'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts

[PlainName]

The offender, for eir part, should stop offending as soon as ey realizes that the amount of pain eir actions cause is greater than the amount of annoyance it would take to avoid the offending action, even if ey can't understand why it would cause any pain at all. If ey wishes, ey may choose to apologize even though no apology was demanded.

I am completely failing to see what was wrong with using 'they' or 'their' in that.

[magic]

Ze used 'ey' and 'eir' because ze believes in rationalism and 'they' is a plural pronoun so using it would be a syntax error. I believe ze later switched to 'ze' and 'zeir' and untimately gave up and started using 'they' when everybody else did it.

[Nominal Animal]

I tried to find what you were talking about - is that the thing you wrote on laws around street prostitution causing worse human trafficking (slavery) a few pages back?

That was the most recent example from Finland.  The problem is not technical, but political: because the politicians find the topic offensive, and it's not their constituents or own children that are being trafficked, they find it easier to just vote to table the issue than think about it.

because I don't see how changing some words around communication between inanimate objects is at all an even remotely analogous thing.

It is the exact same thing.  By labeling the terms themselves offensive, you eliminate any discussion about them.

How much does banning "master" and "slave" help the around ten million humans in slavery right now?
Oh, I see; this is not intended to help them, just to make sure that people in Western countries do not need to think about slavery, because the entire concept offends them.  Gotcha.

I'm pretty sure most people talking about changing the words master and slave in technical contexts are fine for you to use slavery terms to describe actual slavery.

You'd be wrong; that's the thing.

"Master" and "slave" are technical terms that describe a relationship.  They are not intrinsic to human slavery, and are ubiquitous in current technology, information science, and software engineering.  To insist that their use in a technical context is offensive, is to insist that nobody mention slavery except in an inoffensive manner.

[PlainName]

'they' is a plural pronoun

From the ODE:

2. [singular] used to refer to a person of unspecified gender: ask a friend if they could help.

and

usage: The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified gender has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either gender came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. In a more recent development, they is now being used to refer to specific individuals (as in Alex is bringing their laptop). Like the gender-neutral honorific Mx1, the singular they is preferred by some individuals who identify as neither male nor female. See also usage at he and she.

[tggzzz]

Of course somebody will always bring up the damn Shakespeare.

Er. No. That was a couple of centuries before Shakespeare started writing plays.

Doesn't matter. It wasn't common in recent times, or wasn't nearly as common.
I don't recall ever seeing it on Slashdot, for example, and I was reading it for most of the 2000s.
I mean common everyday usage, not some ultraliberal nerds discussing politics on some message board somewhere.
Usenet is not Internet too, I have never been there either, but fair enough, that hits close.

Again, you show your ignorance.

Usenet was not and is not a BBS. For a couple of decades it was the primary way people interacted technically, socially, politically, religiously, etc etc on the internet. Many common aspects of current everyday web-based experiences originated there; viruses, spam and porn being probably the worst examples.

The social aspects have long since migrated to farcebook and twatter and similar; good riddance!

The technical aspects have, to some extent, remained. There are a few groups left with extremely detailed expert conversations that make EEVBlog Forum look like kindergarten. Examples include Win Hill, of TAoE fame, and the architects of several important processors and languages.

By the way, I tracked down a sample of one (among many) pioneering efforts in this latest wave of gender neutrality, straight from 2011:
....

Pioneering my foot.

Again you show your ignorance.

[tggzzz]

'they' is a plural pronoun

From the ODE:

2. [singular] used to refer to a person of unspecified gender: ask a friend if they could help.

and

usage: The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified gender has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either gender came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. In a more recent development, they is now being used to refer to specific individuals (as in Alex is bringing their laptop). Like the gender-neutral honorific Mx1, the singular they is preferred by some individuals who identify as neither male nor female. See also usage at he and she.

I rather doubt that will convince "magic"; he'll invent another reason why that isn't the case.

Curiously the usenet proponents of "hir" and similar could never be persuaded that "their" was a commonplace existing word with precisely the meaning they wanted!

[EEVblog]

Cite one example of where someone has used master/slave in a technical document context to "bully other people"
And even if you could cite a few examples, is that a reason to abandon a standard industry term that has been used and taught for generations?

So do you want one or not? It sounds like there's not much point from your following sentence. Which also seems very much like an appeal to tradition.

Sure, post away. Seriously. You are the one defending this nonsense change, so if you want others to get on board and join you then you need to convince us it's a problem that needs to be solved.
And it's an appeal to practically and statistics, but yes tradition matters, consistency in technology terms and units and others things matters a lot. Vastly more so than so obscure example you might have of someone being "bullied" by the use of the terms.
Even if you posted 10 clear cut examples, do you realise what a nothing-burger that is in the scheme of generations of use of the terms in the industry.
So my point stands.

[coppice]

'they' is a plural pronoun

From the ODE:

2. [singular] used to refer to a person of unspecified gender: ask a friend if they could help.

We all use "they" as a singular without even thinking about it. The problem is the word flows well in some contexts, and poorly in others. When it flows well, as in the ODE example above, we don't even think about it. When it doesn't flow well we baulk at it.

[GlennSprigg]

Oh, and I'm pretty sure this thread is going to go off the rail if it hasn't done so already, so please keep it fairly on-topic. No obvious segues into BLM etc please.

Than shut the whole thread down, instead of just liking 'your' posts!

Or how about I just go through all 22 pages and delete any inflammatory off-topic stuff?

(Yes Dave, this reply is PAGES deep & Old...  )
I don't mind people digressing, as 'you' must be tolerant too when 'original' posts seem to vary
so much, either side of the proverbial 'tracks', and become racial/political. (Generally a no-no here!).
My 'Miftness' back then, was after some Admin person deleted my comment, when all I was doing was
'replying' (quoting) someone else's video/comment, which I thought needed clarification, in support of
people in such a horrible situation.  However, only 'I' was blocked/deleted, over the prior 22+ pages?? 
To be honest, I'm really surprised this Post has survived as long as it has!! 
Keep up your generally good work though, Dave...   

[tggzzz]

Cite one example of where someone has used master/slave in a technical document context to "bully other people"
And even if you could cite a few examples, is that a reason to abandon a standard industry term that has been used and taught for generations?

So do you want one or not? It sounds like there's not much point from your following sentence. Which also seems very much like an appeal to tradition.

Sure, post away. Seriously. You are he one defending this nonsense change, so you want others to get on board and join you then you need to convince us it's a problem that needs to be solved.
And it's an appeal to practically and statistics, but yes tradition matters, consistently in technology terms and units and others things matters a lot. Vastly more so than so obscure example you might have of someone being "bullied" by the use of the terms.
Even if you posted 10 clear cut examples, do you realise what a nothing-burger that is in the scheme of generations of use of the terms in the industry.
So my point stands.

There is a parallel phenomenon in the tech industry, especially the software industry, but also electronics. It too is annoying, partly because it wastes people's time. The technique is simple and beloved of marketeers, and to a lesser extent technical people that are ignorant or seeking to advance their careers.

What is it? Simply to give an old technique a new name, so that people are either

• bamboozled into thinking there is an advance, or
• have to waste their time verifying that there isn't an advance - and then convince the bamboozled that there isn't actually a silver bullet

Me irritated? Yes, most definitely!

[Zero999]

Personally speaking, I don't care that much one way or another. The idea of changing terms because a small minority find them offensive, for no justifiable reason or they think it'll make the world a better place, is daft, but I also doubt it'll result in the slippery slope many fear. If an organisation feels that changing such terms will result in good public relations, then good for them and if someone is paid good money to go through documentation, changing them, again good for them.

Admittedly it does annoy me when wimpy babies get offended by stilly things, but sometimes it's not worth the fight. Choose your battles wisely.

[coppice]

There is a parallel phenomenon in the tech industry, especially the software industry, but also electronics. It too is annoying, partly because it wastes people's time. The technique is simple and beloved of marketeers, and to a lesser extent technical people that are ignorant or seeking to advance their careers.

What is it? Simply to give an old technique a new name, so that people are either

• bamboozled into thinking there is an advance, or
• have to waste their time verifying that there isn't an advance - and then convince the bamboozled that there isn't actually a silver bullet

Me irritated? Yes, most definitely!

I am amused when young engineers try to insist that something that was common in the past "couldn't possibly have been done", even when you show them pictures of actual equipment doing it.

[magic]

Again, you show your ignorance.

Usenet was not and is not a BBS. For a couple of decades it was the primary way people interacted technically, socially, politically, religiously, etc etc on the internet.

And you have latched onto that most irrelevant BBS nitpick while completely ignoring my primary point: you were all a small bunch of nerds. This is not representative of common language. Show me some newspaper articles from those times if you must. At least declare that such a thing existed.

Besides, you said they pushed for 'hir' as a replacement for 'his/her' rather than 'their'

You will never convince me that I haven't seen a massive growth of singular they in the last few years because I have seen just that. You may convince me that it was more common than I think, perhaps particularly in Britain, but by pointing out examples of such language from late 20th century rather than arguing about technicalities of Usenet.

Curiously the usenet proponents of "hir" and similar could never be persuaded that "their" was a commonplace existing word with precisely the meaning they wanted!

Maybe it wasn't
I repeat: in the 2000s I was most often seeing 'he' being the "default" pronoun. This changed massively in the last few years, under pressure of offended feminists who were posting whole rants about how sexist it is. Then LGBT joined in with their "actually, it isn't true that there are only men and women".

By the way, I tracked down a sample of one (among many) pioneering efforts in this latest wave of gender neutrality, straight from 2011:
....

Pioneering my foot.

Pioneering the latest wave I said. Usenet is irrelevant. I bet most of the SJWs who successfully campaign for all the current language reforms have never heard of it.

[tggzzz]

Again, you show your ignorance.

Usenet was not and is not a BBS. For a couple of decades it was the primary way people interacted technically, socially, politically, religiously, etc etc on the internet.

And you have latched onto that most irrelevant BBS nitpick while completely ignoring my primary point: you were all a small bunch of nerds. This is not representative of common language. Show me some newspaper articles from those times if you must. At least declare that such a thing existed.

I don't need to; that information is already completely explicit in the standard English dictionary, i.e. the OED.

That was pointed out by dunkemhigh in this post earlier in the thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/master-and-slave-tech-terms-face-scrutiny-amid-anti-racism-efforts/msg3102342/#msg3102342

Besides, you said they pushed for 'hir' as a replacement for 'his/her' rather than 'their'

You will never convince me that I haven't seen a massive growth of singular they in the last few years because I have seen just that. You may convince me that it was more common than I think, perhaps particularly in Britain, but by pointing out examples of such language from late 20th century rather than arguing about technicalities of Usenet.

You sound exactly like those usenet proponents pushing their gender neutral words. They too refused on principle to believe things they didn't want to believe

By the way, I tracked down a sample of one (among many) pioneering efforts in this latest wave of gender neutrality, straight from 2011:
....

Pioneering my foot.

Pioneering the latest wave I said. Usenet is irrelevant. I bet most of the SJWs who successfully campaign for all the current language reforms have never heard of it.

That's a meaning of "pioneering" that I'm not familiar with.

If I was familiar with it I would be comfortable making statements to the effect of pioneering the use of eggs in the latest wave of cooking breakfast, straight from this morning.

[SilverSolder]

I mean, here's a guy rallying against the use of the word "you" in singular form from a few centuries ago. (bottom paragraph of page)
IF ONLY WE HAD LISTENED TO HIM, WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS.

Are you arguing that English isn't the most dumbed down, least expressive and most illogical of European languages?

And nowadays you also have singular 'they' and even singular 'are' to use it with and you will soon have two different names for SPI masters. Way to go.

Maybe the Anglosphere doesn't perceive it as a problem, all of you wallowing in your cesspool since the day of birth, but your whole culture is increasingly looking like a joke to outsiders. Just sayin'

edit
And why you need to care?
Because you have outsourced everything including reproduction and education and run 100% on immigration.
If more people like blueskull or me keep deciding to bail out of there, you will be done for.

edit edit
Do you know what is the entirety of modern Western culture summed up in one sentence?

It's taking pride in being so "powerful" and "progressive" that you can get away with dumb ideas.

But it won't last. The UK was a global power just 100 years ago and today they are totally irrelevant and, most recently, shunned by a large chunk of continental Europe because of their internal conflicts and indecision. So much for the UK.
Are you willing to bet that America will still be such a big deal in 2120 if they are built on more or less the same culture and ideology?

Success may make people fat and lazy...    I recall riding with a young Pakistani taxi driver years ago....  we got on well, and as part of a bigger conversation I asked him why Pakistanis were running all the local stores in the town.  His answer stuck with me:  "My parents' generation came here and worked every hour God sent for a better life.  My generation is just as lazy as you guys!"

[SilverSolder]

The singular "they" has been in documented use since 1375, i.e. >600 years.
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

Of course somebody will always bring up the damn Shakespeare.

It wasn't in common use.  [...]

In fairness, Shakespeare has had an enormous influence on the English language...   His writing contributed to grammar rules of English that did not exist before him. He has expanded the English vocabulary with his invented words and writing structure.

Don't soil a genius!

[SilverSolder]

Ze used 'ey' and 'eir' because ze believes in rationalism and 'they' is a plural pronoun so using it would be a syntax error. I believe ze later switched to 'ze' and 'zeir' and untimately gave up and started using 'they' when everybody else did it.

At least they made one good decision! 

[SilverSolder]

[...]

If I was familiar with it [abusing the word 'Pioneering'] I would be comfortable making statements to the effect of pioneering the use of eggs in the latest wave of cooking breakfast, straight from this morning.

And you would be working in Sales & Marketing!

[DTJ]

I'm concerned that the negative connection wiring is often black. Perhaps we need to address this as well.

[GlennSprigg]

Weeks?? ago... I 'TRIED' to bring this back to a feeling of 'Peace'...
However, people mis-understand  my original intentions!!...
I dared to 'point out' long ago that to 'understand' others, is to walk in their shoes.
I dared to 'bring up' a 'facet' of musicians like myself, whereby 'we' love to use an old
adage, about "sharing/passing on" knowledge. Relative to todays various problems.

It (again!) goes like this...
May those who soar in the sky, WALK back down the Mountain...
And teach those with Leadened feet to Fly!!!
NOW the last time I dared to post that, it was DELETED!!!!!!   O.M.G. !!!  What is it that
'someone' decided was 'subversive'   ALL it means/meant to the un-initiated, is that
is that we share what we know, and help others... What the hell is wrong with that??
Some people are SO insecure about certain 'words/phrases'.  But then that is obviously
their problem, and not mine!!!   

[tggzzz]

For amusement (mine at least, if not magic's ), and to ram home the point about "their/they" having a longstanding and standard meaning of "an indefinite person without specifying gender"...

Here's part of the OED reference https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864 with my emphasis (full formatting and characterset hasn't survived, of course; see the reference if in doubt)

they, pron., adj., adv., and n.
...
 2. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun. Use of they to refer to a singular antecedent has sometimes been considered erroneous.
 a. <snipped>
 b. With an antecedent referring to an individual generically or indefinitely (e.g. someone, a person, the student), used esp. so as to make a general reference to such an individual without specifying gender. Cf. he pron. 2b.In the 21st century, other th– pronouns (and the possessive adjective their) are sometimes used to refer to a named individual, so as to avoid revealing or making an assumption about that person's gender; cf. sense A. 2c, and quots. 2008 at their adj. 2b, 2009 at them pron. 4b, 2009 at themself pron. 2b.
a1450   in Neuphilol. Mitteilungen (1948) 49 154 (MED)   If þou sall lofe, Þe person fyrste, I rede, þou proue Whether þat thay be fals or lele.
1526   W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection iii. sig. IIIiiiiv   If..a psalme scape any person, or a lesson, or els yt they omyt one verse or twayne.
1653   Mercurius Pragmaticus No. 8. 61   If any one of them so elected members die, the part which they serve for, have liberty to chuse and present another.
1759   Ld. Chesterfield Let. 27 Apr. (1932) (modernized text) V. 2350   If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.
1818   H. B. Fearon Sketches Amer. 80   Servants, let me here observe, are called ‘helps’. If you call a servant by that name they leave you without notice.
1877   J. Ruskin Fors Clavigera VII. lxxx. 234   I am never angry with anybody unless they deserve it.
1940   Educational Forum May 423/1   True education is based upon the needs of the pupil... The needs of the pupil are expressed in the activities in which they are engaged.
1968   Listener 3 Oct. 440/3   When somebody becomes prime minister they're immediately put on a pedestal.
2019   @_ShristiUprety 26 Aug. in twitter.com (accessed 28 Aug.)    My personal rule is to never trust anyone who says that they had a good time in high school.

[Siwastaja]

I think coppice nailed it above; in some cases, singular "they" just sounds so right and natural that magic does not pay any attention to it, hence does not think this usage exists. This causes a bias when focusing to those cases where it does not sound natural. These particular use cases are possibly rare, or new.

[magic]

From the earlier post, which I presume quotes the same Oxford dictionary (or some older edition thereof)

usage: The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified gender has been used since at least the 16th century.[how often?] In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either gender came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. In a more recent development, they is now being used to refer to specific individuals (as in Alex is bringing their laptop). Like the gender-neutral honorific Mx1, the singular they is preferred by some individuals who identify as neither male nor female. See also usage at he and she.

Sounds like the points I argue. It used to be obscure, sometimes employed by writers to avoid awkward confusion, more notably revived by SJWs (earlier than I knew about, fair enough), perhaps slowly creeping into everyday language (no idea about that, but it certainly wasn't commonplace in the 2000s) and completely normalized over the last decade to the point where people would be throwing eggs at NYT headquarters if they dared to use "neutral he" anywhere.

[bd139]

Slight linguistic diversion but I'm interested to see if anyone has been triggered by languages with grammatical gender yet? That's fundamentally a part of the core language constructs so to fix any perceived ill-treatment of a gender you'd have to destroy a whole language and culture 

[magic]

Whole language - not yet, but some gendered names of professions are problematic
For most of them there are obvious male/female variants (like actor/actress) but some are awkward.
And there is the question which gender to use when referring to the profession as such and why nurses should be different than engineers

Success may make people fat and lazy...    I recall riding with a young Pakistani taxi driver years ago....  we got on well, and as part of a bigger conversation I asked him why Pakistanis were running all the local stores in the town.  His answer stuck with me:  "My parents' generation came here and worked every hour God sent for a better life.  My generation is just as lazy as you guys!"

And if they don't become a welfare addicted pathology they will be voting Trump in yet another generation.