Comment by kbrannigan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbrannigan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I am black but not from the USA I'm from the Caribbean.

It's hilarious how people perceive those who look like me.

Like we are some hyper-sensitive, fragile babies who cannot understand nuance of speech.

It's even worse when some white Americans are afraid to joke around me or poke fun at me, because they don't want to punch down.

Meanwhile I feel more privileged than most white Americans. I speak 3 languages perfectly.

One favor a hiring manager did for me, was giving me a tougher interview than most other candidates. He made sure everyone knew I was hired because I'm good at my job, not because I'm a "diversity-hired to fill some quota".

When I first moved here, I saw myself as a nerdy kid, who liked computers and wanted to build and create stuff. I saw myself as a human being who happened to look a certain way. I saw white people or Asian people just the same.

Then I made the mistake of consuming "woke content" on reddit and Twitter and it affected me, after college those ideas limited me in ways I could only imagine.

I really hope people see me as a bright kid whose into computers not some oppressed victim.

By the way, racism and prejudice exists but they show up differently.

Oh well!

I appreciate that you chimed in because it's a common perception.

But stopping the use of the master-slave metaphor in tech has nothing to do with assuming there are "hyper-sensitive, fragile babies who cannot understand nuance of speech" it has to do with real metaphors that persist in tech, which hold problematic historical baggage.

The IETF has a document with the clearest and most informative statement on this that I know about: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html

Besides, "trunk" is an objectively more correct metaphor for the main "branch" in a "source tree".

Master is used in many context like master key, mastering a song, master copy, having mastery in something.

To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.

I feel like that logic could be used to excuse every historical term with baggage.

Plus, it's not really stirring up controversy saying "hey, we should probably change the term to ~this~, which is equally or more descriptive, in a way that doesn't rely on historically problematic contexts". I think what you're focusing on is chiding people who still use the older terms; I've never seen that happen. I've seen people mix terminologies when discussing something, and oftentimes that has led to the person using the outdated instead using the updated, possibly with a conversation in between, but I've not seen someone call out "how DARE you use (technically-correct-but-outdated-term)!"

That said, I've also never seen anyone dispense with the word 'master' -except- in contexts where it is used to differentiate from 'slaves'. The parent post also only references in that context (though the great-grandparent calls both out separately, though one right after the other, which is likely what is muddling things).

Every word has baggage. "The" was used in slave documents. So were receipts. Does this mean everytime a grocery store clerk gives you a receipt they are perpetuating slavery?

Even Blacklist/Blackbook come not from anything to do with black people but Charles II and his list. If you are offended by it, it's because you chose to be.

What's your point? Does that logic excuse every word with historical baggage, or not? You state every word has historical baggage; either you then disagree with the parent logic, or you agree with the parent logic, and taken together with every word having baggage means you're saying every word is okay to use regardless of the historical baggage attached to it. Which is an interesting take, certainly.

It is OK to use words that remind people of troubling things as long the point of using it is not to do this antagonistically.

Someone could come along and tell me my name means 'short people are possessed by demons' and I would still go on using my name, even if someone said that was mean of me. Why? Because it's a ridiculous accusation, and you are a ridiculous person if you make such an accusation, or entertain it.

Now if I started calling myself '4 foot tall demons' that would obviously be different. It is entirely implausible that the 'baggage' is coincidental.

The point is that the sort of historical baggage you are talking about isn't relevant to the word or it's usage in context.

There is nothing to excuse.

That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage.

White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .

I believe strongly in freedom of speech. To allow assholes and bigots to reveal themselves.

I believe the movement to alter what words we’re allowed to say in our vocabulary is lead by educated mostly white “allies”. These people don’t speak for the underprivileged, they’re creating ways to feel better about themselves through self-policing because they don’t have any real idea about how to solve the issues that actually affect people.

Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692

It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all.

Its ok to have a master copy, it is desirable to master your soul, someone might be of high station and therefore a master. Etc. It is a useful word. We shouldn't aim to limit the range of expression or accuracy of our words.

That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage.

White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .

It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it.

And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word".

Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?

> Then I made the mistake of consuming "woke content" on reddit and Twitter and it affected me, after college those ideas limited me in ways I could only imagine.

Can you share more about this experience?

The "woke content" just lumps everybody in one big pile, categorizes everyone in order to validate a theory:

After living here for 15 years, I have realized the main narrative of the "black experience" "what is means to be black" is very Anglo-US-centric.

In college, I met a Jamaican guy, the culture shock was just as intense as when I met that girl from mongolia. Totally different cultures and customs. But on paper, in the USA , Me and that Jamaican guy were just Black.

I had more in common with the White French exchange student than with the Black-American kid from Virginia. To me: that black American kid and a white American kid were the same.

From an academical, political standpoint, Black has become synonymous with "African-American" Not just any "African-American", poor disenfranchised black Americans who are likely from the "ghetto". White means: some mean monster , who are controlling the world and are out to get everybody. So naturally I started to second guess how people acted around me.

Don't get me wrong racism is still alive and well I have experienced it in various forms:

* Prepaid for a meal at a fancy restaurant, the people before me just gave a name and grabbed their food, I was asked to show a receipt.

* Jogging in my neighborhood and having the police follow me around, almost like clockwork can't be a coincidence. (They became cool once they learned I lived there).

* Going out with my white coworkers in casual clothing vs going out with my siblings in casual clothing we have to dress extra fancy to get treated the same, otherwise we get poor service - The black guilt to tip extra at restaurants)

But: Most of the white people I've met were amazing, great people. That mean guy, is probably a jerk to everyone and just happens to be white.

There needs to be a balance, raise awareness about issues of society, but don't go to the extreme.

In my language: "The sky is blue, he is about to rain. I need to move my car otherwise she will get flooded"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com