Hacker News Reader

Comment by listless | Hacker News Reader

I’ve often heard the argument that we need to change all GitHub repos from master to main because master has etymological origins in the concept of slavery, and is therefore a racist term. But I’ve always heard this argument made by white people. I wonder what percentage of black people working in technology find the term so offensive that it should be changed in every context.

View on HN

It's virtue signaling. That use of "master" is just tiny compared to all other uses in history. "Master record", "master of science", "master artisan". Should conductors no longer be called maestros? It's dumb, and should be ridiculed, if not called out for the deliberate harm of detracting from the real issue of institutionalised racism. If you feel something should be done, this isn't it, and we shouldn't get to feel better by renaming a git branch.

> detracting from the real issue of institutionalised racism

that just gets you demonized too, for not falling in line 100%. any questioning of the narrative means you must be racist yourself

Please report about your experienced demonisation.

I've literally never seen/heard the phrase "virtue signaling" be used in a context that actually persuaded me to agree with the user of said phrase. It's just a magical shibboleth that is completely unprovable.

I find the use of that phrase to be a powerful argument for flipping the bozo bit.

I find the same thing for 'dog whistle'. When people tell you who they are, believe them except I can read their minds and this is their actual intent.

Believe what people tell me? No thank you; I was born at night but not last night. I prefer to observe what people do.

That's still "them telling you who they are".

Maybe because the most prominent virtue signalers today are not people, but corporations.

There's a significant difference when "master" being used in contrast to "slave", such as with PATA drives.

The term "master" as used in git is thought to be derived from master-slave terminology by way of it borrowing the term from bitkeeper:

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

Is there? Have the actual black people, with opinions representative of black population in general, suggested to eliminate master-slave metaphor from use, or are you just assuming it for them? The article is literally asking to stop doing this.

That's someone speculation whereas the actual individual who chose the term has said otherwise - https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441

At least until he was bullied enough on Twitter to take a more "maybe it was, maybe it wasnt- it was along time ago"-type of stance so folks would leave him alone about it.

I've been wondering for a while why, if

- master/slave terminology and

- statues of people who held what is today racist views

were actually a problem, why wouldn't they actually keep them around as examples.

I mean: we really want to remember Churchill, both because he lead Europe out of World War II but also because of the rest of what he did say and do; he is a very good example that people can do good things and still not be saints.

In the same way regarding master/slave setups it is good - I think - from time to time to be reminded about our past, and not only during black history month?

But of course, I'm neither leftist nor sociologist, I'm just someone who tries to make a difference.

They're doing it in the housing industry. "Master bedroom" is going away.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/realestate/master-bedroom...

L'oreal is stopping using the term "whitening" and "fair" in their products.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/business/loreal-removes-word-...

Don't forget "master/slave" used in general computing terms, beyond "git branches."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/technology/racist-compute...

It's happening in the wine industry.

> The Court of Master Sommeliers, which "sets the global standard of excellence for beverage service within the hospitality industry," will stop using the term "master sommelier."

We must purge those words from all of our vocabulary in all contexts, for they can only mean one thing.

Chess colors and the rules around them will probably change at some point. What's worse is that people will act like the prospect is utterly ridiculous while the idea is in its infancy. Then, after FIDE or some other Chess organization release a statement about planned changes, people's tune will change to "It's inconvenient but if it helps even one more Black person feel good about playing Chess then it was worth it".

I'm already starting to believe it. Do we really play a game with white and black pieces where white always goes first? Where black loses more games than white? Not everybody knows the history of Chess. To some new players, especially from less privileged groups, it may seem like just another example of leftover oppression. Even to those who know that the history of the colors predates white European enslavement of black Africans, it nonetheless serves as a painful reminder due to the meanings of those things in a modern context.

...the history of the colors predates slavery...

This is an interesting claim. My Bible has numerous instances of slavery, and none of chess.

When "slavery" is mentioned in this context (wrt. black/white), it's reasonable to assume the person means it predates the Atlantic slave trade, which was not the only form of slavery, but it was the largest (and most visible) form of slavery involving predominantly white people owning predominantly brown people.

I make no claim over the validity of "white going first" predating the Atlantic slave trade, however. I simply don't know.

Yes, thank you very much. Fixed.

White chess pieces are offensive, so we end up with black and brown chess pieces. /s

https://twitter.com/desiraethinking

You think it's a coincidence that Africans were dubbed "black"?

Because just like shaming the use of drinking straws, it’s a low effort (and in my view mostly inconsequential or even misguided) change that gives you a feeling of moral superiority.

Actual sacrifices are hard and uncomfortable. Who wants that?

> Actual sacrifices are hard and uncomfortable.

Can't we do both the hard and easy? Neither precludes the other. How are you helping by obstructing either?

> gives you a feeling of moral superiority

Can you give evidence of that being the motive? It's too easy to smear people with it. Maybe you are motivated by moral superiority, maybe I am.

> Can't we do both the hard and easy? Neither precludes the other. How are you helping by obstructing either?

Probably not? That would assume people have infinite time and energy, and unlimited political and social capital to urge other people and organizations to change, which I don't think is true

People do plenty of the easy things - people stop using single-use plastics, for example - and still work for the hard ones.

I think of many of those things are "tribal markers".

By publicly taking a stand for/against certain things, you show you're a loyal member of the Blue Tribe.

One important thing about that is that the weirder the stance is, the stronger the loyalty signal is.

Saying something borderline idiotic that the Tribe likes, shows you're ready to publicly humiliate yourself for the tribe, which earns extra credit.

I'm not at all saying this is the only thing in play here, but once you realize this is a "thing", it makes some crazy things seem less crazy.

And it's not like white people have never been enslaved; every person in the world is a product of slavery. The fact that your great grandfather from the year 1000 AD was a slave could very well have meant you were born to a difficult upbringing now. The fact that it's difficult to trace back that far does not mean it was monumentally important for your circumstances today.

People choose a starting point of history that is convenient for their narrative.

People choose a starting point that lets them be proud of the genocidal slave state they call home.

What do you think the implications are for being proud or not of the state?

Flag sales?

I think changing master/slave terminology is justified, but to me master branch suggests something like master key or master prints. That which is the superior and definitive example of the collection from which it comes.

see how quickly that slope gets slippery?

Shouldn’t universities rename master’s degree programs as well?

That comes from master/pupil

It is 2021 so context doesn't matter. Master can mean slave owner so it needs to change otherwise someone might be offended.

/sarcasm

I am fine replacing Master/Slave terminology where it shows up. I just think Master alone is fine just like Masters degree, Master craftsman, Master/Apprentice, Master of ceremonies, hell Master brand hand tools.

Master apprentice is the better analogy.

as once a branch is merged, it effectively becomes the master.

Not to mention that the timing of GitHub embracing the name change made it an oftly convenient distraction from all of the bad press they were getting about their contract with the Customs and Border Patrol.

Who wouldn't hop on that positive PR bandwagon in their position? /s

But I’ve always heard this argument made by white people.

Are you actively seeking a diverse range of people to listen to? The majority of prominent people in tech are white men, so it's not particularly likely you'll hear non-white people's opinions unless you actually seek them out.

You can consider the OP an attempt to solicit just such input

That is an important point. My mind too went in the direction of "this is just white people hiding their privilege in an offshore account." But then I realized that I hardly know any black people.

It's important to consider the complication that there are few black people in technology who you could ask. Inevitably, most people talking about Github are white.

My brother in law is black and in Tech, and not African American just straight up African. He doesn't have an issue with it.

One example of hearsay from someone somebody on a message board knows is not evidence, and it doesn't change my point: If people are talking about Github, they probably are white.

Well, that means nothing if only white dudes use Github.

The only twitter account I find worth voluntarily stepping into that pool, is this though:

https://twitter.com/desiraethinking

Of course linked to many others sharing similar opinions and free-thinking spirit, as opposed to political identity and bigotry.

Yes but you said that we should talk to someone who is black. I just said I did.

I didn't say that.

What percentage would be enough for you to support the change?

BTW, the argument isn't as simple as "because master has etymological origins in the concept of slavery" because "master" has many varied meanings (see https://www.etymonline.com/word/master ), the slavery one was not the first, and at most only a tiny fringe want to change terms like "master's degree" or "master mariner" to something else.

Black person here. Wrong question? I'd say, no, I mostly don't care. But also, don't use it as an excuse to shy away from discussion.

The noise about master branches is nothing because one day the woke types will discover the White House in DC.

Or any executive title that starts with "chief."

Master/journeyman/apprentice were the terms in the middle ages when your parents sold you to master as indentured labour for a 7 year term. I'm of the mind that that was a form of slavery.

Peter Grimes in the George Crabbe poem murders apprentices and get off Scot free until an eventual comeuppance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com