Extremists have taken accepted standard terminology completely out of context and interpreted it in the worst possible way, using it as a weapon to turn STEM into an environment where (often fabricated!) emotions triumph over rational thought.
One might say that this "inclusiveness" has also lead to the inclusion of idiots.
It really hurts me as an educator, because of course we need to adopt the updated wording because we are sensitive to the changing times and morals, but we also need to make sure that students are aware of the old terms so that they are not unduly confused when they get into the real world, because out there, you're going to find a lot of legacy code and legacy documentation, and most importantly, legacy people like me. At fifty years of age and never much for PC terminology, I am having difficulty adjusting my vocabulary to the "new normal" particularly some things which had come so naturally, such as pronouning people I don't know. I am just thankful that I don't work over real-time video, so I can adjust and correct my writing if I slip up.
Master and slave are just words, sequences of letters, the meaning is in peoples heads and may be context dependent. Never in my life have I thought of slavery when I had to deal with those words in a technical context. I mean, I get the intention, if we would coin those terms today, then we would surely pick terms without this historical burden. But now that those terms have been widely used for a long time, trying to change language in countless standards, books, code bases, peoples heads, ... that just does not seem quite reasonable.
Here's how I think of it: would it be acceptable today, in 2023, to write a book or produce a film that depicts slavery, and has characters who are slave masters and slaves? I would hope it's acceptable, stipulating a sensitive depiction, because masters and slaves are part of reality, they are part of history (and they are still current and happening in our world today).
So if fictional masters and slaves are okay, then what are routers running OSPF? They're not human, and I hope nobody wants to anthropomorphize them so much that they could feel pain, or know injustice. So a router's master/slave relationship is strictly a technical fiction. Is it the best description of the relationship? Is it better than "leader/follower"? Perhaps; I know several other systems that qualify.
Does this trigger African-Americans today who never were slaves? Perhaps.
I'm just not sure of the wisdom to paper over history, to paper over reality, by saying these words are taboo because of what they represent, indeed, in a certain human context of usage.
I could argue that if we're prohibited from depicting masters and slaves in books, films, and OSPF, then people will more easily forget what it means to be a slave, and thereby be condemned to repeat the past which they do not remember. Perhaps it would be more useful to retain "master/slave" relationships among computers, so that we can demonstrate how that works to our children, and show them why it is detestable to human beings.
> But now that those terms have been widely used for a long time, trying to change language in countless standards, books, code bases, peoples heads, ... that just does not seem quite reasonable
You know that there are other terms which have been widely used for a long time that we have successfully changed (most) people's minds about using? It is entirely reasonable to do.
userbinator|2 years ago
One might say that this "inclusiveness" has also lead to the inclusion of idiots.
NoZebra120vClip|2 years ago
danbruc|2 years ago
NoZebra120vClip|2 years ago
So if fictional masters and slaves are okay, then what are routers running OSPF? They're not human, and I hope nobody wants to anthropomorphize them so much that they could feel pain, or know injustice. So a router's master/slave relationship is strictly a technical fiction. Is it the best description of the relationship? Is it better than "leader/follower"? Perhaps; I know several other systems that qualify.
Does this trigger African-Americans today who never were slaves? Perhaps.
I'm just not sure of the wisdom to paper over history, to paper over reality, by saying these words are taboo because of what they represent, indeed, in a certain human context of usage.
I could argue that if we're prohibited from depicting masters and slaves in books, films, and OSPF, then people will more easily forget what it means to be a slave, and thereby be condemned to repeat the past which they do not remember. Perhaps it would be more useful to retain "master/slave" relationships among computers, so that we can demonstrate how that works to our children, and show them why it is detestable to human beings.
zimpenfish|2 years ago
You know that there are other terms which have been widely used for a long time that we have successfully changed (most) people's minds about using? It is entirely reasonable to do.