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

[PlainName]

Weeks?? ago... I 'TRIED' to bring this back to a feeling of 'Peace'...
[...]

Mate, no-one will have any idea wtf you're going on about unless you give some indication of what you're replying to. In a thread like this, the post you think your comment follows is probably 20 messages ago by the time you actually post it.

[james_s]

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.

It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a treadmill that has been running continuously for quite some time now. It's a slow but steady annoyance, consuming efforts and creating minor but annoying confusion. I'm just tired of change that is purely for the sake of change. Change sucks, it throws off my routine and makes me uncomfortable, if something is going to change I want there to be a tangible benefit.

[tggzzz]

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.

It was not obscure. It was and is normal everyday use of the English language.

It may have been obscure to those new to English, or those who haven't thought about normal use of English.

[magic]

I don't know man, I haven't been seeing it much until 2010 or so. I have been seeing a lot of 'he' and that is mostly gone now.

Today almost everybody is religiously devoted to 'they', and the leftists aren't even afraid of reaching for the highest levels of absurdity.

Surely a woman shouldn’t be forced to wax testicles if that makes them feel uncomfortable

I doubt Shakespeare would have written that
I doubt any mainstream media would have published that before the era of Twitter.
Like it or not, Twitter is getting shit done.

[julianhigginson]

I can list you problems that i know very closely, they exist right now, and which i participated (unfortunately cannot share details, as this issue involves standing against organized crime, so i cannot trust random folks over internet, you need to contact those who fight with this publicly).
1)Several exUSSR countries (most are ukrainian and belorussian), Moroccan, Romanian girls are being trafficked in several countries, to work as "dance", "actor", but in fact they are forced to do alcohol drinking, sexual exploitation, often hooked to drugs and etc.
Girls being lured by "agencies" and there is no website even to show the truth, what their life will be. I believe just making and promoting website where survivors stories can be published (some are brave enough to do that), and how agencies will ruin their future - will save many girls from this disaster.
2)As i mentioned before, citizens of philipinnes, sri-lanka, ethiopia, bangladesh travelling to arab countries, where their passport is being taken away(read about "kafala") and they are often locked up at homes and being beaten, unable to report anywhere about their suffering, some are so desperate, that they do suicide by jumping from balconies.

And they need solutions, including technical ones, for example how those poor souls can report about their suffering. They need more people in western countries talking about this, making pressure to their governments, so western governments pressure on relevant countries to take action in specific cases and ask to improve laws.

And every time bored westerners do loud useless stuff, like nonsense about changing words, they are taking away hope of those poor soulds, chance of highlighting their issues, real issues.
This is not some "invented sufferers from seeing word slavery". This is people who is being beaten and dying each day, who can be named and there is many such names.
I’m even wondering if you will continue the cheap verbal battles defending this useless initiative with the word “slave”, or still try to save real people from slavery.

1) OK, and so how has your own word salad here materially helped anyone trapped in the modern slave industry?

2) and how exactly me does talking about (or actually) changing the use of two words used IN TECHINCAL COMMUNICATIONS CONTEXT make the lives of actual slaves living in slavery any worse?

This is an engineering forum remember, I want real logically linked constructions as answers to 1 and 2, not just empty claims that make you feel righteous, thanks.

I've got a few ideas around how we can materially effect worldwide slavery (completely unrelated to what words might be used to describe communication technology, surprisingly enough!) and each basic situation required probably needs multi-faceted attacks tailored to the actual problems at hand and the root causes supporting each... but it's very off topic for this forum, and even this discussion, so.... feel free to start another discussion on the abolition of modern slavery and I'll jump in.

[julianhigginson]

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.

And what does hypocrisy in politics have to do with changing the use of technical terms? I'm pretty sure politicians don't talk much about the details of digital communications protocols.

I put it to you that we can stop using master and slave to describe digital communications protocols, AND we can ALSO lobby politicians to show them that modern slavery is an issue that they need to be doing something about, or suffer the consequences at the next election.

So what are you doing with your politicians to show them that you care about extinguishing modern slavery? I mean, it's so vitally important an issue to you.. surely you've at least signed a petition or something? have you spoken to your local representative about any of this?

As it is, I *have* actually discussed the problem of slavery-like situations for low wage temporary visa workers on Australian farms with my local federal government member. (For what little that's worth)  Again, what have you done? And how does stopping using master and slave in technical communications context undo that work?

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

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I'm starting to feel that you're not engaging this discussion with good intent. who could honestly believe that changing the use of words in a technical context is about removing any and all discussion on real slavery?

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

So prove it then.  Prove right now that changing the use of master and slave in a technical context will actually stop anyone from talking about actual modern slavery. Causal links right through from A to B, please.

I'll wait...

"Master" and "slave" are technical terms that describe a relationship.  They are not intrinsic to human slavery,

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

and are ubiquitous in current technology, information science, and software engineering. 

but surely thou realise'st they don't HAVE to be going forward.

To insist that their use in a technical context is offensive, is to insist that nobody mention slavery except in an inoffensive manner.

not sure exactly what you mean by "innofensive manner", but I think that I provide a pretty solid counterexample:

I'm happy to say that master and slave is a terminology in technical communications language whose time should come to an end.

I'm also happy to say that modern slavery is absolutely reprehensible, and all relatively well-off people (including me and you) benefit in some way from its place in worldwide systems of production right now, and we all need to address it and its causes as a priority by focusing on the reality around all of it. No matter how uncomfortable that may make anyone.

[julianhigginson]

Sure, post away.
(snip)
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.

So again, you say you want me to do a bunch of work finding something specific for you, but you have also said that even if I do it won't make any difference.

You know, that's not really a great way to get people to do stuff for you.

[EEVblog]

Sure, post away.
(snip)
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.

So again, you say you want me to do a bunch of work finding something specific for you, but you have also said that even if I do it won't make any difference.
You know, that's not really a great way to get people to do stuff for you.

 
YOU are the one advocating for this change which the majority of people consider a ridiculous waste of time and likely detrimental to the industry.
Therefore YOU need to do the work to convince US that's it's a good idea, that's how it works. As for "it won't make any difference", I'm just pointing out realistically what finding a few examples is likely going to mean in the scheme of things. Not my problem, that's your problem. You want this change, so find a convincing enough argument to win us over. That starts with examples of your claim that people use these terms in tech to abuse others.
And BTW, even if this change did somehow magically happen in the industry and the majority started to use something else, that's not going to stop those few people who want to abuse someone from using the term. Therefore the change does nothing in that regard.
If you can't convince us, we will happily go with our default position which is  and continue to use the term was have always used for generations.

[PlainName]

Surely a woman shouldn’t be forced to wax testicles if that makes them feel uncomfortable

Good example where using 'he' or 'she' in place of 'them' would be proper and remove ambiguity. But doing so would rain down nukes.

[PlainName]

Prove right now that changing the use of master and slave in a technical context will actually stop anyone from talking about actual modern slavery.

If it doesn't, what's the point of banning the words or concept? Surely they are either acceptable in appropriate context or they aren't, and if they aren't then they can't be used and thus can't be discussed.

[Nominal Animal]

And what does hypocrisy in politics have to do with changing the use of technical terms?

Out of sight, out of mind.  The effects are the same as Codes of Conduct: instead of encouraging discussing problematic issues, they make it safer to not discuss them at all.

I'm starting to feel that you're not engaging this discussion with good intent. who could honestly believe that changing the use of words in a technical context is about removing any and all discussion on real slavery?

Not "about": the inevitable consequence, because the same has happened time and time again.

There is not a single case where banning a term has helped.  All it does is soothe egos and uncontrolled emotions.

Prove right now that changing the use of master and slave in a technical context will actually stop anyone from talking about actual modern slavery. Causal links right through from A to B, please.

All I can do is describe what has happened before when this has been done, and that does not seem to suffice as proof to you.

In the USA, regions where public talk of "sex" is seen as offensive, have the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

Changing the term for dark-skinned humans from negroes to blacks to colored people to people of color has improved nothing.  At worst, it has taught others that these people are so sensitive that it is better to not engage them at all if possible.

Forcing people to use neopronouns has not made life any easier for actual trans people.  Ordinary people outside the Twatter/Fecalbook social media circle jerk only see the trouble stirred up (what with people losing their jobs), and only learn to avoid them altogether if possible, because people do not want trouble.  They are not antagonistic toward the people, just see that interacting with them and making an innocent error may cost one their job, so it is better to not interact at all.

"Master" and "slave" are technical terms that describe a relationship.  They are not intrinsic to human slavery,

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

What?  My emphasis was on human.  Perhaps I could have stated it better, maybe "Not all slaves are human"?

With respect to animals, we often call it "parasitism" instead of slavery.  For example, a cuckoo exploits the biological imperatives of other birds, laying its egg in their nest, so that when the cuckoo hatches, it'll push out the original eggs before they hatch, and exploit the parents' biological need to feed the chick even if it looks different.  A fungus, ophiocordyceps unilateralis, takes over the higher functions of ants, so that it can spreads its spores much futher.  Toxoplasma gondii in rats and mice eradicates their fear of predators, ensuring the lifecycle of the parasite.

In many European countries, we have acknowledged the "personhood" and basic rights of nonhuman species, like certain whales, dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, and so on.  If you take an elephant as a calf, isolate it from its family, and force it to work for you by carrying tourists, it is slavery.

So, slavery and the terms "master" and "slave" are not intrinsically tied to humans.  They are terms that describe an unilateral relationship, subjucation.  People who object these terms do not understand that it is not the words themselves that are offensive, they just find their own emotional reaction to them displeasing.

Subjucation or master/slave relationship with respect to inanimate objects and mechanisms not involving living beings, is perfectly ethical.  There is nothing inherently negative or offensive in the terms themselves.  The offensive bit is enslaving a living being, or a self-conscious being; and we all already agree that we should do more to stop that.  Some of us object to banning the use of those terms in unrelated fields, because it moves the focus away from the true issues.

As an example, none of the people who have been freed from slavery find the terms offensive.  Quite the opposite: the ones I've heard of have publically expressed appreciation for acknowledging that we are not yet free of slavery, and that these actual slaves are not forgotten.  So, exactly what is it in "master" and "slave" in a technical context that is offensive?  An argument that someone else might feel bad by being reminded that some of their ancestors were once slaves is not sane; such a person needs therapy, not everyone else in the world to change what words they use.

but surely thou realise'st they don't HAVE to be going forward.

Of course.  I have no objection to new terms, as long as they occur naturally.

It is the process of demanding others change, while completely ignoring the underlying matter – or have you seen a single one of these technical term objectionists talk about efforts to end modern day slavery? I haven't, besides yourself, after I first brought it up –, that I object to.

It is exactly the same thing as changing "colored people" to "people of color" and getting people fired if they use the former instead of the latter.  It is not progress, it is arbitrary control of speech, and has never ever resulted in anything positive.  It just emphasises the differences between people.

As I mentioned earlier, Anthony Greenwald, one of the leading experts in implicit bias research, basically states that for everyone to have equal opportunity, we should ignore their particular personal characteristics like race and gender, and instead look at their output and interactions with others only.
If you disagree, you need to consider why.  Greenwald has done a lot of research on this, and has come to that conclusion based on that.  What basis do you have for your opinion?

I personally do not have any emotional connection to any words in English, because it is not my native language.  The way Finnish works, people often invent new terms (by combining existing words and onomatopoeia) that are immediately obvious to others.  According to what I know about history and similar efforts before, forced change never leads to positive results.  It is a wasted effort, that only leads to emphasizing the differences between people, driving them apart.
I have already had to give up answering questions at StackOverflow/StackExchange, because I am unable to comply with their forced neopronoun policy.  (It is because Finnish has no gendered pronouns or grammatical gender at all, and I still get even him/her wrong occasionally.  I love to use 'they', just because it's so much easier for me.  The grammatical gender in Swedish and German drove me crazy; my brain just didn't grasp the distinction, and had to learn them by rote.)

I would be completely at ease going with the flow if people started using "käskijä" instead of "master", and "käskytetty" instead of "slave".  They're clunky, sure, but anything new tends to feel odd at first.  It is not the change I object.  It is the completely illogical reasoning behind the demand for change – or more like banning, since there are no good replacement terms suggested yet that would be as intuitively understandable in a technical context as "master" and "slave" are right now –, and the fact that the results from the demanded change have thus far always been negative, and therefore the demand makes no sense, and is in itself detrimental to everybody.

[Nominal Animal]

As an aside, as an example of technical terms evolving naturally:

A few decades back, there was a bit of a push in Finnish to use native Finnish terms instead of loan words, in technology and science.

The best example of these is "sähkälehitutähystin", formed from words "sähkäle" (electron; "sähkö" = electricity), "hitu" (small particle), and "tähystin" (scope).  It lost to the term "elektronimikroskooppi", electron microscope.

There are a number of reasons why the latter won over the former, even though "sähkäle-hitu-tähystin" gives the correct intuitive description to anyone speaking Finnish.
This is perfectly okay, because people used the term that worked better for them.

If it had been a case of someone demanding the use of one over the other, because the other one is offensive or anti-Finnish-language, we Finns are so ornery we'd have used the other just in spite.

[EEVblog]

There is not a single case where banning a term has helped.  All it does is soothe egos and uncontrolled emotions.

That's key here.
The people complaining about this know very well the context of the term in the industry has nothing do with actual human slavery, therefore the problem is entirely their emotions about the connotation of the terms in their mind. Reasoning is thrown out the window.

[pickle9000]

Wow what a topic.

In any case I don't see anything here about education. For myself educating children about the subject would be far more useful. Hiding the words is like hiding the truth. The truth is often ugly but it is necessary to understand our mistakes and tendencies.

[nuclearcat]

I have already had to give up answering questions at StackOverflow/StackExchange, because I am unable to comply with their forced neopronoun policy.  (It is because Finnish has no gendered pronouns or grammatical gender at all, and I still get even him/her wrong occasionally.  I love to use 'they', just because it's so much easier for me.  The grammatical gender in Swedish and German drove me crazy; my brain just didn't grasp the distinction, and had to learn them by rote.)

I would be completely at ease going with the flow if people started using "käskijä" instead of "master", and "käskytetty" instead of "slave".  They're clunky, sure, but anything new tends to feel odd at first.  It is not the change I object.  It is the completely illogical reasoning behind the demand for change – or more like banning, since there are no good replacement terms suggested yet that would be as intuitively understandable in a technical context as "master" and "slave" are right now –, and the fact that the results from the demanded change have thus far always been negative, and therefore the demand makes no sense, and is in itself detrimental to everybody.

Does finnish have different words for perceived gender and physical gender? (gender vs sex?)
I just recently learned gender and sex are different things(still not sure about this stuff), and in my languages (russian and ukrainian) there is no definition for "perceived gender".
And then I realized that besides the fact that english language have different word "gender" (we have physical "sex" only), some people still want to change the concept of "sex" as "defined at will". This is some kind of phantasmagoria, or i don’t understand what is happening.

[Nominal Animal]

Does finnish have different words for perceived gender and physical gender? (gender vs sex?)

No; only "sukupuoli" ("suku" = family, gender, "puoli" = half, side).  And as I've mentioned before, in informal speech "it" ("se") is often used for people, things, and animals alike.

There isn't even any obvious or common non-direct way to ask someone their gender or identity, one has to just blurt out "Are you a man or a woman, a boy or a girl?".  If you ask someone what their gender is, literally "Mikä sinun sukupuolesi on?", it's such an odd-sounding question it'll take people a few seconds to understand what you're asking.

Note that I'm not writing this because I'm claiming Finnish speakers are less sexist than anyone else.  Quite the opposite: I'm saying that we're not that different, even if our language lacks most of the features that are claimed to uphold sexism in other languages.  Simply put, banning terms will not magically make people behave any better.

[magic]

No Internet discussion of leftism can be complete without somebody bringing old Ted to the party

24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. [...]

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. [...]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. [...]
The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. [...] The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred.
The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. [...]
 In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship.[...]

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak [...]

It's basically the modern American approach to running a society. You aren't supposed to struggle for your freedom like the Founding Father did, thankfully those times are over and they were racists anyway, you are supposed to support a SYSTEM which ensures your and everybody else's freedom. (Ted's rambling would probably become much more on point if we changed "Industrial Revolution" to "French Revolution" but I bet he was himself too liberal to admit the bitter truth).

If somebody whines that his freedom is being infringed by words, this is more important than the time wasted on updating technical documentation, for freedom and the freedom SYSTEM always come first. If you disagree, your loyalty to the SYSTEM is questionable and you might as well be a closeted Nazi for all we know.

Libertarians are useful idiots who look like Nazis to those oversocialized SJWs, SJWs are useful idiots who favor draconian measures against the former. Measures carried out by private corporations, because else it would be fascism. Americans created a bizarre fusion of communism and capitalism where the capitalists fight for essentially communist agenda in exchange for brownie points, protection and preservation of the right to their capital.

American politics really isn't difficult to understand. You just have to admit the possibility that they are all wrong and everything you believe is a wishful thinking social construct.

The Bill of Rights should have never been written. Read about the original arguments against it if you don't know why.

edit
I may add, do read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest if you haven't already. I think it perfectly sums up the mentality of the hippy generation which raised those current crybabies. And if this book and particularly its ending doesn't make you feel like pulling your hair out, I have a bad news - you might be a liberal. Do seek help, it's never too late.

[tom66]

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

Most actresses prefer to be known as actors now, from what I hear...

[magic]

A very different thing. English is gender neutral so having a feminine name for women in some random profession is othering to them.
In a fully gendered language, most feminists feel offended if you erase women by not acknowledging their existence all the time. Maybe it could change if the nonbinary fad takes off. I always direct women who are considering allying with LGBT to TERFs - it's lesser evil that way

[EEVblog]

Wow what a topic.
In any case I don't see anything here about education. For myself educating children about the subject would be far more useful. Hiding the words is like hiding the truth. The truth is often ugly but it is necessary to understand our mistakes and tendencies.

The terms Master and Slave are not ugly when applied to technology. Teach people that words can have multiple meanings when applied to different things and in different cultures, and that context and intent matter, they matters a lot. That's what you should be teaching teaching kids.

[tom66]

Are we going to ban the term "coloured wire" in case it offends people who remember pre-civil-rights times when black people were called similar terms?

[tggzzz]

Wow what a topic.
In any case I don't see anything here about education. For myself educating children about the subject would be far more useful. Hiding the words is like hiding the truth. The truth is often ugly but it is necessary to understand our mistakes and tendencies.

The terms Master and Slave are not ugly when applied to technology. Teach people that words can have multiple meanings when applied to different things and in different cultures, and that context and intent matter, they matters a lot. That's what you should be teaching teaching kids.

Precisely. It isn't a difficult concept, but some people can't seem to think about it that way.

I showed my daughter that her name could be a swear word, given the "right" topic, sentence, and tone of voice.

[SilverSolder]

As George Orwell warned us... 

"[...] we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. [...]

In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously.

Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality."

-- George Orwell

[wilfred]

I saw this article online today. Nestle will rebrand some lollies to align their values better. This will undoubtedly raise similarly divided  passions. But I think COON cheese will get away without change since it was named after the inventor.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/nestle-red-skins-chicos-allens-lollies-rebrand-overtones/12384986

[PlainName]

But I think COON cheese will get away without change since it was named after the inventor.

The people kicking up a fuss won't know that, so it won't make any difference. What might is that they'll be too young to have come across the word in general usage before, so it won't act as a trigger.