Hi, I support this change and I don't consider myself a spineless sunflower, nor am I offended on behalf of anyone else.
Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past [2].
Who controls the narrative, controls the present.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-...
It's fine that you believe this, but other people don't agree. Other people believe that the historically racist connotation of "master" in the context of establishing a hierarchical relationship is real, acute, and powerful, especially in the zeitgeist. Other people experience the term "master" in this context as a reminder of that historical (and sometimes not so historical!) racism, which can be painful. Or they experience it as an example of how systemic, institutional racism can persist in extremely small and subtle ways. Or both!
I don't think that people who believe these things are believing them in bad faith, or that they're claiming these things for ulterior motives. I think they're being honest when they say they're pained, and I find the arguments about perpetuating systemic racism plausible. So I think it's completely reasonable to use a different word where we can. I think it reduces suffering in the world, and I think that's the best goal that there is.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/master
> In the broadest sense, "one who has power to control, use, or dispose (of something or some quality) at will," from mid-14c. Also from mid-14c. as "one who employs another or others in his service" (in which sense the correlative word was servant, man, or apprentice); also "owner of a living creature" (dog, horse), also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
This bit feels like it has a strong connection to racism.
> also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
> since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation
"Nothing, absolutely nothing". "normal words without any racial connotation". That's untrue, isn't it? Perhaps you just need a better dictionary.
https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st
> master noun 1 someone especially a man, who commands or controls. 2 the owner, especially a male owner, of a dog, slave, etc.
Now take the word 'port'. What does it mean?
- when you're on a ship it means the place where the ship goes to load and offload goods and people...
- ...except for when you're on the bridge in the middle of the ocean and the captain tells you to turn to port in which case it means 'turn to the left'...
- ...unless you're in the engine room talking to an engineer who says the cooling water port seems to be clogged for in that case it means the hole in the side of the ship through which water is taken in for cooling the engine...
- ...or you're in the radio room where the operator just plugged a network cable into the ethernet port on the satellite comms transceiver...
- Then again, when you're in the liquor store it indicates a fortified type of wine...
- ...however, when you're at an alcoholics anonymous meating people might take offence at you bandying this word around since their port wine habit nearly cost them their lives.
Does the offence taken by alcoholics mean the captain, helmsman, engineer and network technician need to find different words for their ship-haven, left-side-when-facing-forward, water-entry-hole and network-socket?
Of course not, don't you agree?
Sorry for being unclear. I'm not offended, either. But (see my reply to sibling comment) I find the arguments that the term can be seen as offensive, and that it perpetuates a (small! subtle! but real!) form of systemic racism, essentially plausible, and I'm sympathetic to them.
If anything, they’re students that may eventually exceed the capabilities of their master. Much like the apprentice Luke Skywalker and master Yoda.
If it does offend then by all means, make it happen, I’m just not entirely convinced.
My only thing with the change was make sure we had proper nomenclature.
Care to link to one in any of these threads here, on Twitter or reddit that made sense to you?
IMO, remove that entry in the dictionary if you don't like it and stop schools from teaching the historical context of it. Then, after only a few years kids who have never heard the term in terms of slavery will never know and have no reason to be offended by a word.
Judging by the responses everywhere, you're in the extreme minority if you think this word is a problem. The word is not going away, even if removed from some niche space such as GitHub. As a matter of fact, I'm going to double down on using it so that I can easily identify people who I'd never want to have a working relation with if they get offended.
But a group of people said they were, and it was no skin off my nose to make life easier for them. Their explanation made total sense to me so I took it as a learning experience to see the world through someone else’s eyes instead of “doubling down” which is pretty alarming behavior tbh.
On the word itself, “someone who has enslaved another human” doesn’t have to be the only definition, but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US). It probably doesn’t mean anything at all to most people, that’s okay. I don’t think they are racists or anything like that if the oppose this change.
Looking back, I couched my response in terms of "if you are offended by the word, then..." and I don't think I directly indicated that I thought you were offended. To be honest, I don't think the people who even kicked this off at GitHub are offended. They're just trying to do something.
There already is skin off your nose with this change though. First, because you're already here having to waste your attention on defending it. Second, because if Git and other tools surrounding GitHub don't change then there will be constant friction. (e.g. What now happens if you init a repo on your PC and push to GitHub with the default `master` branch? That's my exact workflow.) Third, if you have to do the work yourself to change it on your own projects. Fourth, because if you don't cover your ass 100% you'll potentially be targeted by this witch hunt.
Maybe you don't mind one or two of those situations, but I doubt you would all of them.
> ...but without a doubt it is one of its definitions (and one of the important ones in the history of the US).
I don't know what that means. Ideas are important. Words are constantly changing by meaning and usage and they're really only as important as a person allows them to be. In my opinion, assigning power or importance to inanimate things is folly. Power lies in controlling how you react to things. Philosophically it has been said that the only thing you can truly change in this world is how you react to things.
At the end of the day, this is a GitHub company decision. I can't do anything about it other than exploring my thoughts and talking about it. If GitHub starts harassing me over not changing my branch names though, I'll leave the platform in a heartbeat.