[zug_zug]

Just to flesh this out a little, suppose my work has 5 Christians, and they all feel "abort" is an insensitive term?

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.

[dannypgh]

These hypothetical scenarios don't "flesh anything out a little," they distract from the real world in front of us.

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.

[zug_zug]

I get that.

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.

[extra88]

> 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."

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism

[concordDance]

> 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.

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.

[eesmith]

I don't think we should consider weak hypotheticals like yours when we have real-world examples of issues related to "master/slave", including at least one civil rights complaint against the use of the terminology.

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.

[SambalOelek]

Interesting point. I don't think the word "abort" evokes the entire loss of a culture due to systematic genocide of ancestors, but that's just me.

[Dylan16807]

You could try to word that in a less flippantly biased way.

Slavery doesn't imply genocide, and a whole lot of people would argue that abortion is worse than loss of culture.

[_-david-_]

I have seen some estimates that say there would over 35% more blacks in the US if they wasn't abortion. Maybe genocide isn't the correct word but the effects are the same.