Exactly, all the more reason to move on from using that language. I'm glad you get it.
Absolutely not.
The only link between them are as words written in your post.
https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/education/professional-lea...
Demanding that certain words are banned is not moving on, it's being perpetually stuck in a victim's mentality.
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
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".