master/slave in the first place.

Once upon a time it was "safe" to use a number of terms which are no longer safe. I pointed out that some of reasons to oppose the change used similar arguments to what zug_zug used.

You are right - "Negro" is an example of a label that a group decides for itself, and not a good example to bring up. So I'll use two other examples.

Consider "boy". This was a form of infantilization used to remind adult black men that the were junior citizens at best. Civil rights protestors in the 1960s wore signs "I am a man", in opposition to this racist label. But before then, it was safe to call black men a "boy" because if the man were to oppose that use, he would risk being physically attacked and losing his job.

Going back a few decades, white passengers called all black porters "George", after George Pullman - a racial slur that was one of the reasons which lead the porters to unionize. But early on, it was "safe" to call your porter George.

In both cases, I don't doubt there were people who argued against the language change by asking "Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever?" Which leads me to conclude that isn't a strong argument.

(See https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/understanding-why-you... for a further treatment of both examples.)

zug_zug suggested that it was once "safe" to use the term "master/slave". With those examples in mind, what does "safe" mean? Was it that those bothered or affected by the term have had little power to change things or even speak out until now?

zug_zug elsewhere posed a hypothetical question asking who gets to decide if something is offensive. I turned it around to ask who gets to decide if something is "safe."

Regarding your last paragraph, it also parallels historical relationships with groups elsewhere, as the current discussion of removing statues of South American "heroes" who were also slavers and leaders of genocide shows. South Americans whose ancestors were routinely oppressed via slave culture and white (or white-er) supremacy have little voice in this discussion, but shouldn't be forgotten.

I would respond to your points, but I find your tone too accusatory/inflammatory to want to volunteer my energy engaging with.

So it's okay to construct hypotheticals that distract from actual complaints about the use of "master/slave", but it's not okay to point out seeming flaws in your logic. Got it.

US slavery ended more than a century ago. US "black" culture just got broken some time in the last 70 years, maybe due to the "war on drugs".

If you want to help american black people prosper you're looking too far back in the past.

> So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.

Why reparations based on race? Why not just help the poor and downtrodden regardless of race?

You're promoting race-conciousness. You know where that ends? White conciousness and white nationalism. If you (not "you" as in dannyphg) lump people together as a group and attacks them and says they need to give you stuff, those people will start banding together and fighting back. I cannot emphasize enough how much race wars fucking suck. Even the ones just fought with votes and preferential treatment for your own tribe suck.

> I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."

Can't we devise a general set of principles on which we can base decisions to remove words and metaphors from our professions and culture? "Let's deal with it then" sounds like it leads more to reflexive responses to loud voices (for or against) instead of thoughtful, collective, consideration. If principles can be agreed upon in the abstract, without the emotional baggage of specific words for any side, they can be applied and even if one don't like a specific outcome, one can recognize that it's fair.

I'm totally on board with discarding the "master/slave" metaphors in tech, they bring up unwelcome reminders of something much more serious an terrible, especially for people because of the ancestry and/or because of feelings about their role within modern systems.

I have more of a problem with removal of the word "master" on its own; "master" has many different meanings and uses unrelated to American slavery or other systems of oppression.

My biggest problem is with claiming removing "blacklist/whitelist" is an act against systemic racism. "Blacklist" is not a racial term and "whitelist" was only an obvious choice for the opposite of "blacklist" when one was needed. Black and white dualism [0], associating black with bad and white with good, long predates any use of those terms towards groups of people and continues to do so today. It's unfortunate that these particular words are so overloaded; it would be better if "white" and "black" were no longer used to refer to people but there's little interest in that and I know of no good alternatives.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism

> I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society.

Have you considered whether you might just be sensitive and these micro-aggressions might just be the normal give and take of working in an office environment? With nothing racial about them?

> All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS

I would be very surprised if you find a less racist job than in the tech industry. Big tech caters way more for minorities than most of the other industries.

Absurd.

Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism. That's why the terminology we use matters. There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."

How's it absurd? It's the same logic. He's offended but the difference is he's not claiming a specific race. Kill, master-slave etc. in a technical context aren't associated with race, yet now that someone's claiming the word "kill" is offensive you have a double standard and are dismissive, like you were in replies to me, that their logical assertion is absurd.

> Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism.

A bold claim without anything to back it up.

I can do that too, but it doesn’t make it fact.

>Tech has a very clear problem with continued sexism and racism.

>There's no equivalent dynamic around the history of the word "kill."

I thought that the recent US protests were exactly because there's a racial dynamic when it comes to killings?

There were white racists who killed blacks.

No more absurd than the comment they were replying to.

Maybe it's relevant to point out that white Americans perpetrating slavery against Africans is by far not the only instance of slavery in world history. So in the light of this, it's a little silly to be terribly afraid of the terms "master" and "slave" due to presumed racial bias.

For example, Mediterranean people were for a long time regularly kidnapped by Arab raiders from the south. Vikings kidnapped people from the British isles. Etc.

I was in his boat. "Is this really going to matter to anyone?" It is comments like yours that made me realize that it does. I was wrong, he is wrong.

While the policy should happen whether or not he supports it. I think it does matter how he feels though. He should feel that these words shouldn't be used in this context. Because, we're not going to solve non-whites being second class if a white people can't see the pain cause by the use of the terms. There are so many bigger problems that should be easier to see and acknowledge that seem to just be over looked, because we don't see the pain.

I am with you SambalOelek. I may not understand everything you and your ancestors have gone through so forgive me when I'm ignorant and tell me about it. That said I don't want you or random people like you to have to do all the work, so I'm reading. https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/black-lives-matter

I’m a black engineer and I don’t think this will help racism one bit.

Do you think it'll hurt?

Absolutely, it will. The reason for that is that we will loose the support of a (large?) part of society who would otherwise help the cause.

Yeah, I don't buy that one bit. If someone is all up in arms over some simple term changes like this, you somehow think they'll be an ally and supporter when it comes to more difficult reforms of structural racism?

It might mean they support things that might actually help the cause and not just virtue signalling that just annoys everybody and helps noone

I don't believe it's virtue signaling and I do believe it substantially helps. Does it solve everything in one step? No. Does it show that the window of acceptability is shifting? Yes.

How exactly does it help "substantially"? Please elaborate on any concrete problems solved by changing long-established terminology in technical context that describe the relationship between things in an objectively correct way.

Yes. There is a lot of (in my opinion justified) resistance against the policing of language. There is no reason to assume those who oppose these changes would also oppose certain meaningful structural changes. (For example, I strongly oppose all of those trends and I think of myself as progressive and I will resist the destruction of reasonable progressive politics in Europe by what I believe to be irrational, aggressive ideas as long as possible.)

And just to be clear: It‘s fine to use primary and replica. There‘s no problem with the decision itself. The problem is the idea that caused this change and the people in this thread who just stop short of calling someone a racist, because he would reject the idea that the terminology was racist in the first place.

edit: I‘ve not seen such fluctuating votes in a long time if ever than in this thread.That shows how divisive this topic is. So I‘ll call it a day. As I said elsewhere, I can wait 30 years or maybe 50 and see how things played out. But one thing is for sure, these ideas (that is: the current approach) will eventually disappear by themselves without leaving even a trace.

It portrays black people as highly sensitive and easily triggered. I wouldn't want to hire someone highly sensitive (thankfully I know that most black software devs don't care).

So yes, it's harmful.

I'm a black engineer who disagrees with you. I appreciate seeing colleagues and peers make an effort, however small, however symbolic, and that helps motivate me to ignore bullshit and continue working in a team and company where i'm a visibly underrepresented historically oppressed minority. That in turn leads to others seeing me and - people have literally told me this, this isn't me guessing the impact of coming to work - feel like this is a place where they too may be able to survive if not thrive.

This change barely moves the needle on Black representation in tech, but I think it does, however little. Improving Black representation in tech /barely/ moves the needle on racism, but I too think it does, however little (these are good jobs and I know it's helped me and my family close some of the racial wealth gap).

Thank you for your comments.

My point about "it doesn't matter how you feel" is inspired by comments like "political correctness culture is out of control".

So many times, people are concerned by their personal freedom and not their responsibility to humanity.

Being asked not to use a word is not severely limiting your world. The trauma of limiting your vocabulary is not comparable to the ideas they evoke.

So you are now flat out saying you don’t want people to use the word period. This is further than just removing it from the kernel.

This is the future ladies and gentlemen.

Let’s take a look at real racism, and police brutality.

I’d say you are pretty privileged if your biggest worry is people using White list and black list in the Linux kernel.

It was proper to call you ancestors slaves and their owners master.

In the same way it's proper to use same concept as a metaphor to describe other relationships where one thing is owned by other. There is nothing wrong or offensive in the concept of slavery. Even when the context is enslaving humans.

Slavery is immoral, but the concept of slavery is not.

> In the same way it's proper to use same concept as a metaphor

Use as a metaphor depends on similar perception of the resonant features of the literal use since it relies on those carrying over to the nonliteral use; it is eminently clear that within our society there is not a common share perception of those salient features, so it is not a particularly good metaphor outside of narrow homogenous subcultures, and what it is a good metaphor for within each of those subcultures will be wildly different.

Metaphor is inherently highly culture-dependent.

Slavery as a concept is very clear across cultures in a way that makes good metaphor.

Slave is actor without autonomy. Master is controlling and owning the slave.

By this logic, you think that something has to actually occur first before one can be morally opposed to it? I would have to first witness a genocide before I can have moral opposition to it?

Of course concepts can have moral weight. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

Using concept has no moral weight.

Using word slave in a sentence is not a connected to morality of slavery.

> it doesn't matter how you feel about it

So his opinion does not matter? Only yours does?

I was not only taught these words in the context of colonialism, because that‘s not only where they belong. Societies based on slavery were common in the ancient world, including Greece.

All of this changing of vocabulary is not going to help anyone. But it will happen regardless, I‘m okay with watching this phenomenon play out over the next 30 years or so. Eventually society will figure out that this has done nothing to fix social injustices.

So his opinion does not matter? Only yours does?

There's an asymmetry here. Whether we recognize it or not, we're in a world where one side has all the institutionalized power, the extra advantages baked into the system. The way I've heard it expressed is "The ultimate privilege is not realizing you have a privilege." I know it can be an uncomfortable topic, but it's been said that that's what perpetuates the system: all the sincere denials, the honest statements of "I just don't see it. I've never experienced it, and I've never really seen it happening myself..."

It ends up inadvertently invalidating anyone who attempts to challenge in even simple ways a few of the basic baked-in issues.

I'm not sure how this conversation could've played out in a way that was better. But I do think there's a dynamic at work here that makes it not as simple as it seems...

Just because „it‘s said“ does not make it correct. I can‘t speak about the situation in the US. But I will speak about the situation in contemporary Germany. I completely reject all of this. Anyone who claims racism is baked into a (european) system should name those injustices (and not omit any corrective measures, for example built into the education and tax systems). Given that, any connection to languages (renaming stuff) should be proven as well. Just invoking some handwavy mistakes in the past is not sufficient. Invoking problems in the US is not sufficient. And even when those problems exist, this, by itself, is not a good reason to accept an arbitrary cause not supported by an argument.

The claim that there is „one side“ with all the advantages is a distraction as well. There are many imbalances and injustices. They are not between two sides. Things that come to my mind are, for example:

* Was your family rich?

* Was your family educated?

* Gender

* Skin color

* Family ties in the place you live

* Accents/Habitus

* Social strata

* Political power

This is a very basic listing. All of this may or may not have an influence. The fact that the current debate is more shallow than even that says a lot.

It not even about animals like dogs, cats, ..., chickens that are enslaved by humans in exactly same way as people where and in some places are, it is not even about human trafficking or education. Only imagine if all this companies that backed a change would setup/double a fund to promote minority kids STEM education and/or legal support fund for police abuse, instead we get slave is offensive word.

I am sorry that the "blind to institutional racism" crowd jumped on this so hard.

I'm with you, 100%.

Most white people think the slavery/genocide of america's past is just that - it's in the past. So, when they hear people pushing on verbiage associated with it today, they think "oh, that person is dredging up ancient history, why don't they get over it?"

I (and many others) would argue the legacy of that genocide and slavery is _alive and well_ and shapes our lives today, daily. [0][1]

If one could reasonably complain about master/slave language in the south in the 1850s, they're reasonable to complain about that language today.

Anyway, I think this work of getting rid of language rooted in violence and white supremacy is _very_ worth doing. It's just renaming branches, no one is asking someone to do anything more than press buttons on their keyboard.

Certainly, not everyone has to, but I hope some companies do this work, they're thoughtful and intentional about their language, and then they deliver better products and services by virtue of having healthier culture than their competition, and grow wealthy. Wealthier than the companies who think this work is not worth doing.

I'd never force someone else to rename branches, but I've renamed all of my branches I can control!

I emailed Github Support to see if I could get away from using `master` on Github Pages on my personal site, and they said they are working on it, but this isn't available yet.

Even this comment feels risky. It's attached to my name. I'm honestly a little intimidated to leave it, but it feels like a cop-out if I set up an anonymous account to say "I agree!"

[0] https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/

[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-police/id15...

You are opening the gates to hell, and don't even realize it.

The same is happening pretty much everywhere in society, where everything becomes contextual and should be adapted to the personal sensitivities of individuals. Which is fine for everything that's fashionable.

But code isn't (just) litterature or art or fashion. The first and foremost concern of code is to convey a precise meaning so that reader (and compilers) understand it correctly.

How do you know it is going to stop to slavery ? How about every single people in the world start getting offended by words in code because it may remind them of something painful in their history, or just doesn't suit their culture / religion / whatever ?

Will you have to create different branch of the linux kernel depending on where the code is going to be cloned ? Where is this going ?

PS: i appreciate greatly that you say you wouldn't force anyone to change their wording, and only change it for yourself. I believe that's the right thing to do. But i feel you greatly underestimate the long-term consequences of supporting for "inclusive terminology"

> You are opening the gates to hell, and don't even realize it.

That might be true! I suspect and hope that I'm not, but only time will tell.

> i appreciate greatly that you say you wouldn't force anyone to change their wording, and only change it for yourself. I believe that's the right thing to do. But i feel you greatly underestimate the long-term consequences of supporting for "inclusive terminology"

Yeah! As soon as someone says "here's a good thing I'm trying to do AND YOU ALL HAVE TO DO THE SAME OR BE SHAMED" they kinda lose my respect.

I can update branches on my personal stuff with zero consequence in 30 seconds. Easy.

Complicated CircleCI/deploy environments where branch names are hardcoded in a dozen different places, and the app is on fire already, and no one has time, and the manager is trying to hire new developers while keeping the senior devs happy?

I'm not gonna throw shade on them at all.

That all said, I would _love_ to talk about this more, if you're feeling inclined at all. I tried to dig up an email address for you, and couldn't find it. If you'd be willing to swap some emails on the topic, i'd be thrilled! Hit me up at joshthompson@hey.com!

Do you think, in most of these cases, master/slave is really the most precise terms we can come up with?

i think a "master slave" architecture has become a very clear pattern in distributed systems, that anyone in the field recognize (as something opposed to a peer to peer for example).

this is precious, because it saves a lot of explanation time and ambiguities.

Once again i wouldn't mind using a different term if it made things even clearer for a given case. But only for this reason, and not for PC.

> "Most white people think the slavery/genocide of america's past is just that"

Why do you believe that it's just white people opposing this? (I'm not white.)

Why do you believe it's just American's opposing this? Alternatively, are non-Americans permitted to continue using these terms?

> "I'm honestly a little intimidated to leave it, but it feels like a cop-out if I set up an anonymous account to say "I agree!""

It's so de rigeur these days that you shouldn't feel bad about that. There are bad actors on all sides waiting to pounce on anything that anyone says.

> […] I'm Native Mexican, and I have very strong feelings about my ancestors being enslaved. I was taught these words in the context of colonialism and slavery.

My ancestors were / are from Eastern Europe, i.e., Slavs. The etymology of which is where the word slave actually comes from.

Do I get a say?

* https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Terminology

> In all honesty, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. I do feel strongly about it

So, you are the only one allowed to have feelings about this?

i think you should have make a stand. I know i wouldn't tolerate this kind of BS to actually interfere with the quality of my work (naming things is hard enough without considering the current political sensitivity of the day).

We should find names that reflects the concept best, while keeping its meaning understandable. Period.

PS: obviously i don't know anything about your personal situation, so i'm not blaming you for anything.

> We should find names that reflects the concept best, while keeping its meaning understandable. Period.

Let me repost a comment I made recently:

In some contexts (e.g. Jenkins), a "master" tells the "slave" what to do and the "slave" does it. This at least is plausibly connected to the real-world meanings of the term, although given that the "slave" is free to start and stop work at any time and the entire job of the "master" is to keep track of that, the analogy isn't great. "Coordinator/worker" works well here.

In some contexts (e.g., MySQL), a "master" sends a copy of all its work to the "slave," and both of them execute it. The "slave" stands ready to replace the "master" if the "master" becomes unavailable, and usually at that point the "master" becomes the new "slave" once it catches up. This makes no sense. "Primary/replica" works well here.

In some contexts (e.g., network device bonding, certain types of logical partitioning or RAID), a "master" is a logical construct, consisting of multiple physical "slaves". All interactions with the "master" are actually algorithmically sent to one or more "slaves," and if all the "slaves" are offline, there's no "master" left. This, also, makes no sense. Terms that would make sense include things like "bond/member" (the members being bonded to each other, and the bond being the resulting abstraction), "LV/PV", etc.

In some contexts (e.g. disk drives), the "master" and "slave" are both devices that provide the same type of service to the host, but the "slave" connects to the "master" instead of directly to the host, and while the "master" is communicating, the "slave" can't. The "master" exercises no control over the slave beyond occasionally blocking the communication channel and it pays no attention to communications between the "slave" and the host. This, also, makes no sense. "Primary/secondary" works well here.

In pseudoterminals, the "master" is a limited API to the PTY object, held by the terminal emulator, which copies text to the screen, interpreters rendering commands, and sends input. The "slave" is a more featureful API to the same PTY object, held by the shell / the command under execution, which does what it wants. This, also, makes no sense. I don't know of a standard term here, but I'd sort of suggest "monitor" and "session," which has the benefit of keeping the initials. The M side is the one connected to your actual monitor and it's also the side that monitors output; the S side is the one connected to the application, and it's associated with at most one session in the sense of setsid(2) (see als credentials(7)).

All of these are different uses, and you can't generally map one to another. For instance, if you're used to a database where "master/slave" is used in the primary/replica sense, and you see a database where the "master" just coordinates requests for work and all actual data is sent to/from some "slave," your knowledge of primary/replica architecture is misleading here.

That would all be perfectly fine reasons to rename the thing, on a case by case basis, if the community of developers working on the given project feel the name is too ambiguous and leads to confusion. That's really up to them to decide that.

Having a general ban on the term because of some social pressure to apply "inclusive terminology" is an entirely different issue.

Linux kernel is in fact a community of developers working on a given project. But we're still debating if it's fine or not for them to decide what to do on their own project.

that's only half of my sentence, the other being that they discuss the matter with precision concern in mind. Not politics or social pressure.

And we are debating this, because the fact that they decide to accept to comply with the "inclusive-terminology" movement is going to create a huge precedent, and will actually put an immense pressure on all the other developer community.

Isn’t the significant controversy and criticism on Linus For choosing to do this also social pressure on him?

I haven't seen a single instance where "master"/"slave" is the most accurate technical term to be found. (I have seen instances where it's important to use those terms because those are the existing terms in some particular field / from some particular API, which the commit at hand acknowledges is a reason to keep them. So I think you're agreeing with the commit here.)

In general, most of the arguments I've seen for keeping the master/slave terms in contexts where they could be renamed without breaking compatibility are for social pressure reasons ("don't give into the mob" / "SJWs are taking over tech" / "free software should be apolitical" / etc.) and not for technical reasons.

This is a really good list of examples, thank you! I have collected a few other cases where master/slave doesn't make much sense:

-- In an active/standby replication setup, the master does all the work and the slave just watches and accumulates the results. This seems backwards.

-- In many replication setups (PostgreSQL and DNS work this way) the replica voluntarily connects to an upstream source. Slavery isn't voluntary.

-- In DNS zone transfers, the downstream replica is in control of replication; the upstream can't tell it to do anything. This is not a master/slave relationship either.

-- In a hardware bus system in which any device can be an initiator and can choose its target device, this isn't a master/slave system because the roles change from one transaction to the next.

> However, I largely kept my mouth shut because I was afraid of the social repercussions.

So, social norms? There are plenty of things we collectively don't say or do because of enforced social norms yet all of a sudden when those social norms start to include the perspectives of traditionally oppressed groups, certain people start acting like Western Society as we know it is collapsing by the hands of the censorship police.

When social norms say that you're not allowed to share a dissenting view, we get to call that an "orthodoxy" and should be consider the extent to which it is damaging and repressive, rather than simply taking the merit of the orthodoxy for granted. Such consideration should be all the more important when we happen to agree with those norms.

(You've been punished for questioning geocentrism? Should have respected those social norms, Galileo my friend.)

I mean if you want to conflate social norms with debates about knowledge and practice, sure great zinger you have there.

Unfortunately, many people do not have the luxury of treating their race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc, as a matter of ideological debate. The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege.

If you think that the current cancel-culture zeitgeist (on the right and the left alike) doesn't shut down questions about knowledge and practice, you're blind or an ideologue.

But I thank you for being so kind as to include Religion in the list of acceptable "identities". As you have framed the matter, I do NOT happen to have the luxury and privilege to blindly extend deference to our glorious champions of freedom™ and equality™ and accept their diktats without criticism or debate. This is because they are hypocrites and they are tyrants. The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats.

> The Democratic Party in particular treats my church as an archenemy and longs to see it destroyed. They can't even leave a convent of nuns alone to not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats.

What the hell does this even mean. This sounds more like emotional ramblings than any relevant comments. "What does not-pay-homage to their birth control diktats" even mean?

I mean the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have now had two separate court cases for their right to not-pay for insurance coverage for things they find to be evil.

They're nuns. They are sworn to a life of poverty and chastity. They didn't want to pay for birth control coverage. The Obama Health and Human Services administration could have let this go. It would have harmed no one. It would have deprived no one of birth control coverage.

Instead, we we needed to have Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. But even when they won that one, it wasn't enough! Because the attorney general of New York and New Jersey couldn't let them go either! So we had to have Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania — which was just 7-2 at the Supreme Court.

(Don't worry. Joe Biden's proposed policy changes to "restore the Obama-Biden policy" on these matters with an "accommodation" would have them back in court a third time.)

This was a nine-year battle to vindicate religious rights. It may yet continue. You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced. (You may yet think that their case is illegitimate and that they should be forced to pay for this coverage.) Look! You're an inclusivity problem now! Hooray, now you know what it's like!

> You have dismissed it as "emotional ramblings" because you are ignorant and you are prejudiced.

You're damn right I was ignorant. Luckily you decided to respond and now I'm a little less so :-)

I however, still think however, being unnessicarily melodramatic. This isnt some war against your religion. They aren't targeting your specific religion, quite the opposite in fact, they're giving them no special treatment. You may indeed, have a different argument, perhaps that the government should have less or no involvement in healthcare, or that the requirements for coverage should be less rigid.

Let’s all pick the taxes we want to pay!

> The perspective of framing the social treatment of immutable identities as encouraging orthodoxy comes from a position of privilege.

Are you discounting his statements due to his identity or presumed "privilege"?

> "So, social norms?"

Why do people still use this line of argument? Universal social norms used to treat POC, genders, and other protected classes as second class citizens or worse for centuries. That should make it pretty clear why "social norms" can't be used as a justification or logical reason for anything.

If anything, "social norms" is a stance from political conservatism; it's arguing that things should forever stay just as they are now.

>I wonder how much of this is occurring in tech companies because of the same phenomenon - people are just probably don't want to risk their jobs over something so unimportant.

I can't wait till 4chan weaponizes this with some innocuous term as a joke, and everyone else either goes along with it thinking it's genuine, or doesn't speak out despite the absurdity. Kind of like how they turned the "okay" hand gesture into meaning "white power". eg. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3c5e24b75e755aa25bd603...

Basically this[1] in action.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082

"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."

Sorry, but in most of the world this is still the okay hand gesture. (EDIT: To clearify parts of the world which did use this sign before, many cultures have different signs).

It's maybe a bit like the term "master" (decoupled from slave) which has very differently nonces in many countries outside of the US. Mainly it's then often not strongly (or not at all) associated with slavery or suppression of people of color.

For example the German word "Meister" is often translated as "Master" but is mainly associated with someone who became really good at a skill, i.e. who mastered it. It's also used in a context of a person who is qualified to teach some from of craft (job), through there the roots are somewhat similar as historically you complied pretty strictly with what your teacher told you.

Anyway, using more inclusive terminology for anything new doesn't cost anything and as such should be done.

>It's maybe a bit like the term "master" (decoupled from slave) which has very differently nonces in many countries outside of the US. Mainly it's then often not strongly (or not at all) associated with slavery or suppression of people of color.

Cultural translation is always a bit weird. For example, in Spanish (or at least Spain's) BDSM circles, people use the term "maestro" for "master" (despite the term meaning only "teacher" or "skilled person/virtuoso" in Spanish). I assume at some point it got badly translated and it stuck in the community.

Ah yes, the Guild graduate who’d make (and perhaps donate to the guild) his Meisterstück project to prove his mastery of the art...

Hey 4chan when should dozens of people waist time and rename MongoDB? I think the time is now^^

> don't think that the effort put in is worth the advantages that it affords

That's why they mandate it for new parts merged into the kernel tree.

In which case it's basically free.

Inconsistent naming of concepts is not ideal

> I wonder how much of this is occurring in tech companies because of the same phenomenon - people are just probably don't want to risk their jobs over something so unimportant.

It's the same really as not questioning things in the soviet union. See the fine HBO program "Chernobyl" for details on what happens when truths are avoided in favor of bullshit.

The danger with the new leftist fascism we see in the US is that people are afraid of saying the truth. Eventually this will be a problem.

> people are afraid of saying the truth.

The vast amount of people on traditional and social media saying all the things that you claim people are afraid to say refutes this. Whatever you think people are too afraid to say, there is somebody saying it.

Free speech doesn't mean people get to voice any idea without scrutiny. Other's people's free speech also exists. What people tend to mean is "I used to be able to say this without being criticised" and the loss of that privilege is unsettling. If they can't express an opinion and sufficiently support it against objections and criticism then it might not be such a good opinion.

Finding someone’s employer and harassing that employer into firing the person isn’t “criticism”.

But it is a consequence of their actions. Free speech can exist, but not free speech free of consequences. That person would need to find an employer who aligns with their desired actions.

Idi Amin once said, “there is freedom of speech but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”

> But it is a consequence of their actions...

Actually, it seems to be leftists who are under the impression that their actions should have no consequences.

https://news.yahoo.com/harvard-grad-says-she-fired-125450691...

I do agree that some of the responses to people's actions become harassment, but this happens across the board. In much of the right wing media you can't criticise anything in America without being labelled un-American, a traitor, socialist, antifa or whatever the current label is they're using to bypass the cognitive functions of their audience.

The question is, given that perfection is impossible, what amount of injustice, such as harassment, is acceptable for a greater good. This question constantly manifests in the economic, legal and social systems we live in. Just like the legal system, there will be some injustices that can't be avoided any everyone has their personal perspective on how much and to whom is acceptable.

Your point above blames “leftists” but you would be greatly mistaken if you think this is a one way street. There are cases of people on the left losing jobs for critising the right. People On both sides have received harassment and death threats from the other side.

In summary, you're complaining about the left doing something without realizing or acknowledging that this isn't restricted to just those on the left or right, everyone is doing this. But if you're one one side you'll ignore attacks by your own side, labeling them legitimate defense, and over-criticise the other side's same actions as unjustifable attacks. Everyone would be better off if we could all acknowledging our bias more.

I think it was Jefferson who thought that freedom of the press was essential even though press would become partisan and present opinions not news. He idealistically and, in hindsight, naively thought that people would be able to use reason & understanding to draw the true picture. But that's not what happens: people are baited, told what to think and react impulsively. Again, that's not just the left or the right, it's people. The problem is always people. To paraphrase Trump: there are awful people on both sides.

> vast amount of people on traditional and social media saying all the things that you claim people are afraid to say refutes this.

Nope. As the OP suggested, lots of people aren't being open & honest about their opinions. Media, tech companies, etc. are overrun by deluded leftists. People are losing their jobs for defending their property. Current western culture is promoting witch hunts against anyone who opposes ideas like "there are 46 genders" or "systemic racism."

This is the modern, western, leftist suppression complex.

If you think that it is not the case that a lot of people are staying silent for fear of mob retribution, you are wrong.

> People are losing their jobs for defending their property.

I'm interested in which cases you're referring to here.

I'll add a caveat that small numbers of outlying events which might have been excessive or wrong do not invalidate the notion that society shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions or be judged on their opinions. That's an existing concept, what's happening is a reframing of what's acceptable, which is something that has happened many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

> do not invalidate the notion that society shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions or be judged on their opinions

You're conflating passive judgement with active harassment, witch hunts, for "having the wrong opinion." In fact you don't even have to voice an opinion to be the subject of modern leftist witch hunts. Today, being white and smirking is enough to provoke the mania that has consumed the western world. If you're caught in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and covered by leftist media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...

It's interesting that the example you link to is largely about freedom of the press as that's exactly what the first amendment protects. In that case there is clear action and consequence on both sides. People are free to say want they think and there were consequences.

Your point above was that people lose their jobs because they say something that the left-wing disagrees with and that harassment leads to job loss. The example you provided fails to back that up directly but does provide an example of someone on the left losing their job for something they said. There was also backlash against several other people who had commented on the students' behaviour. There were death threats to people on both sides. It was a f-ing mess all round.

Rubbish, I am very careful about what I say, and I post more conservative views than most people I know on FB. I avoid posting anything at all on Twitter. I am pretty sure I am not the only one.

I don't even consider myself conservative, just that social media wise anything that isn't hard left is labelled white supremacy or racist.

> the loss of that privilege is unsettling

It's more the loss of one's livelihood that is unsettling. Criticism is fine. Campaigning to get people someone fired over petty nonsense is not. All it takes is a few prominent examples - and there have been many - to cow people who disagree into silence.

> The danger with the new leftist fascism

This is an oxymoron. Fascism is a well defined ideology and doesnt mean what you think it means.

Of course, you're wrong.

In general, fascism distinguishes itself for its intolerance of political opponents, suppression of freedom of speech, and lack of respect for the democratic principles of a majority vote as well as exclusion or isolation of other democratic parties and the use of violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism

I watched a video on this very topic last night. There are a list of attributes to fascism and he questioned whether Trump (used purely as an example) could be considered fascist. I see the modern left ticking more boxes than Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws8k1JXmscU

"However, I largely kept my mouth shut because I was afraid of the social repercussions"

"As always, paycheck comes in, jira ticket gets dragged from left to right. Whatever."

10,000% agree with you my friend.

Black people: can we stop the police from killing us please?

White people: we will change the terminology in the Linux kernel, you are welcome.

Problem is, the black people who call this out are "not the right black people" and the white people who call it out often lose their jobs.

Do society a favour and get this cancer out of your HR departments, and start saying no while you still can; because if you wait long enough, all of the activism will be fake, because it's cheaper and you're not allowed to notice the difference.

Why though? It makes people doing it feel better and requires little effort. Anything else other than virtue signaling is hard and expensive.

It's virtue signaling. It does nothing, and 99% of the people aren't going to see these terms and racially charged.

I appreciate knowing my colleagues have virtues. How is that doing nothing?

Do you think moral posturing as a means to gaining political and/or social capital when nothing is at stake is of any real value? Because that’s what virtue signalling is, and that’s what most people fighting the good fight in these comments are doing.

I don't appreciate my psychological safety being referred to as "nothing... at stake... of any real value."

I know that's probably not what you intended, but I've reread it several times and that's how I'm interpreting it each time. I think this disconnect between people -- a modicum of safety in a world that doesn't value our lives is seen as huge and worthwhile by some, but trivial and unimportant by others.

I appreciate you trying to clarify. Whether or not that's a correct interpretation of what I wrote depends on why you feel your "psychological safety" is at risk.

If you are a black person and the common use of the word "blacklist" is an affront to your psychological safety, then I would find that curious and I would ask why it is you feel that way. From what other black people in this thread have written, that doesn't appear to be the common case. Amusingly, the people fighting the good fight in the comments here (at least, the last time I checked) seem to have flatly ignored the people who essentially say "I am black. Squabbling about words in Linux does nothing in the fight against slavery. Why won't white people listen to us."

If that isn't your situation and you are being offended on behalf of other people, then I think you're standing on shaky moral ground.

To clarify, when I said "nothing… at stake… of any real value", I was referring to the common modern trend of slacktivism.

I am Black. I'm not ignoring the other Black people posting, I'm just letting the audience know they don't speak for all of us. We are not a monolith.

I don't particularly care about blacklist/whitelist (as there's a clearer connection to light) but a lot of the defenses against even considering that change sound racist as fuck to me -- there's lots of people who explicitly argue the status quo is OK and that it couldn't be worth any changes here.

Master/slave, however, does bother me. It's led to one too many conversations where people need to, or so, say things like "the slave isn't keeping up with the master" or "the master should detect that and kill the slave" or "we should add more slaves" and those words are grating to me. I don't want to say them, and if a coworker is saying them sometimes I'm not sure if they're enjoying getting to use those words a little too much.

I also want to add, none of this is as important to me as meaningful reparations for slavery and institutionalized racism. But the fact that other things are more important doesn't mean this isn't important. If I meet someone who is in a position to significantly advance reparations or rename these tech terms, I'll be talking with them about the former, not the latter. But most people are not in a position to move the needle on both of these issues.

> We are not a monolith

This is something I absolutely agree with you on, and I think it's a disgrace that so many people — usually the most rabid — on both sides of the argument use the opinions of a fraction of some group as political ammunition.

> a lot of the defenses against even considering that change sound racist as fuck to me -- there's lots of people who explicitly argue the status quo is OK and that it couldn't be worth any changes here.

The status quo in which regard? The status quo with regards to police brutality in the US is obviously not OK, but the status quo with regards to words having multiple meanings and being able to be used in different contexts should be fine.

> Master/slave, however, does bother me. It's led to one too many conversations where people need to, or so, say things like "the slave isn't keeping up with the master" or "the master should detect that and kill the slave" or "we should add more slaves" and those words are grating to me. I don't want to say them, and if a coworker is saying them sometimes I'm not sure if they're enjoying getting to use those words a little too much.

I'm not denying your experience, but it sounds like your complaint is against racist assholes in your vicinity. I'm not [yet?] convinced that stopping them from using those words specifically will change their behaviour or perspective.

> I also want to add, none of this is as important to me as meaningful reparations for slavery and institutionalized racism.

I recognise that, and it's a view I share. My ancestors also suffered under slavery (much more recent slavery than the US slave trade) and their country is still asking for reparations.

> But the fact that other things are more important doesn't mean this isn't important.

I'm not suggesting we engage in whataboutery, but at least from my perspective lesser complaints undermine more egregious complaints, and for the sake of practicality I prefer to choose my battles.

In any case, while we agree on some (I think most?) things, I don't feel any less uncomfortable by the attempts of some people in society to normalise Orwellian newspeak. I do appreciate that we can discuss this thoughtfully and respectfully though, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

> "It makes people doing it feel better and requires little effort."

Security theater often makes people feel better and requires little effort. Should we embrace security theater instead of improving security?

The "right black people" are usually white progressives speaking on their behalf: https://quillette.com/2018/05/14/the-racism-treadmill/

Contrived sanctimony like this will not prevent police from killing black people either.

Hey, you know what would help prevent police from killing black people? Studying what specific practices, programs and policies lead to police not killing so many people — followed by targeted policy advocacy.

This will never happen. Critical race theory and displays of anger are quite in vogue in the academy; actually engaging with police departments requires patience and working with police departments (which your colleagues will find icky). Meanwhile the politicians just want to take advantage of general outrage for their own benefit and that of their party. We'll get a little reform out of the current protests as they stand, but not nearly enough.

This comment will not prevent police from killing black people, but there's an outside shot it will help one or two people in the world actually treat the problem like they actually want to solve it, so, I'll chance it.

> actually engaging with police departments requires patience and working with police departments

Sure, for the longer term profiling, excessive roughness, etc. But prosecuting a murderer for murdering is quite straightforward. It just takes a non-corrupt public prosecutor.

For example, I'd love to see a candidate for Commonwealth's Attorney of Jefferson County running on a platform of enforcing the law by prosecuting Breonna Taylor's killers. 2025 is some years away, but I don't think the statute of limitations will have expired.

The best framing I’ve heard for this is that it’s missing the forest for the trees.

Better said in someone else’s words than my own:

https://mobile.twitter.com/btanderson72/status/1279507428128...

But the problem with white/black isn't the metaphor, it's that we're using those terms for skin colors in a way that is blatantly wrong. If we're going to change the way we speak, is it really better to imply those words meant race all along? Changing the part that was correct instead of the part that was incorrect?

If we're going to change the way we speak, is it really better to imply those words meant race all along?

It’s not about what the word meant all along.

“Negro” wasn’t considered a derogatory term for black people for the majority of its history as a word, but today, especially in English, we avoid it because of the legacy it picked up.

You don’t have to admit the word was always racist to believe that we should use some other words in today’s context.

If the words had changed meaning, sure. But blacklist/whitelist are not words that have become racist. They're the same as they always were.

I have used these terms both in English and in my native language for decades and it never crossed my mind that there could be any relation to skin colors. But now they are associated with this so I would argue it‘s more racist now since we‘ve connected something negative (a blacklist) in our minds with the idea of being black.

I think this will do harm in two ways:

a) harm because of the explicit association as just described

b) harm because many people (possible supporters) will reject these kind of things as unreasonable

Now, I think the policy itself is not a big thing. Can be done. But it should have included a statement that the underlying idea is perhaps a hit silly and this is done to avoid this distraction.

How do you see the forest when you’ve been born into it? You chop down all the trees around you. Using master/slave casually in a discussion is a tree. I’m sorry I’m just trying to see the forest.

Walk out of it, don't burn it down.

> "How do you see the forest when you’ve been born into it? You chop down all the trees around you."

Once everybody does that, the forest is gone and then, well, game over.

I keep thinking that this has to be the perfect topic for a South Park episode. It has all the right elements: changing social norms, ultra-passionate groups on both sides, a silent majority who are indifferent, and ultimately the issue and stakes are small potatoes compared to what else is going on in the world. The episode pretty much writes itself!

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of being respectful of everyone, I question whether these changes make any meaningful difference at all.

Was anyone offended by these terms and called for change? Or was this a preemptive move by those thinking something along the lines of, "Gosh, what if someone else sees this? They might get the wrong idea! Better remove it."

I suppose black box testing is on the chopping block next? Or Master's degree/thesis?

For me, there are two priorities: get rid of any use of “slave”, and any use in a negative context. Blackbox testing doesn’t have negative connotations and it’s not contrasted with a better white counterpart, unlike blacklist/whitelist. Similarly, the degree below masters isn’t named black and a karate black belt is respected.

How do you feel about the term, "Blackbody"? E.g. Blackbody radiation.

Master's degree implies a superiority to the lower degrees, clearly establishing a dominance hierarchy. Is that much different from the master/slave terminology? Or is it just the use of the word "Master" combined with the word "Slave" which is the problem?

Master as in “master’s degree” is from a Latin word meaning teacher, and it’s the same root for mastery. I think most of the concern about tech usage comes from introducing the term “slave”, either directly in a pair or, as with Git, deriving from that usage. It’s that specific pairing along with the technical inaccuracy which makes master/slave considerably more likely to offend, in my opinion. If someone came to me and said, however, that they didn’t like the term and wanted to change it I wouldn’t object because it costs me so very little to be respectful of the fact that not everyone comes from the same place.

Blackbody radiation, black hole, etc. similarly doesn’t have the same pairing as you get with white/black-list - it’s a physical phenomena, not a problem. The concern isn’t using the word black but using it in a context which reminds the reader of racist use of the same words in other contexts.

You do get it for black-box vs white-box testing, though. So, is it racist?

These things are decided on a case by case basis by the people who implement them and no one will force you to replace all use of the word white or black with different words. You cannot be serious if you think this will meaningfully affect your life in a harmful way.

I’ve never heard those used in a context of one being good and the other bad, only being different tools. It seems far less likely to cause concern without a value judgement.

Black-box only testers are less technically skilled that those capable of white-box testing as well.

(If that sounds flimsy, well, so does the blacklist/whitelist controversy.)

Thank you for your good-faith replies! I'm trying to understand other perspectives on this topic.

On the use of "blackbody" - I'm sure some people with little or no background in physics would certainly take offense to it. It may be a physical phenomena but it was still named by fallible, biased humans - it shouldn't be exempt right? Surely you don't need a "white" version for a term to be problematic?

"Blackbody" seems as problematic as "blacklist" to me because the term it's paired with (radiation) has a very negative colloquial connotation (nuclear war, cancer, etc). Thoughts?

It's funny how "Blackbody" and "blacklist" can be seen as a problem, without ever questioning the application of black and white to people, who are normally neither black nor white. I suppose "coloured" was intended to remedy this, but it's fallen out of favour.

FYI - blackness has always had negative connotations in the same way darkness has: it's associated with the night, and not being able to see. I'm sure these sentiments are universal, and existed in the west before the influence of race.

Very much agreed!

The only argument I hear is "If it makes a few people feel better and doesn't cost anything, why not?".

The header of Hacker News is orange, and orange is the national color of the Dutch, and the Dutch were slave masters (VOC era). I'm sure once you make the connection, someone can be offended.

So, why not change it?

Language matters but you should also understand the language you're using or censoring.

To assert white-/blacklist or master/slave have anything to do with discrimination or were in anyway offensive is just beyond stupid. If not for this measure, there would be no connection between those contexts; just as there is no relationship between black humor and black people, or between slavery and masters/slaves in BDSM.

Heck, I can still consider removing master/slave acceptable—it is just as more of less a casually chosen terminology anyway—but the rest only creates more problems and solves none.

Can anyone find me someone who actually gets offended by this?

(And doesn't write a column for the Guardian or make money out of claiming offence everywhere).

White male here: I always found the terminology of master/slave uncomfortable. I never really encountered the word slave outside of american history classes, so in my head it does remind me of slavery in the US. I would frequently avoid using the word "slave" in technical discussions. I'm happy with this change.

master in the git sense is not master/slave.

It’s not clear that this is true: if were around when Git started, it was influenced heavily by BitKeeper and that did use master/slave:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

There are no slave branches in Git though.

Yes, but the point is that the history isn’t as clear cut as it might seem. I generally prefer other branch names anyway which tell how you use them - e.g. does “master” mean development actually happens there, where code is integrated for testing, the ready-to-release code (which is what the image/audio usage of master would imply), etc. Using terms like “develop”, “integration”, “release”, etc. make your project conventions more apparent.

It’s totally clear. Here is the person who chose the term "master" explaining that he chose it in relation to the term "master recording":

> "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective.

— https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441

The idea that it is related to master/slave was guesswork based on the relation between Git and BitKeeper. But Git doesn’t have slaves and the guess was wrong.

… and if you read further in that same thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272958618124595201

https://mobile.twitter.com/localheinz/status/127330224500268...

Again, I wouldn’t blame anyone for following use which is common in the field. What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work. Maybe this is innocent, maybe it’s not, we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I find it easy to miss things in Twitter threads.

> What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work.

> we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again.

I really hate this perception that changing master to main is easy. There’s 15 years of documentation out there that uses master. If it’s anything like other legacy documentation, it’ll take another ten years for that documentation to fall out of use.

In the meantime, there’s tonnes of young, inexperienced developers who will get stuck on this. Haven’t you ever seen a junior developer panic, think they are screwing up, and question their self-worth because they feel like they can’t even follow simple step-by-step instructions, when the problem is the documentation they are following is wrong?

The right way of doing this would be to coördinate via the main Git project and have a plan for what to do with all the existing documentation out there. As it stands, people unilaterally charged forward with it thoughtlessly, and are going to cause a great deal of practical pain for inexperienced developers, many of whom will be black. You really think triggering imposter syndrome in them is harmless?

> never have to spend time on this conversation again

There'll always be another word or someone else offended by things of zero consequence. Find it astonishing if you truly believe this is last word that needs to be "fixed".

It's perpetually tiring.

My feeling is "we can block this now, say no and never spend time on this conversation again... or we can have this discussion any time the cultural fashion turns on another word currently in technical use."

I wouldn't be opposed to this if I thought this was the end of it.

I've always been under the impression that it's master as in "master copy".

Audio engineering uses the term "master" for the source of highest fidelity "copy"ing...

Linux isn't a US-specific OS, though.

Obviously the history of slavery isn't exactly a happy topic regardless of nationality, but it may not necessarily have the racial tinge to it in other cultures.

Slave/master are English words though, so what matters is their meaning and connotations in the English language.

...okay? The US doesn't own the English language, either.

And the word "slave" in English refers to slavery throughout history and in various cultures, anyway, including slavery that still exists today, "wage slavery", etc.

English has been host to a lot of slavery of many kinds of people. The racial implications are much more of a US thing.

That discomfort has to do with your own narrow associations with the word, unable to separate the contexts and therefore triggering the human slavery version of master/slave in your mind and the associated emotions.

Master and slave in this context has nothing to do with human slavery.

> That discomfort has to do with your own narrow associations with the word, unable to separate the contexts and therefore triggering the human slavery version of master/slave in your mind and the associated emotions.

I agree with all of this. I'm sure if I were to work with master/slave systems for a while the connotation to me would change from the historical one to the technical. However even then, if I communicate with someone outside of technical people, it will carry the slavery connotation to them.

A while ago I had a similar issue when trying to explain male and female connectors to a friend. When she heard me use the terminology she thought I was joking, and I had to show her the wikipedia article and connectors on amazon. In that case it was harmless, but I could imagine the same scenario happening when trying to explain master/slave terminology to a colored person, and it coming off as an offensive joke.

No, you're coddling them then - if you reference master-slave to someone outside of technical people then the context of the conversation will be technology, coddling them and treating them as if they're fragile and can't learn of a new context; why would you be talking to them about master-slave anyway if it wasn't relevant to the conversation - it's not even a scenario that would exist?

So should the BDSM community stop using the terms master and slave, or it's okay in that context but not in a technology context? Curious if you have a double standard or if you'll change your mind.

Edit to add: I truly hope you answer the BDSM question instead of the likely avoidance so you can maintain an irrational position.

I find the Orwellian nature of these changes uncomfortable.

You really ought to look into a bit more history than what you got taught in school as slavery has gone on since as far as civilization and is in no way unique to the US. Slavery still goes on today and changing the terminology has done nothing to help that in any way.

(Is your skin colour relevant to your answer in any way? I have no idea why you included that)

So you acknowledge that the slave/master terminology carries associations to human slavery. You just think is would be an Orwellian erasure of history to disconnect OS terminology from the historical reality?

The problem is that the word can have derogatory implications, not that it represents a bad thing to do with humans. If slavery didn't have the sort of implications it does in the US, it might be no worse than 'kill' or 'destroy'. You shouldn't do those to humans either, but seeing the word doesn't leave an unpleasant residue.

Removing words with complex history or negative meaning is the definition of Newspeak.

>Newspeak contains no negative terms. For example, the only way to express the meaning of “bad” is through the word “ungood.”

Making the conscious choice to continue using these words is also Orwellian. In this case, there is no neutral language.

> Slavery still goes on today and changing the terminology has done nothing to help that in any way.

I'm aware slavery exists in other contexts and continues. In this case, I was trying to point out the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "slave". I imagine other US born devs might think similarly. I doubt this would do anything to solve slavery, but it would make me more comfortable.

> Is your skin colour relevant to your answer in any way? I have no idea why you included that

Since this is a racially charged topic, I assume the opinion of someone of color would hold more weight. I wanted to make my background clear so you wouldn't be guessing.

> I assume the opinion of someone of color would hold more weight.

So you expect me to treat you differently based on revealing your skin colour?

My personal opinion is that such an attitude will do far more harm to racial relations than the use of master / slave in technical documentation. We should be looking to make skin colour as irrelevant as eye colour. You don't get there by bringing up skin colour at every opportunity.

> I assume the opinion of someone of color would hold more weight

This is a harmful idea.

Do you think an anti-vaxxer's opinion should hold more weight because she's a mother?

I know this is tilting at windmills but I am extremely tired of seeing this "every culture had slavery" dismissal.

The atlantic slave trade had unique characteristics that make it quite distinct from what's happened during Rome or the Czars. It also was only a couple generations ago. The legacy of slavery remains a very real force across all the prior slave colonies in the Americas.

There's always been murderers, but we don't use that as a thought ending cliche to dismiss the idea that we should try to prevent murders. We don't ignore the unique horrors of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer just because other murders existed.

Symbols and terminology matter. No changing the terms won't by itself eliminate ongoing slavery in the world. But it does shift the window of how people view things.

In my generation, the purge of the f word and using gay as a pejorative was only a few years ahead of legal acceptance of gay marriage.

Changing the terms won't solve the problem, but it is moving in the right direction.

Yes, I think Orwellian is why I don't like this trend although I have no problem catering to requests I have no stake in.

Removing uncomfortable and provocative language seems like a mistake but I understand that its my privilege to hold this position. I can't think of a word that makes me uncomfortable enough to ask for its removal.

I felt that "master"/"slave" was imprecise and just kind of weird terminology long ago before it was flagged as problematic. "leader"/"replica" describes the behavior better.

Your genuine comment on the topic being downvoted tells me there’s not much genuine conversation going on in these HN threads, which have been much more toxic than usual

I agree with your point, and master/slave being replaced with much more descriptive terms depending on context will be a boon long term I believe. I think CircuitPython is using terms such as “input/listener” which more accurately describes the circuit.

Other pairings like “generator/consumer” also make the relationship more clear when previously it was all lumped under “master/slave”

Don't know any black people offended by this, but I have several white friends who are very offended by "non-inclusive" language like this. They feel they need to take offense and fight on behalf of minorities because they feel minorities may be unable to fight the fight themselves.

"because they feel minorities may be unable to fight the fight themselves"

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Not in the slightest. I recognize that as a white dude that very easily fits the stereotypes common in tech the risk to my career for pushing forward on this stuff is relatively minor. For my non white co-workers things are more complicated. By pushing on the problems even gently, they'll most likely be branded as problematic. In particular the "angry black lady that's difficult to work with" branding comes out very fast.

I can't change how I was born or the context of the stereotypes I live within. I can control how aware I am of that and shape my behavior in response.

You're kidding yourself if you think that pushing forward on this stuff won't label you as problematic just because you happen to be white. You're just going to be the "angry white dude" instead of the "angry black lady".

Nope, not at all.

I've been outspoken about this stuff for quite some time. I tend to be someone people look to as a peer leader as well, no matter my title, largely because I am willing to be outspoken. I've never been criticized over it. I've been repeatedly praised for it.

Most people’s friend groups are extremely homogeneous, rarely exposing them to other points of view.

This is not a new debate, nor do I think it's a hill worth dying on. It's just as easy to say primary/secondary. I'm not personally discomforted by master/slave terminology, but I have no problem using primary/secondary and moving on with life.

I'm a bit more puzzled by the blacklist/whitelist change. I've literally never once heard of anyone having a problem with this. But, if there is an equally descriptive alternative, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, I've spoken to two black friends who are happy about these changes.

They are not going to say that publicly on the internet, as they expect the alt-right to rain fire and death threats on them if they come out in public.

honestly i don't think you will from Gen X upwards.

i think mostly it's millennial and below just wanting to change "something" that they have control over. i see how millennial and below are feeling the "squeeze" of the society that they wanted to not be apart of (renting instead of owning, freelancing instead of corporate job, code camps instead of college) and now realize that they completely screwed themselves.

this whole movement is there way of lashing back and trying to have a voice. personally i (and probably most Gen Xers and above) could care less which is why there isn't really any "push back" not to go along.

This is reaching stupidity levels I never thought possible. This is coming from a code base where you can find the word fuck hundreds of times, as well as other curses. This is coming while Linus has probably directly personally attacked people with profanities on their commits in front of whole mailing lists.

This is the moral equivalent of just cleaning the mirrors alone in a dirty public restroom. Probably only done to be able to admire yourself, it doesn't clean any of the real shit.

Offence, like most things in life, isn’t black and white - if you’ll excuse the awful pun.

Words like you’re referring to are offensive to a number of people, and their reasoning is something I don’t quite understand, so I won’t offer an explanation, because I’m not qualified.

Terms like those being discouraged in the linked post are offensive to people for an entirely different reason. Again I don’t find them offensive myself, but I respect those who do and see absolutely no problem with steering clear of them to be kind. Kindness wins here over claims of nannying.

I agree that a minor change of nomenclature isn’t going to solve anything on its own, but it’s symbolic, an act of solidarity, a piece of a puzzle, perhaps some or all of these and more. Let’s just get behind it instead of being negative about it.

Where are the aggrieved and why don't they ever show and speak for themselves in these threads? I've seen exactly one comment in many thousands from a person who stated outright that they were a female minority and... She ranted that these language changes are coddling... I've spoken to a few minority, female, and homosexual friends (in tech) and colleagues and they share the same sentiment (I understand how ironic it is that I, too, show up with nothing but anecdotes). How does this reconcile with the 100s/1000s of comments that amount to, "but some people find this stuff offensive!"

My philosophy is to change my behavior to avoid hurting other people. This isn't being weak, this is just good manners (being kind).

I'm less inclined to change my behavior for people who just want to be offended or who take it upon themselves to be outraged for someone else (who isn't themselves outraged).

I was concerned about hurting people so I talked to my only black friend (also a developer) and he said:

"I think people are going overboard with political correctness.

Maybe when we switch to the metric system we can change terminology"

What's A Good Substitute for Master/Slave?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23811866

Really surprised to see a comment pool that is completely negative.

Wouldn’t primary/replica and allowlist/denylist be more explicit anyway?

Society doesn’t have to just do one thing. And because whatever momentum is causing this to happen now, doesn’t negate other reasons why it should happen regardless, and shouldn’t be a reason for it not to either.

Because the origins.of the term isn't racially based. You're seeing race and color where there isn't any.

> The state papers of Charles II say "If any innocent soul be found in this black list, let him not be offended at me, but consider whether some mistaken principle or interest may not have misled him to vote".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting

Yes, it’s an old usage just as niggardly or denigrate predate a word they’re often assumed to be derived from. The point is that people have to think about that in a context where they otherwise wouldn’t, and it costs so very little to avoid that.

Many projects have replaced these terms with more accurate ones in the past and it’s a very minor shift. It took very little time to do and years later, only aggrieved right-wing activists are still talking about it. Everyone else is just using software without the distraction of wondering about the origins of the terms they’re using.

No, it's not like niggardly. Blacklist is a common word and 'black' does not resemble any offensive words.

We’re talking about black being used in a negative connotation, with no connection to color. I mentioned it only as another example where the origin of the term is harmless but there is still a good reason why you might want to avoid using a particular word.

I think there really isn't a good answer. One "side" argues that the original intention doesn't matter, and the current intent of the word doesn't matter and therefore should be changed. The other "side" argues that it shouldn't be changed for exactly the same reason.

But it keeps us busy :-)

> Really surprised to see a comment pool that is completely negative

I think people may (hopefully) be getting fed up with being politically correct to the point of finding something everywhere they look that they are offended by and needs to be changed.

> Wouldn’t primary/replica and allowlist/denylist be more explicit anyway?

Possibly! But the main reasons I've seen people are arguing in favour of different terms are moral rather than practical. - I don't think moral reasoning mixes well with practical reasoning. (If it were morally worse, but practically better, would it be better overall?).

Blacklist has been part of the English language for roughly 400 years, and is far more common than "denylist" or the other alternatives being used such as "blocklist". There is no reason to argue that those trend are any more accurate (not to mention it has never been about race).

As for master/slave, I think changing over to primary/replica makes a bit more sense, though then we should also ban the word "robot" while we are at it.

While i'm not opposed to this, i do wonder where it will stop. Are financial phrases of "in the red, in the black" also bad? Is the word police bad?

The police one is especially interesting. If the word police becomes banned, wouldn't police themselves simply change their name? Start using Law Enforcement more prominently, etc - and then how long until Law Enforcement becomes a bad word like Police did?

Words definitely shape culture. Using "gay" as a derogatory term like i did when i grew up is clearly wrong, it shapes culture in my view. I _could_ see the argument for whitelist/blacklist also shaping culture, though drastically less i'd imagine. However i think we need to take care not to change things that themselves are not defining culture, like Police. The Police reaction is, i think, effectively an avoidance of a trigger. Of which, the science seems unclear on if even avoiding triggers is healthy (at least, based on a recently study i saw, but did not read).

With that said, if i were to use my comment as logic to decide this.. `master/slave` seems perfectly fine. Slave does not imply who is the slave. If you make associations to a specific group of slaves throughout history, and even currently, the word does not seem to be the cause. Removing it from a dictionary will not help anyone. Compare master/slave to whitemaster/blackslave. The latter would _obviously_ have a .. not so implicit implication. The former, i don't feel implies anything.

On the other hand, blacklist/whitelist could - perhaps - have implied associations in a way that master/slave does not. I could easily support removing that, because the implication seems clear.

We should take care to draw the lines in these complex topics where they might shape our culture. Not removing triggers.

But then "Gay" just meant happy. And "retard" means slightly slowed down (development). Those were probably all decent words from the start.

The words aren't the problem, their usages are. I'm not convinced that we should allow the meaning of words to slip and replace them when they become offensive.

> surprised to see a comment pool that is completely negative

You should see the Slashdot thread. It is amazing how hard people will fight for the status quo, even if it's over a small change that doesn't really hurt anyone. It's always a good time for a code review, anyway.

[After watching the above comment score bounce around more than I usually see around here:]

Changing names in software isn't really that hard if you understand the code base. It can even help you understand it better-- and we do it all the time for non-politically-charged stuff. If you find yourself feeling emotional & indignant when someone wants to change a word that bothers them, you should look real close at why. Does it really hurt you that much? Is it honestly hampering your freedom of expression, or any other actually meaningful freedom you have? I'd like to see a good argument for that. And if it doesn't... why are you so upset?

It's quite telling how much this pisses people off. As soon as race enters into it, it's obvious that most minds are already made up. For the last 6-10 years, racists and misogynists have become increasingly bold, and their insidious 'arguments' poison all discourse. I'm done putting up with their sophistry.

> "For the last 6-10 years, racists and misogynists have become increasingly bold, and their insidious 'arguments' poison all discourse."

Being a minority myself who opposes these pointless language changes and seeing plenty of black/minority comments with similar opposition, may I point out that "everybody who disagrees me is a racist" just doesn't work particularly well as a rationalization?

Well, I heard an interview on NPR a couple days ago from a young Black woman who was surprised & hurt when she discovered some of these terms and is part of the effort to change them, so there's not exactly a consensus.

Also, whoever is saying "everybody who disagrees with me is a racist" is probably wrong, unless they're talking about a specifically racist thing. I don't do that. However, you cannot deny the recent increase in actual white nationalism and neo-nazis, which is what I was referring to.

The response is completely negative because the suggestion is just insane.

I'm a black man from a black neighborhood. We like Joe Biden. When Joe speaks freely without preparation, he makes racists and tone-deaf comments continuously. Sometimes they are really horrible. We don't care because we understand the era he comes from and we understand the difference between intentional and unintentional. He has evolved at least little and aspires to do more. Perfect is the enemy of good.

We know that when programmers talk about master/slave, they don't even think about slavery. It's just damn good metaphor. I might get fleeting negative association but I'm not offended. Offense is taken, not given. No need to disarm the world from strong metaphors just to show others that we are not racist.

Racism is power structures, not in innocent use of metaphors.

I think the [usually white and American] people pushing hardest for this insanity will use black people as a political tool, and then once a black person contradicts them will accuse them of having “internalised oppression”.

Sigh.

What about these terms?

Black/White magic White lie Dark patterns Black/Grey/White hat Black comedy Whitewash

Personally I feel these usages of black/white don't come from skin colour, rather from something like night/day.

> Wouldn’t primary/replica and allowlist/denylist be more explicit anyway?

Primary/replica would be far, far less explicit for describing the relationship between the CPU and an ADC (or ethernet switch, or accelerometer) over something like the SPI bus.

To be fair, the suggestions in the link are more encompassing.

Controller/Peripheral has been a recent suggestion in electronics.

These kind of changes are problematic any way I look at it. Even from a purely technical perspective, words like master, slave and blacklist have entered the vocabulary of many software engineers from Europe, they are are taught in school curricula and courses and I'm pretty sure that they won't change now because the Linux kernel maintainers were bit by the politically correct bug.

But I like the ironic sound of "Robot Overlords"!

Robot: 1920s: from Czech, from robota ‘forced labour’. The term was coined in K. Čapek's play R.U.R. ‘Rossum's Universal Robots’ (1920).

This is one of those changes that does little to actually improve things yet somehow manages to piss a lot of people off, despite the fact that other areas of tech have long been moving away from the "master/slave" terminology (see RDBMSes).

At the end of the day I think there are other (more important) cultural issues with open source development but you can't pat yourself on the back and call them fixed with a git commit lol

primary/secondary is even an alternative to master/slave? To me it means that they're on the same level and can do the same thing, while master means that it operates over slave devices.

maybe controlling/controlled

Or top/bottom. But that gets more nuanced, because you also have "power bottoms" and "service tops".

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaybros/comments/68rrmi/whats_the_i...

There's also leader/follower if you are looking to replace master/slave.

Not really, to me "leader" sounds like it do some of the same work as "follower", which often is not.

There is often no following involved. It's often about one process being in charge and other's doing what they are told. I suppose manager and worker would make sense.

Teacher / Student is better for database replication, since a "School" of databases can have multiple teachers and students, and it refers to the flow of information.

I think that if people really want to change the terminology, master/minion would be a good alternative.

Actually, I almost like it. I would gladly use overlord/minion as a replacement.

primary/replica is the terminology I've seen for the database case, which does describe the situation better than master/slave in my opinion. Master/Slave is kind of overloaded terminology, and the replacements in other areas will certainly be different.

ATA master/slave is an example where both devices have the same capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Master_and_slave_...

> Although they were in common use, the terms "master" and "slave" do not appear anymore in current versions of the ATA specifications, or any current documentation. Since ATA-2 the two devices are referred to as "Device 0" and "Device 1", respectively. This is more appropriate since the two devices have always operated, since the earliest ATA specification, as equal peers on the cable, with neither having control or priority over the other.

> It is a common myth that the controller on the master drive assumes control over the slave drive, or that the master drive may claim priority of communication over the other device on the same ATA interface. In fact, the drivers in the host operating system perform the necessary arbitration and serialization, and each drive's onboard controller operates independently of the other.

> While it may have remained in colloquial use, the PC industry has not used ATA master/slave terminology in many years.

The I2C protocol is not however - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C2%B2C#Design.

The slave listens to the master and responds when asked to.

How about parent and child?

Are you looking to offend orphans?

The problem with "parent/child" relationships for trees is that humans always have two biological parents, not one like tree data structures.

This is a good example of why master/slave is not an accurate term: most technical uses reflect performing the same kind of work rather than one only telling the other what to do and when the master fails a slave is elected to replace it. Your master database doesn’t torture the slave node when it errors, either.

Using more accurate terms such as those on the kernel’s list immediately tells you the nature of the relationship AND doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable. That seems worth it alone, and it’s really unclear what good reason could explain why a few people would spend far more time complaining about work which someone else will do than it will take to complete that work.

When the terrorist group ISIS rose to prominence in 2014, many product names and even company names were changed to avoid connection with ISIS. For instance, in the computer world, Cornell's Isis distributed computing library was renamed Vsync. These changes seemed to be uncontroversial; I didn't find any HN discussion of the Vsync name change.

This shows that there is precedence for widespread name changes if a name becomes offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_changes_due_to_the_Islami...

However, master/slave aren't the names of companies, they're names of concepts. There is no Slavery, Inc selling digital picture frames and refusing to change their name because they like being associated with Slavery.

This is more like "killing a process" ("but people get killed"), "deleting a file" ("minorities are getting erased", "you aren't even removing anything, you're just changing some bytes, so it isn't even accurate"), "touching a file" etc.

It matters what you read into it, but that's mostly you, not the word. Is MariaDB sexist because it's a software that is expected to silently and flawlessly do things for you for free so of course it was given a female name, or is it a programmer's dedication to his daughter?

That's an unimpressive list of name changes. A University login system, a chocolate maker, a PE firm, few small businesses, a software release name, the fictional organisation from a cartoon.

I'd be more interested in who didn't change their names despite the connotation.

There's a town in Australia called Isis, who didn't change, nor did their local football team called the Isis devils.

Going through Wikipedia there's also Oxford University's magazine http://isismagazine.org.uk/

A peer reviewed journal: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/isis/current

A British prison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Isis

USGS planetary software used by NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Software_for_Imager...

A Dutch aerospace company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovative_Solutions_In_Space

> precedence for widespread name changes if a name becomes offensive.

But who is actually offended by the term blacklist/whitelist? This seems to be more like trying to fabricate "potential offenses" out of whole cloth then deal with offensive words?

I used to disagree with this before realizing that I cared more about them being changed than I cared about the words in the first place. I don't care what the words are. This is a smaller change than learning a new JS framework, and I already care very little about that.

How about we just call them "the M word" and "the S word" as we're already accustomed to that. /s

I find this type of virtue signaling very annoying and a slippery slope on the free speech/rage culture front.

"S word" is great for lots of puns...

> All they that take the S word shall perish with the S word. –Jesus

> Never give a S word to a man who can't dance –Confucius

> There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the S word. –Ulysses S. Grant

> The pen is mighter than the S word

> I am not afraid of the pen, or the scaffold, or the S word. I will tell the truth wherever I please. –Mary Harris Jones

> There's a huge difference between stage fighting and real S word fighting. –Kit Harington

> So we're living by that S word, and we're going to cut every now and then from it's backlash. –Vince McMahon

> There are other ways to create tension and drama than to have somebody stabbed through the back with a S word. –Mark Waid

What is the point of this? What, is using a "yellow" color for "warning" going to be removed next? What about "red" for stop or "remove"?

I can go on , but basically this is getting ridiculous.

The comments here on HN seem really knee-jerk. Some people like to claim no one is made to feel erased or reminded of their otherness when they hear this terminology. Some people seem to think we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

What I see are people criticizing these changes because of a fear that perhaps, on some level, they have participated in a language and a culture that continues to demean or ostracize others. It is not a good feeling to realize this. Please ask yourselves why you are so attached to using terms like master/slave. If it had been different from the start, would you even care?

Is there a line you personally won't let political correctness police cross? If someone wants you to stop using innocuous words for arbitrary reasons, will you ever stand your ground or will you always yield?

master/slave, maybe there's a case to be made there. But "master" in general has other meanings besides "owner". And black/whitelist have been around for centuries and have nothing to do with skin color.

I, for one, am sick of being bullied by politically correct language police forcibly imposing their ideals on society via shaming and mob justice.

When my team got a black developer I realized that it’s slightly awkward to say the word ‘master branch’.

I understand that git was made by a Finish developer, but in the historical context of the US any allusion to slavery can be problematic because it implies disregard for some people. Imposter syndrome is a big issue with developers, I certainly don’t want to add to that with any extra hints of ‘you don’t belong here.’

I would much rather use the word ‘primary’ for the central branch. I can certainly change that. But our repos are maintained by a dedicated configuration management department in consultation with a quality department. Any change requires meetings and lots of questions by lots of people. When we have 50 other priorities with dollar values attached to them, this type of thing is ranked very low. Plus we would be the only team to do that, we’d stick out like a sore thumb and future merges to primary would require special instruction for our support departments.

I welcome an industry wide shift away from these terms. Although I have no evidence to point to, I feel like this would increase retention. If one day management mandates that we need to rename ‘master’ to ‘primary’ it will make the shift easier because all the meetings where we get asked ‘why’ won’t happen, my team won’t stick out and be different. The change will happen across the board. Most importantly there would be less reason for people to feel like they shouldn’t be there.

Is it also "slightly awkward" when your black colleague asks what your preferred credit card or padlock brand is?

Do people with Master's degrees make you feel awkward? Why or why not? Do you think we should call it something else?

It seems a bit racist to me to consider use of the term "Master" in a very technical and unrelated context to refer specifically to U.S. slavery.

The "master" in git refers to "master" copy, not the master/slave relationship. There aren't any "slave" branches in git.

So... As a Slav, can I use the master/[slav]e?

Tsar / slav

Yeaaaah, if you could rename your ethnic group to something more inclusive, that would be greaaat. Thanks.

I really like the gender duality of the russian and the other slavic languages: п_зда/п_здец, х_й/х_йня, etc. And so there is a masculine pendant of к_рва in them, AFAIK.

Does anyone know the etymology of "blacklist" or "whitelist"? To me, this would be a relevant factor in deciding whether the terms should be deprecated.

The etymology doesn't matter so much as long as the harm done now is real. I wrote this comment in a similar thread before, but I'll paste it here:

Historically, white/blacklist did not have racial origins, but history is always happening. The original intent of a word can be erased by its proximity to new taboos and new circumstances, and in this case, white/black have been racialized.

See also: the disappearance of the words "niggardly" and "feck" from common English usage, or how some Thais are uneasy using the word "fuk" (gourd, pumpkin) [0]

[0] https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198808190.013.10

Hey old friend — good to see you here. I can understand that some people object to the terms regardless of etymology, but certainly the case for deprecation would be stronger if the etymology driven by or related to race.

Do you have any citations to the actual etymology? I wasn't able to find anything definitive.

> The etymology doesn't matter so much as long as the harm done now is real.

You declare that using blacklist/whitelist does harm, yet you provide no evidence. If it does, shouldn't the black belt being the highest grade (and the white belt the lowest) in Karate etc be a positive thing? Shouldn't the white flag being the sign of defeat, while pirates have cool flags that are mostly black really make the difference?

I'm sorry, but no, of course not. I see some (albeit very little, it feels more like avoidance coping, which is more harmful than dealing with your feelings) merit in "I don't want to hear the word slave, it triggers thoughts of the slavery somebody having a similar skin color as me had to go through", but blacklist/whitelist? Black hat? Black Death? Black Hole? No.

It has nothing to do with Africans, and going out of your way to create a connection where none exists for the sake of being offended feels like a mental health issue that needs to be addressed, not encouragement.

"For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright, Who art as African-American as hell, as dark as night."

— Ol' Billy Shakespeare, apparently.

Not exactly what you asked for, but the Duden dictionary of the German language mentions for "schwarze Liste" (literally black list) that black refers to something which is secret, hidden, probably because of the association with darkness.

It's a very often encountered expression in many European languages.

Yeah, Easter European languages use it too, and they only enslaved their own people

I always assumed it was how light behaves. If you take white piece of acrylic, it passes light much better than if you were to just take a black piece of acrylic.

Evocation is more important than etymology, though the two are not entirely unrelated.

I've got no problem with removing master/slave, especially in cases where you could use more descriptive terms.

On the other hand I'm just not a fan of the proposals for blacklist/whitelist. I've nothing against changing them, but denylist/allowlist or blocklist/passlist just doesn't "sound right". Blocklist sounds fine, but whitelist and passlist just sound... awkward?

Twitter is already way ahead of curve[1]

> Dummy value => Placeholder value, sample value

Any clues on who this terminology is excluding exactly?

[1] https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656/ph...

I think twitter is a good example of why people are reacting so negatively to this. The changes that twitter has made are just plain PC insanity. Everyone is so afraid of backlash for being the voice of reason that it never seems to stop. You end up spending so much time tying to find and police imagined offenses that you don't get real work done.

Ah book burning making a come back in 2020.

Voices against this idea are pretty loud. But nobody is giving a real argument. I don't see anything other than "oh it doesn't solve world Racism or Sexism problems" or, "I never thought about slavery when I use my git branch".

I think they just miss the point. I don't see any reason to not fix this. There are studies that claim language does transmit values and cultural norms. So it isn't only about someone being hurt or reminded of something when (s)he sees a word.

These issue is so big that no single action or change is going to fix it. It requires commitment and lots of small and big changes. And yes a lot of companies aren't going to do anything more than tiny changes while portending that they support the cause. It doesn't mean that others should stop.

Interesting because we made this change in the Netscape Directory Server in 1996. Ever since I've been a little surprised to see the usage appear here and there. It felt like a memo had failed to get delivered.

It's time to rename the "man" command to "person"

“man” in unix is short for “manual” and has no relationship to gender! This is like car vs carpet argument.

"master" in Git doesn't have a relationship to slavery and yet it's being changed in repositories around the world.

> "master" in Git doesn't have a relationship to slavery

That’s...unclear, at best. Heck, the person who claims responsibility for the Git usage isn’t even sure, having both suggested a “master recording” sense and that derivation from use of “master/slave” in bitkeeper is a possible origin.

https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441?s=19

https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272817929046962176?s=19

They've also endorsed the change to “main” as more clear.

That's true, but some people also get upset every other year about the fact that history and mankind exclude women.

"mankind" has always struck me as unnecessarily exclusive.

Why not "people", "humankind", etc? Such a simple substitution that honors the fact that all people are not men.

"Mankind" does include all humans, male and female of all ages.

You can always use a different word if you prefer to, but please don't claim that e.g. Neil Armstrong did or wanted to exclude women or children when he said his walk on the moon was a giant leap for mankind.

>"mankind" has always struck me as unnecessarily exclusive

IIRC, “man” in the sense of “human/person”, from which comes “mankind”, is actually older than “man” in the sense of “adult male human”.

> Why not "people", "humankind", etc?

That's what “mankind” has always meant.

Thanks, appreciate the etymology.

Do you believe this is common knowledge?

Though I do find it funny that the man page viewer in Emacs is called "woman".

We have postman and now postwoman - and I'm not referring to the national postal service but to the API testing tools.

What is going to happen to all the printed books and technical docs? This seems like it might cause a lot of issues going forward.

I am wondering if mastering, “a jack of all trades, a master of none” and a master copy are going to be changed, too

Or master bedroom, masterclass, masterpiece, mastercard, master's degree etc. Where do you draw the line if the syllables alone are allegedly problematic?

Uses of “master” that don't derive from specifically the use in terms of master/slave relations (and it entered English with multiple different sense ab initio), and perhaps even those with such an origin where the current use isn't even closely metaphoric and reliant on evoking that relationship are less likely to be seen as problematic.

I am pretty certain “Master” in Git is not derived from master/slave duality.

> I am pretty certain “Master” in Git is not derived from master/slave duality.

It apparently comes from copying bitkeeper, which uses master/slave, so it is, indirectly, derived from master/slave.

It's easy enough to interpret (and retain) in the artistic sense of a master copy (which usage is not derived from master/slave), so even with it's etymology it is far from the most problematic use of “master”, but the git usage is not historically unconnected to master/slave.

Which of course doesn't change a bit, not politically, not historically, nothing. Those words will most likely survive in the jargon, because a) it's hard to change an established terminology overnight and b) they belong to a complete different semantic area than the politics we are discussing about.

If someone's offended by this, they are looking for a reason to be offended.

If someone's looking for a reason to be offended, they will find one, no matter what you do.

George Orwell warned us about this kind of thing.

Edit: If you downvote this post, perhaps you could leave a comment explaining why?

So I swear I'm on your team but i just realized that Robot=robota=slave

This is beyond dumb. Americans always assume the world revolves around them and their politics.

I find that an important point.

I think a bunch of people want to be helpful and do anything that they believe would be more inclusive for others.

What irks me is it comes across more as an expression that their worldview is the one that matters, others aren't to be tolerated.

Not sure why that's surprising. Americans have always wanted to invade the entire globe, whether it be through culture or via Hellfire.

To people upset about master/slave in CS terminology I say: fair enough. We can find metaphors for our tools without punching down.

To people upset about CHANGING the terminology: I would ask.. Y so mad?

My issue is we don't know where this will end.

What happens when tomorrow somebody complains about male and female connectors not being inclusive. Should we change the names?

What about killing a process? Some people have family members who were killed. Lets change that too.

What happens if a person was assaulted by someone with your same name. Should you change your name to appease that person? "I say: fair enough."

There's even hermaphrodite/hermaphroditic connectors. And gender changers.

Bikeshedding. ️

And will accountants stop using "in the black / in the red"?

Master/slave, maybe. But doing so as a reaction to BLM complete ignores the rest of the various people's who've been enslaved at some point in history.

Barely connected, but i only recently learned that there were raids by Ottoman slavers on Iceland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions

https://jddavies.com/2017/02/20/the-barbary-corsair-raid-on-...

https://github.com/words-matter/blacklist-whitelist-are-not-...

Let's not get started about white vs colored noise in digital signal processing. Why is white noise white?

Same reason that white light is white: its has a mix of all the light frequencies in about the same proportion, rather than being weighted to one particular color.

And yet the sun's spectrum follows the black body radiation curve.

I dunno, maybe let's get started. I would guess it is called white noise by analogy to analog TV static, which even though it has black pixels in it at any time, appears white to the eye. But interesting question.

Is this moral licensing?

Great, can someone explain Americans their society is not the world, these projects are international and everyone's tired of American politics leaking in anyway. When will it end?

(throwaway for obvious reasons)

Imagine if major parts of systems architecture casually referenced the holocaust, gassing civilians, or other recent historical acts of violent oppression. Wouldn't you advocate for the same thing?

Are they though?

While everyone should say: Can we end the extreme wealth disparity where millions of people are couple pay checks from being homeless.

It's ironic, since decades of fighting communists in the USA rendered any class-based rhetoric a taboo.

As someone from a "very white" country wealth disparity seems to exist regardless of race.

Yes, so here's a crazy idea: maybe, just maybe, there're systematic problems in the society, other than monuments and words.

here's an even crazier idea : maybe inequality is part of natural behavior of every single organisation, from animals to vegetables, to cells. I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that abolishing inequalities is a phenomenaly ambitious goal which hasn't even been proved feasible.

We can practice reductio ad absurdum all we want. However, it seems that inequality is taken to the extreme in some parts of the world.

The distinction is just wording:

> If we find that much of the overrepresentation of blacks in the criminal justice system is because black people are often poor and poor people often get sucked into the system, should we describe this as “the problem isn’t racism in the criminal justice system, it’s poverty” or as “the problem is racism in the criminal justice system, as manifested through poverty”?

– Scott Alexander https://web.archive.org/web/20200523051001/https://slatestar...

No, he's just playing word games. That doesn't mean the argument is one of semantics.

If the problem is too much poverty, then the solution is to reduce poverty.

If the problem is too much racism, then the solution is to reduce racism.

The greedy rich people's corporate media pushes the racism narrative to keep the focus away from the primary problem because fixing poverty might cost them something.

All the well meaning people pushing the racism narrative are doing their work. Pawns in the game.

You're still missing the point. A mother whose son went to get candy and ended up never coming home after being gunned down by the police doesn't give a fuck about white tech elite hand-wringing and trying to rewrite history and does't give a fuck about hand-wringing over salaries.

She wants it to have never happened, she wants justice, her community wants to be able to call the police in an emergency and be sure one of their own won't get murdered and they want equality in mind, not just on paper. What good is more money right now when walking in a 'good' neighbourhood you just bought into, or driving a nice car you just bought with your salary can still get you murdered by the police just for being black.

White people have lost their damn minds. It's not about you and how awful you feel your ancestors behaved.

They murder men, women and children alike with impunity.

1. There are hundreds of millions of guns and people in America.

2. Police officers help black (and white) people millions of times per year.

3. Police officers murder black (and white) people at most dozens of times per year.

4. Black criminals murder thousands of black people per year.

Any black person who is more afraid of being murdered by a police officer than a black criminal is being highly irrational.

Any person that can't accept the reality that a small number of murders of black (and white) people by police are inevitable in such a big and well armed country is being highly irrational.

A totally reasonable goal is to try to reduce the number of murders as much as possible, which is something that no one disagrees with.

The idea that police are murdering in huge numbers, or that the problem is growing precipitously, is simply a result of people unable to overcome selection bias. They're watching a handful of videos and then exaggerating the problem in their minds.

That is why economic policies aren't written by someone who's emotionally attached to the described event. There's probably no doubt that providing black people with education, universal healthcare and well-paid jobs will result in less violence and prejudice.

A death is a tragedy to someone, but the society can't miss forest for the trees, as somebody already mentioned here.

P.S. I'm not at all familiar with US mindset, but isn't making generalisations based on race("White people have lost their minds") racist as well?

To answer your last question - IMO yes but in the US the colloquial use of the term "racism" typically refers only to white-on-____ racism, where you fill in the blank with the oppressed minority.

Scarcity is a real issue. What’s the point of redistributing wealth when some will be more productive and then live within their means, while others won’t and will reproduce until they can’t provide for their children. It may not be the same people afterwards, but it’d be the same result. So how would that be any more fair or facilitate prosperity any more than what we’re doing now?

That's assuming that not having to struggle pay check to pay check won't create more opportunities for people to study and create value. Just look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Austria etc.

I worked for a German company in Austria in my early 20's. I lived more or less pay check to pay check (also happened to be they best years of my life).

Sine then I have worked reasonably hard, and created a career for myself. I don't enjoy my work like I did in those days. I am not rich, but I don't worry about money.

What would you suggest gets done?

What you describe is anecdotal. As my German teacher once said: "If you're homeless in Germany, you really want to be homeless". I've never been to US, but watching "Invisible People" on YouTube helps to paint a picture.

but it IS a master/slave relationship. Giving something the correct name doesn't mean you're actually promoting it !

I don't understand how linus tolerate crippling code for the sake of politically correct. It doesn't look like him

If this is what the Linux kernel developers have to do to inflate their ego and self worth who are we to stop them!

I wonder how male/female connectors made it this far into the inclusive-language wave, haven't seen a single mention of them.

Just wait a bit

Immediately linking any resemblance of racial identity politics to meaningful programming terms, and then demanding that the vernacular of an entire discipline be ideologically reshaped, means that you are the one who is on the 'wrong side of history'.

If these changes are truly merited, they will occur naturally over time.

This is dangerous because it’s a wholesale enforced linguistic shift pushed by a group which claims that the goal is to protect other people who are being “harmed”.

No solid evidence is given, no input is received from the hypothetical “harmed” group. All that happens is a blank check is handed to the people claiming that they’re totally a force for good.

When has this ever ended well?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/black

Check out the large number of senses in which the word ‘black’ represents something negative. Vice versa for ‘white’, ‘light’, ‘dark’, and more.

This issue runs very, very deep in the English language.

I guess this was behind the late-20th-century culture of deprecating the word black and replacing it with words like “colored”. As if that era had conceded that ‘black’ was an intrinsically judgemental word and should no longer be used to refer to people.

But there was no getting away from the fact that the African skin tone really was black, and so denying use of the word black began to feel more offensive, as if it were something shameful to which attention should not be called. “Don’t worry, son, you’re not really black, you’re colored.” Pretty rough, right?

And so we seem to have flipped in the other direction, and the word ‘black’ is increasingly worn proudly.

So if ‘black’ is now to have a positive sense, it is all those negative senses which must come under scrutiny.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I wonder how we manage to use the word ‘black’ for hair color without negative connotations.

Are you sure about the hair color? My feeling is that movie villains tend to have black hair while the good guys are more often not black. It isn't a strong association though. Superman has black hair while Cersei is blond.

Black has a natural association with night, darkness, and shadows. While white is associated with day and sun light. This is deeper than the English language.

Perhaps we need to redo the physical world, as it seems to be promoting racism. /s

This has nothing to do with black people though.

"The land was filled with light"

"The land was covered in darkness"

One of those phrases has a positive connotation, the other a negative. Saying that this is an "issue" with the english language because coincidentally some humans have dark skin is absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com