No one has a problem with the phrasing above when the context is understood.
Many more people of color have said that they're not offended by the terms and that this is an empty-headed change.
So, what we have is a group of people who mostly aren't black, who are mobbing up to demand this change. Does that sound accurate to you?
Do you think setting a precedent of giving into these peoples demands is a good idea?
When the pendulum swings the other way, after we’ve normalized the complete politicization of our day to day institutions, will we all be okay with potentially having an opposing political belief system forced upon us? Or do we need not think that far ahead?
No issue with that, except that people who don't are going to be accused of wrongthink, and may potentially lose their jobs or affect their careers.
Something I've noticed in my own writing is that the more I write the less likely it is to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. By that I mean, it would be easier to have a dialogue if I knew what connection you were drawing between people choosing to update their projects and my acceptance of terms of service. I can imagine many connections, but to respond to the connection you're making I'd need to know which one it is.
I have a problem with companies adopting extremist political policies in an effort to cater to a growing population of hostile young puritans who want to LARP as activists but lack any meaningful civil rights issue to worry about and have thus resolved to make up shitty, fake civil rights battles.
In order to not be considered “problematic” in this modern landscape we’re expected to play along with these shitty, fake civil rights battles. That’s a game I’m personally tired of playing and I think it ends when everyone, including its own vocal proponents, are burned by it.
I didn’t choose to get rid of the “master” repo, but now we’re changing terms. Literally the terms of service have changed.
To the "extremist" point, I have to say I really don't see it. Changing "master" to "main" doesn't seem like an extreme political position to me. Extreme would be someone murdering protesters, tweeting someone chanting "white power", or hanging black people from trees in Texas. Those are pretty easy things to not want in your society. The same with people setting businesses on fire or brandishing weapons in public. But I don't see how someone trying to reduce their harm externalities by changing words is particularly extreme.
This may come down to the difference between the ideas and the people holding the ideas. I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea. I think we can both agree that we wouldn't want people harassing each other for either making or not making this change, as anyone should be free to make whichever decision they feel is right. To the extent that the "left" is the cause of the harassment, I can agree I'd rather those people deal with this more calmly. But again, they're not the ones murdering people.
No, what I’m saying is it’s a game, it seems you are trying to play it right now, and I’m saying I reject it.
I don't really care about what political side you're on (I'm an independent), I don't even really care about the git repo thing (people can choose whatever they want, it doesn't really affect me) but your claim of what is "extreme" is quite frankly not reasonable.
-cough- pro-choice movement -cough-
(For the record, I am pro-choice.)
Not a thing that is happening
To me it's not even clear what "problematic" means. I understand problems, I understand solutions, I can understand explanations of how one relates to another, but problematic... Not obvious at all.
I think the difference is you chose words more emotionally charged, which isn't the point here.
The nice thing about a large vocabulary of both positive and negative words is that it's possible to use words that actually fit the context.
Would you be empathetic and spend three seconds renaming it or fight them tooth and nail on principle?
Why would people so strongly resist practicing some pre-emptive effortless empathy toward people who have gone through similar things related to a small handful of specific words?
However I am opposed to blanket changes like the one in this article not because of the wording itself but because the change is coming from the PR department as opposed to any actual minorities that might be offended by these words.
2. I’ve met plenty of people who felt uncomfortable about specific jokes being made, words being used and did not feel comfortable for speaking out for various reasons. In at least one case the person explained that it took years before they were able to make the transition from feeling demeaned by a term and being able to understand and articulate exactly why it was demeaning.
We can be proactive and emphatic. There’s no good reason people have to be so insanely motivated to fight against something that barely has any effect on their life but that might improve things for others.
I'd change it. Why do you ask?
> pre-emptive effortless empathy
Because the world is filled with negativity, and our language changes to refect the world: if we kept dropping every word that gained a negative connotation, within a few generations we'd be left with nothing but a child's vocabulary - if that.