+ master
+ slave
+ blacklist
+ whitelist
+ grandfather
+ brown bag
+ manpower
+ hijack
+ kill
The list goes on (and on) and I have not transcribed even a portion of it.
https://itconnect.uw.edu/work/inclusive-language-guide/
https://blog.ongig.com/writing-job-descriptions/a-list-of-of...
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!
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".
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.
White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
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.
Can you share more about this experience?
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"
Can somebody please be clear on how ACTUAL PROBLEMS suffered by the disavantaged are solved by wordplay? Words don't cure poverty. Words don't reverse socioeconomic trends. Words don't give opportunity, cure abuses, change what our ancestors went through.
To me it looks very much like signalling, with no real effort.
Problem words: lower the bar
Suggested Alternatives: simplify, inclusive, make more accessible
My first introduction to the term was in the first chapter of SICP and it speaks positively about abstraction.
Also, I'm still not sure why cultural appropriation is actually considered bad.
Anecdata for sure, but I remember one time my cousin (who is of my same culture) excitedly tell us about how in another country (in another continent), a singer from our country was quite famous and they listened to his songs and even sometimes wore clothing from our country. It seems like our cuisine is popular there too. And all of us thought it was very cool!
quote from the link: Definition:
A “cakewalk” is an easy victory or task. “Takes the cake” means to win the prize or to rank first.
Why it’s problematic:
The cakewalk was a pre-Civil War dance performed by enslaved people, and the winner of which would be given a cake. This is the original source for the phrases “takes the cake” and “cakewalk.” Because of this history, this word and phrase should be avoided.
What do you call your dad's dad then?
A “grandfather” clause, “grandfather” policy or “grandfathering” in IT s a provision in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations while a new rule will apply to all future cases. Those exempt from the new rule are said to have grandfather rights, acquired rights, or to have been grandfathered in.
Why it’s problematic:
“Grandfathering” or “grandfather clause” was used as a way to exempt some people from a change because of conditions that existed before the change (e.g., we’ve grandfathered some users on an unlimited data plan.”) “Grandfather clause” originated in the American South in the 1890s as a way to defy the 15th Amendment and prevent black Americans from voting.
> Brown bags trace back to the “brown paper bag test,” which was traditionally used to judge skin color by certain African-American sororities and fraternities. References to a “brown bag” when we are really referencing a get-together over lunch surfaces an ugly period of American history that can alienate and offend people.
> (no can do) What might seem like a folksy, abbreviated version of “I can’t do it” is actually an imitation of Chinese Pidgin English. The phrase dates from the mid-nineteenth to early-twentieth centuries, an era when Western attitudes towards the Chinese were markedly racist.
> Using the word “pow wow” is cultural misappropriation, and ultimately racist.
> Referring to something as your spirit animal is cultural appropriation.
Some of these are pretty wild.
Therefore, by not using these words, you're reminded of the context. Any time somebody notices you substituting a phrase and they know why, they will be reminded of the context.
Like all self-censorship, it immerses the speaker in the truth while they trip overthemselves trying not to say that thing.
It's like saying, "Don't think about elephants." Now everybody is thinking about it.
About the elephant in the room you mean?
Some of this feels like someone tried really hard to find problems that didn’t exist and fix them.
That's how a lot of people feel about master/slave and black/white.
You have the word "master". It has at least two meanings in standard English and an additional one for technical jargon. Let's call these concepts owner/slave, expert/apprentice, and primary/secondary.
Even though owner/slave and primary/secondary are different concepts, the technical jargon makes the unfortunate reference the owner/slave meaning because of the use of the word "slave". It's difficult to defense the use of master/slave in this context.
The master in the expert/apprentice concept could be called leader, expert, or teacher and no one would have a problem with that.
This distinction is where people start getting upset.
I'd argue most technical people didn't even give a second thought to master/slave and for them they never considered it to be anything other than primary/secondary because owner/slave is no longer common use and hasn't been for a while. Besides, US Civil War was more than 150 years ago! Who gives a shit?
Well... people do because the effects of that war still affect our society and no one agrees on how to fix it. Removing problematic phrasing from our language as part of that makes sense. No one agrees on that either.
You can call your grandfather like you wish. You can also call stuff black.