1. Whose opinions count on the issue? Just Christians? All women?
2. Do we take them any less seriously if the motivation seems vaguely political?
I really do understand setting the bar low when everybody is arguing in good-faith. But on anything political, I think it's pretty much a stalemate and we have to recognize there's almost no overlap.
It's very obnoxious when as a real world person with a real world request, I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."
I am descended in part from African slaves. I work in tech. I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society. All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS, and that also makes me sure that the diversity issues in tech are not just a pipeline issue, it's an issue of this work environment not being welcoming to people with different backgrounds. All of these issues are additive - few people want to enter a pipeline for hostile working environment in the end, and those that did have to endure constant bullshit in order to be retained.
Efforts to use more inclusive language aren't going to fix nearly any of the big problems, but it is very, very nice to see /any/ effort here, given the history of none at all. Seeing the effort makes these space more bearable, and in my estimation that justifies the very, very minimal cost of committing to trying to use inclusive language going forward (as a software engineer I'm not keen on renames for renames sake, but we're not talking about renames anywhere - we're talking about preferring inclusive names for new things). Likewise it's disheartening to see how many white folks want to proclaim that there are no diversity and inclusion issues in tech.
I'd be quite content to concede renaming master/slave in the linux kernel if that was the end of it. I think what I want to fight against most is the amount of distraction/canceling/fear involved in ever-changing semantic rules. The reason people like me get very hesitant to concede any ground is for fear it would empower even more fear of job security at work (over constantly changing correctness rules).
So you can understand where I'm coming from:
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and if some places do it, then all places will feel pressure to do it, and be called out on twitter if they don't, and create a huge amount of distraction from actually building good products for the customer
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that more words might be included (class, caste, abort, kill, black, white, race, male port, female port, dongle)
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that these words in other contexts won't be allowed (mastery, pop culture Britney Spear's Slave4U song, BDSM, Master's ranks in videogames)
(I've seen this in my own lifetime with the word "retard," which used to be the most correct medical term for certain mental deficiencies, and due to a constantly shifting correctness window is now basically worse than "Fuck.")
Now traditionally "slippery slope" is sometimes considered a philosophical fallacy. But perhaps you can say, if the momentum kept going would you be against it? Because if that train didn't stop, I think all the consequences I listed would be much too high a price to pay.
So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
If there are others who are suffering who want to advocate for ways to improve our language to reduce the unintended harm it has, they're of course welcome to.
Also c'mon this slippery slope argument sounds like this to me: "Where does it stop? Will people object to every word and I'll be forced to express myself just through grunts? What if they then come for my grunts? Therefore I should continue to call things whatever I want because slippery slope."
Where does it stop? It stops when people stop pushing.
If you want to help american black people prosper you're looking too far back in the past.
> So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
Why reparations based on race? Why not just help the poor and downtrodden regardless of race?
You're promoting race-conciousness. You know where that ends? White conciousness and white nationalism. If you (not "you" as in dannyphg) lump people together as a group and attacks them and says they need to give you stuff, those people will start banding together and fighting back. I cannot emphasize enough how much race wars fucking suck. Even the ones just fought with votes and preferential treatment for your own tribe suck.
Definitely not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is every time we take a safe word and make it a "bad" word we sweep up a lot of people along the way, most of whom in my experience aren't really bad people, they're usually just stubborn, caught unawares, a standup comedian, or taken out of context.
Maybe these language changes should have a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice.
I think my other question isn't just where it stops, but when it stops. Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever? Because if the answer is "no" then I'm probably not able to side with this change-the-language movement as a good use of our limited political energy.
The current narrative is that tech industry inherited the dominant white supremacist culture. (To be specific, "master/slave" entered as a tech term in the 1950s there was wide support by whites for the existing laws enforcing white supremacy)
As such, the term was "safe" because those who used it - white people in tech - were also nearly always those people who gain from the underlying dynamics of white supremacy.
Another narrative comes from "Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature" by Ron Eglash" available from https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 :
> ... being unconscious of social mores was a good sign for a future physicist, because physics transcends culture. Perhaps this kind of emphasis on a technical identity is at work here, too, and the master-slave metaphor is attractive to engineers because its free use “proves” that they inhabit a nonsocial or culture-free realm, which is a matter of professional pride
There are other certainly other narratives, which is why I'm asking why you think it was a safe word, even when others do not, and have not for years.
Note that Eglash's paper quotes a Black researcher who had problems with that term back in 1992.
To re-ask your earlier question, whose opinions count on the issue of why a term is "safe"?
You mentioned "a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice".
The "notifications" started well more than 5 years ago. Even here on HN, Django changed 6 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7801646 .
Drupal changed its terminology 12 years ago, which lead to discussion 6.5 years ago here at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6826918 .
The earliest discussion on the topic was 11 years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466188 .
When would you consider that proper notice has been sent?
Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.
Why use your limited political energy to, e.g., construct hypotheticals against language change when language always changes?
This has connections with the right of a particular group of people to decide how their group gets named. Wikipedia indicates that "black" was once considered the offensive term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro#United_States . However, most black people today prefer either the term black, or for some Americans, African-American.
This is similar to the issue of whether it's ok to use master/slave to relationships between people, but not whether the usage in tech relates to people or is unacceptable because it parallels historical relationships with groups that in the United States were seperated by race
Once upon a time it was "safe" to use a number of terms which are no longer safe. I pointed out that some of reasons to oppose the change used similar arguments to what zug_zug used.
You are right - "Negro" is an example of a label that a group decides for itself, and not a good example to bring up. So I'll use two other examples.
Consider "boy". This was a form of infantilization used to remind adult black men that the were junior citizens at best. Civil rights protestors in the 1960s wore signs "I am a man", in opposition to this racist label. But before then, it was safe to call black men a "boy" because if the man were to oppose that use, he would risk being physically attacked and losing his job.
Going back a few decades, white passengers called all black porters "George", after George Pullman - a racial slur that was one of the reasons which lead the porters to unionize. But early on, it was "safe" to call your porter George.
In both cases, I don't doubt there were people who argued against the language change by asking "Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever?" Which leads me to conclude that isn't a strong argument.
(See https://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/understanding-why-you... for a further treatment of both examples.)
zug_zug suggested that it was once "safe" to use the term "master/slave". With those examples in mind, what does "safe" mean? Was it that those bothered or affected by the term have had little power to change things or even speak out until now?
zug_zug elsewhere posed a hypothetical question asking who gets to decide if something is offensive. I turned it around to ask who gets to decide if something is "safe."
Regarding your last paragraph, it also parallels historical relationships with groups elsewhere, as the current discussion of removing statues of South American "heroes" who were also slavers and leaders of genocide shows. South Americans whose ancestors were routinely oppressed via slave culture and white (or white-er) supremacy have little voice in this discussion, but shouldn't be forgotten.
Can't we devise a general set of principles on which we can base decisions to remove words and metaphors from our professions and culture? "Let's deal with it then" sounds like it leads more to reflexive responses to loud voices (for or against) instead of thoughtful, collective, consideration. If principles can be agreed upon in the abstract, without the emotional baggage of specific words for any side, they can be applied and even if one don't like a specific outcome, one can recognize that it's fair.
I'm totally on board with discarding the "master/slave" metaphors in tech, they bring up unwelcome reminders of something much more serious an terrible, especially for people because of the ancestry and/or because of feelings about their role within modern systems.
I have more of a problem with removal of the word "master" on its own; "master" has many different meanings and uses unrelated to American slavery or other systems of oppression.
My biggest problem is with claiming removing "blacklist/whitelist" is an act against systemic racism. "Blacklist" is not a racial term and "whitelist" was only an obvious choice for the opposite of "blacklist" when one was needed. Black and white dualism [0], associating black with bad and white with good, long predates any use of those terms towards groups of people and continues to do so today. It's unfortunate that these particular words are so overloaded; it would be better if "white" and "black" were no longer used to refer to people but there's little interest in that and I know of no good alternatives.
Have you considered whether you might just be sensitive and these micro-aggressions might just be the normal give and take of working in an office environment? With nothing racial about them?
> All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS
I would be very surprised if you find a less racist job than in the tech industry. Big tech caters way more for minorities than most of the other industries.
This topic has appeared many times on HN. At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23763739 I quote and link to several earlier real-world examples.
I think those examples show that the spectrum is NOT "offensiveness of words". I see it as one of workplace hostility, quite in line with existing civil rights laws, and within a reasonable existing legal framework. As such, I don't think your #1 or #2 have much bearing at all.
Here's a real-world event from May 2003, at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/ :
> a black employee of the county’s Probation Department filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance after spotting “master” and “slave” labels on a videotape machine, whereupon the Internal Services Department was obligated to issue notification requesting that vendors refrain from using the master/slave terminology.
To answer your #1, as an affirmative action topic, the opinion which counts is the relevant court which judges violations of civil rights laws or, in the L.A. case, the opinion of the administrative department overseeing civil rights enforcement.
Your hypothetical isn't structured as an affirmative action issue. Presumably the 5 people feel its insensitive because they are against abortion. In the US, most Christians, most women, and most men support abortion rights, so it's tough to see how being a Christian or woman is at all relevant as the protected class.
It's certainly possible to refine your hypothetical, but I still don't see how it would ever fit under civil rights laws anywhere near as well as "master/slave" does.
FWIW, if you are working for a small evangelical Christian anti-abortion organization, and you use "abort" as the name of the method to cancel a meeting, then yes, you should change it. There are better names for the metaphor you are trying to describe, and generally the only answer to "whose opinions count" is "the ones who can fire you", or more broadly, negatively affect your job.
Their opinions in turn are often based on sales and PR. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of white supremacy, colonialism, and tragic horror, then go ahead. If it makes sense to their customers to continue using terminology evocative of women's rights, then go ahead. If no one cares, then they won't do anything.
There's been over a decade of raising awareness of issues with "master/slave" terminology, and many people now care. That hasn't existed with "abort". Given the number of groups actively removing the "master/slave" term, I don't see how you can call it a "stalemate" - the abolitionists are winning yet again. And rightly so.
Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.