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

[vodka]

so this money doesn't even help paying their imprisonment, or if it does, it's probably negligible.

There are a solution, It is turns the inmates in "Universal Donors". I have heard tht they pay well.

[Nominal Animal]

Prison system is one of those where letting emotions and initial reactions and demands for retribution rule, leads to horrific results.

(I mean, if you treat all criminals like utter shit, no matter what the crime, what goes out of the other end will be dangerous as all hell.  People who feel they've been victimized may feel better for a few minutes or a day, but everyone else in the society will suffer.)

No, I am not going to tout how exemplary the Scandinavian and Finnish prisons are, because they aren't.

It looks like the "open prison" model works well for those who only need a bit of help (as in, reduces recidivism/further criminal activity, and a larger fraction returns as a contributing member of law-abiding society).  On the other hand, tribalization (as in religious and other gangs) is something Nordics seem to have a great struggle with.

In many ways police and prison reform reminds me of the enforced speech discussion: People are demanding specific action, without knowing whether that action will help or hinder.

These are not problems that can be solved with an emotional approach: the systems are too large and complex for naturally evolved human instincts/initial reactions to be applicable.  Fortunately, we're tool users, and here, rational scientific analysis provides the only tool (and statistical metrics) with which we can reliably compare different solutions.  For police and prisons and justice system in general, we'll want to compare different systems, and continuously make small changes, in an effort to find what works better and what does not work, discussing the results with those trying out other things.

The people who vehemently oppose this scientific approach are exactly those who make demands based on their emotional needs.  Those people, we need to teach how to manage their own emotions instead, and stop shitting all over other people and ruining their lives too. "Offended by proxy" is one thing we should eliminate and ridicule hard, as soon as it raises its ugly head.

The reason "the left" opposes this kind of an approach in principle, is that using critical theory or intersectionalism this makes no sense at all, because you cannot define the groups or relations between groups using this system.  When the core idea is to work at the levels of individuals, they get confused, because you cannot predefine the group(s) those people belong to beforehand; they see no way to define the rules in their own terms, and only see a looming chaos.  "The left" is, for good or bad, completely unable to fathom a system based on individuals and not groups.
It is like trying to explain to a lifelong blind person how and why reflectors work at night time, but not so well during the day.

[tooki]

I'd like to see social media peeps complain about slavery when they use an Apple iPhone, whose supply chain almost certainly involves some form of modern slavery, given China's treatment of the Uyghur Muslims.

I think modern day slavery is more important than something that happened 100 years ago and therefore the terms master/slave, are just so inconsequential it makes me wonder whether people's priorities are centred on improving the real world or just feeling good about making a change.

At least Apple makes a sincere, concerted effort to eliminate any kind of slavery (as well as child labor and various other abuses, plus environmental friendliness) from its supply chain, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of companies.

There's been evidence that they are not yet fully successful, but yes they do seen to have been making a genuine effort to do the right thing. Do you know who isn't? A lot of US corporations including McDonalds, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and many others all use prison labour which, being paid a princely 23 cents an hour isn't strictly technically slavery but once you examine all the other conditions of it, and the coercion applied to make people take these 'jobs' it is slavery in all but name. When you further consider the massive racial imbalances in the prison population then it takes on a whole new colour (pun intended). Anyone who has any doubt about the veracity of this, google "modern slavery US prisons".

Oh, I don’t think anyone is claiming Apple’s supplier compliance is perfect. (Including Apple, which publishes violation statistics in its annual supplier compliance report.) But I do believe they try very, very hard.

As for prison labor: I am 100% in agreement with you. It’s a disgrace. (Just one of many reasons I think law enforcement in USA needs radical reform.)

[tooki]

Prison system is one of those where letting emotions and initial reactions and demands for retribution rule, leads to horrific results.

(I mean, if you treat all criminals like utter shit, no matter what the crime, what goes out of the other end will be dangerous as all hell.  People who feel they've been victimized may feel better for a few minutes or a day, but everyone else in the society will suffer.)

No, I am not going to tout how exemplary the Scandinavian and Finnish prisons are, because they aren't.

It looks like the "open prison" model works well for those who only need a bit of help (as in, reduces recidivism/further criminal activity, and a larger fraction returns as a contributing member of law-abiding society).  On the other hand, tribalization (as in religious and other gangs) is something Nordics seem to have a great struggle with.

In many ways police and prison reform reminds me of the enforced speech discussion: People are demanding specific action, without knowing whether that action will help or hinder.

These are not problems that can be solved with an emotional approach: the systems are too large and complex for naturally evolved human instincts/initial reactions to be applicable.  Fortunately, we're tool users, and here, rational scientific analysis provides the only tool (and statistical metrics) with which we can reliably compare different solutions.  For police and prisons and justice system in general, we'll want to compare different systems, and continuously make small changes, in an effort to find what works better and what does not work, discussing the results with those trying out other things.

The people who vehemently oppose this scientific approach are exactly those who make demands based on their emotional needs.  Those people, we need to teach how to manage their own emotions instead, and stop shitting all over other people and ruining their lives too. "Offended by proxy" is one thing we should eliminate and ridicule hard, as soon as it raises its ugly head.

The reason "the left" opposes this kind of an approach in principle, is that using critical theory or intersectionalism this makes no sense at all, because you cannot define the groups or relations between groups using this system.  When the core idea is to work at the levels of individuals, they get confused, because you cannot predefine the group(s) those people belong to beforehand; they see no way to define the rules in their own terms, and only see a looming chaos.  "The left" is, for good or bad, completely unable to fathom a system based on individuals and not groups.
It is like trying to explain to a lifelong blind person how and why reflectors work at night time, but not so well during the day.

The left doesn’t oppose data. It merely understands that numbers don’t tell the whole story, which shouldn’t be news to anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about statistics.

The left understands that individuals are NEVER independent. All of us live within societies, and thus benefit from them, but also owe some responsibility toward them. The right lives under the illusion that societal support doesn’t exist, as though opportunities arose in total isolation, which they don’t.

[DimitriP]

The left understands that individuals are NEVER independent. All of us live within societies, and thus benefit from them, but also owe some responsibility toward them. The right lives under the illusion that societal support doesn’t exist, as though opportunities arose in total isolation, which they don’t.

Considering everyting has a cost, everyone ows.
Some, pay for it themselves, other have it paid for them.

Or so it seems.
If you haven't wittnessed the lady at the market paying for groceris with an EBT (aka food stamps), the booze with cash ,  while talking on the late model i-phone and putting the groceries in a late model shiny Mercedes its hard to explain.

[james_s]

People get caught up in left vs right but honestly I think the issue is people on the fringes who think with their emotions rather than being pragmatic. This thread is already too political IMHO but I am increasingly disenfranchised with both sides, it seems people are ever more polarized and obsess over wedge issues. Growing up my dad was a republican and my mom a democrat, somehow that never seemed to be such a big issue in the past. People would agree on some things and disagree on others but I never really knew the sort of people who's entire life seems to revolve around their political identity as seems to be so common today. There's more than one way to accomplish any goal and rejecting any solution that is not ideologically pure is a sure path to failure. In almost any issue both sides have valid points and both sides are full of crap in some respect.

[magic]

I am unable to tell if @magic is being satirical here or not, when talking about toxic masculinity and code.

Satirical? Probably not. Check his postings in general and you'll find he often enjoys stirring the shit.

There are people who take it seriously whether I do or not.
Besides, it is my honest opinion that software is more repulsive to women than it strictly needs to be, but meh.

Something tells me that they need assistance of a psychologist/psychotherapist, and not imitatation of help to them, by changing few words and letters.

I'm just parroting the SJWs, no need to tell me that.

Besides, you completely miss the point. America's problem is simple: there are Americans hell bent on having nothing to do with races other than their own and there are Americans hell bent on forcing the former to integrate against their will. Everything Americans say is propaganda meant at achieving either of those goals and concerns like truth or consistency are secondary. If you don't parrot one side's points they invariably assume you support the other. It's a war.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. That being said, software industry is full of leftists so if they feel oppressed by software then it might be paranoia. I stay out of America glad that it's not my problem, besides the occasional Internet drama.

The left understands that individuals are NEVER independent. All of us live within societies, and thus benefit from them, but also owe some responsibility toward them. The right lives under the illusion that societal support doesn’t exist, as though opportunities arose in total isolation, which they don’t.

Only the craziest of libertarians would argue that. More often it is: skepticism in the left's ability to achieve (including but absolutely not limited to, the ability to gather enough funds and support), not giving rat's ass in the first place, not having money for the ever expanding grandiosity of the left. The left used to be the plebs' party, today the plebs vote right, guess why.

And then there are those special "right" wingers who would want to build societal support structures and you wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Be careful what you wish for

[Cerebus]

People get caught up in left vs right but honestly I think the issue is people on the fringes who think with their emotions rather than being pragmatic. This thread is already too political IMHO but I am increasingly disenfranchised with both sides, it seems people are ever more polarized and obsess over wedge issues. Growing up my dad was a republican and my mom a democrat, somehow that never seemed to be such a big issue in the past. People would agree on some things and disagree on others but I never really knew the sort of people who's entire life seems to revolve around their political identity as seems to be so common today. There's more than one way to accomplish any goal and rejecting any solution that is not ideologically pure is a sure path to failure. In almost any issue both sides have valid points and both sides are full of crap in some respect.

Let's be clear, most ordinary folks are sick to the back teeth with "both sides" in just about every western democracy. Politicians are increasingly people who have never had a "proper job", if they haven't been in politics since the start of their careers then they have been in some "bullshit job" (one where the principal requirement is to bullshit all the time: marketing, lobbyist, dare I say lawyers). As James says, the 'modern' move to dealing with any issue in a way that rejects all but party doctrine and polarizes every bloody issue rather than ever apply common sense, or ever admit a failure (especially a failure caused by following doctrine) is deeply disheartening.

A case in point is the "broken windows" doctrine of policing. It didn't work. It was a dismal failure. It made things worse. Nobody responsible will admit that and rather than own up, apologise, rethink and do something else the doctrine was still declared to be sound and the fools 'doubled down' on the policy and went in harder. Even after watching it fail in the US, people of the same political stripe as the policy's US originators in other countries started advocating it. One of the outcomes of "broken windows" policing was to further alienate minorities and that brings us right back to where we were, with the current appalling state of race relations and another doctrinaire solution "we must change the words, the words are evil, it is the fault of the people using these words buried deep in our technology where no-one could see them being used, we didn't turn our backs and do nothing, no it is the users of these words who are to blame".

Aside: The exception that proves the rule (of not having had a proper job) is the US, where a significant number of people who go into politics have a military background, as best I can tell the only western democracy where that is common. Granted, the military is a "proper job" but not one conducive to thinking like the man in the street; somehow I suspect that submersion in a background where any debate can be stifled by giving an order, and anything but the weakest, most politely voiced dissension is a court-martial offence does not make one well suited for an environment where both are daily challenges.

[PlainName]

A case in point is the "broken windows" doctrine of policing. It didn't work. It was a dismal failure. It made things worse.

Do you have references for that? I ask because the broken windows theory seems sound and, according to Wikipedia, it works. What doesn't work is zealous policing, which isn't necessary for implementing the broken windows policy. It's easy to mistake one for the other, and a valid theory may thus be misrepresented and unfairly made worthless through an internet meme.

[magic]

"we must change the words, the words are evil, it is the fault of the people using these words buried deep in our technology where no-one could see them being used, we didn't turn our backs and do nothing, no it is the users of these words who are to blame"

Whether you mean it about politicians or the SJWs who are coming up with those ideas, it's a massive strawman.

Democratic politicians just follow what the people want and the experts recommend. Regardless of your smug dismissal, there are numerous accredited scientists who say that this newspeak is useful and/or necessary. It was also a big deal on the Internet since the earliest 2010s, before certain career politicians capitalized on it in the last few years. Politicians just listen to the voice of the people, maybe you don't realize what that voice sounds like today.

As for SJWs themselves, well, let's say nobody is going to wonder if you may have possibly posted this in seriousness A complete misrepresentation of their talking points and mentality.

[paulca]

Besides, it is my honest opinion that software is more repulsive to women than it strictly needs to be, but meh.

Example please.

How do you know the original tree navigational concepts were not written by a woman?  You do know that software or rather programming was invented by a woman?  You do know that most of the early programmers were women?

Of course they were not credited properly until recently, but hey.

[wraper]

Democratic politicians just follow what the people want and the experts recommend. Regardless of your smug dismissal, there are numerous accredited scientists who say that this newspeak is useful and/or necessary. It was also a big deal on the Internet since the earliest 2010s, before certain career politicians capitalized on it in the last few years. Politicians just listen to the voice of the people, maybe you don't realize what that voice sounds like today.

They follow what the loudest fringe minority wants, not people in general. Twitter is not a voice of usual people.

[Cerebus]

A case in point is the "broken windows" doctrine of policing. It didn't work. It was a dismal failure. It made things worse.

Do you have references for that? I ask because the broken windows theory seems sound and, according to Wikipedia, it works. What doesn't work is zealous policing, which isn't necessary for implementing the broken windows policy. It's easy to mistake one for the other, and a valid theory may thus be misrepresented and unfairly made worthless through an internet meme.

See my emphasis above. I was, quite obviously, taking about the policing side of it aka "zero tolerance" policing. I would have thought that was clear both from the "doctrine of policing" at the start of the paragraph and the rest of the context.

[magic]

Besides, it is my honest opinion that software is more repulsive to women than it strictly needs to be, but meh.

Example please.

How do you know the original tree navigational concepts were not written by a woman?  You do know that software or rather programming was invented by a woman?  You do know that most of the early programmers were women?

I meant the contemporary software industry, not programming as such. And particularly places filled with youngsters. It's highly competitive and ambitious and I don't see that many women desiring to participate in that. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a calmer environment would produce equal pace of development. On yet another, a lot of the development today is chasing flavors of the month or finding more efficient way of ripping somebody off, so meh. Bottom line, I used to think feminists are crazy but I'm finding myself hating more and more things that they complain about, except I understand that "abolishing patriarchy" isn't going to change shit

They follow what the loudest fringe minority wants, not people in general. Twitter is not a voice of usual people.

You completely ignored the point about scientists and experts and went after the lowest hanging fruit.
Yes, that post was tongue in cheek. But guess what, TV and Twitter is where plenty of "usual people" learn what their voice is in the first place. Somebody ends up voting for those goddamn leftists even if you don't, go figure. And it wasn't just Twitter, a lot of that culture leaks to media and everywhere. Internet harassment campaigns on corporations also work wonders.
Career politicians will say what they think it takes to get the votes. Clinton used to favor increased border security just a few years before Trump made "the wall" the core point of his campaign.

[GlennSprigg]

This 'thread/post' is now way too long... It's not that everything said is not relevant/worthy!...
It's just that it's like people talking in a loud & noisy room, where 99% of the dialog is missed! 

Back to the very first post/question, is 'Master/Slave' racist??  NO!!  One may consider oneself
a 'slave' to their powerful/demanding BOSS, colloquially, without ANY talk of Race/Colour/Creed !!!
We have 'Master/Slave' brake cylinders etc, which depict 'verbally' which ones do the 'work'!!
NEVER in 65 years of my life have I even remotely correlated this with 'colour/race' etc!!!   
Again, I may be 'biased' by thinking as a mere Aussie. They are just WORDS of OLD, that do NOT
reflect racial status to me, or anyone else that I know.   Yes... stop racism...

But do not tar every one globally with the same brush with just 'words'  EVEN just than line I
JUST said there... "Taring people", EVIDENTLY meant JUST THAT a long time ago, when 'lesser'
folk were covered in hot tar & then feathers. Is that bad??... YES!, of course, and we are more
educated now, but such 'metaphors' exist today, like many others, that describe emotions &
actions that are NOT condoned today, but get the point across... and NOT a racial one...   

I just know that 'I' will sleep every night, knowing that 'I' am not a 'racist', but will continue
to 'complain' about the so-called 'do-gooders' who just want to make waves...   

[Marco]

A case in point is the "broken windows" doctrine of policing. It didn't work. It was a dismal failure.

Lets not confuse social sciences with proper science, which shouldn't be confused with math. There's proof in math, "proof" in science and ""proof"" in social sciences. There are generally no experiments, just comparative population studies for a tiny set. It's hard to prove much of anything beyond a reasonable doubt in social sciences (of course it's easy when you're preaching to unreasonable people who agree with you).

Slightly on topic, how about Ruler/Serf? Keeps the character count small and the meaning the same, rather than belaboured for most alternatives. It's Eurocentric, but so is using English.

[tom66]

If you haven't wittnessed the lady at the market paying for groceris with an EBT (aka food stamps), the booze with cash ,  while talking on the late model i-phone and putting the groceries in a late model shiny Mercedes its hard to explain.

I don't know anyone in this country who is on benefits/state aid and actually lives anything more than a basic lifestyle.

I never got this argument, usually from the political right, because sure, there are probably scroungers out there.  But if you say that person sucks $1,000/mo in state assistance, why do they not get equally pissed off at Amazon dodging billions in tax, or Walmart barely paying above the min. wage so their employees have to seek state aid to pay the bills and live a half way decent life.

The usual argument is, these corporations are "smart", they are entitled to do whatever they can to profit. Even the POTUS has said that he is "very smart" for organising his tax affairs in such a way [1].  Yet it is not "very smart" of the woman at the grocery store to take advantage of the aid available to her?  Why is there a different standard here?  It is either OK to leech from the state or not.  I would say it is worse when billionaires and mega-corps do it. 

[1] Youtube: "Trump: I'm 'smart' for paying no taxes", CNN, 26 Sep 2016.

[wraper]

They follow what the loudest fringe minority wants, not people in general. Twitter is not a voice of usual people.

You completely ignored the point about scientists and experts and went after the lowest hanging fruit.

Which scientists? Do scientists suggest to allow rioting and looting in Democrat lead cities? What democrats do is follow where wind blows. That's not how you achieve excellence.

TV and Twitter is where plenty of "usual people" learn what their voice is in the first place.

They are places where usual people get indoctrinated. Not learn what their voice is.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'm completely against the antifas and the BLM movement, but in the USA you've got a problem with the police guys:

[wraper]

I'm completely against the antifas and the BLM movement, but in the USA you've got a problem with the police guys:

That stupid guy got what he deserved. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you want to live, you don't punch a police officer in the face, steal taser and then shoot with it at police officer.  BTW he was a felon on parole, not some innocent guy.

[paulca]

I meant the contemporary software industry, not programming as such. And particularly places filled with youngsters. It's highly competitive and ambitious and I don't see that many women desiring to participate in that. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a calmer environment would produce equal pace of development.

Not sure what your experience is of the software industry, but I have always found the environment quite calm. 

Women in STEM is a different topic though.  Our company if you limit it to developers only is probably around 15-20% women, in the wider company more like 40%.  It has been discussed before, but the recruitment processes are already heavily biased towards women.  For every 100 applications maybe 5 or 10 will be women, but out of every 100 hires, 10 or 15 will be women, which clearly shows a bias in their favour. 

It's not that the software industry is biased against women it's that women are biased against STEM subjects.  Working out why is beyond what I care to do day to day.

[PlainName]

It's Eurocentric, but so is using English

Gets my vote. If Google can foist American culture on us in recaptchas, it's only fair they're forced to use weird protocol terms they don't understand (and would spell incorrectly anyway)

[Kjelt]

I'm completely against the antifas and the BLM movement, but in the USA you've got a problem with the police guys:

The guy should not have resisted arrest let alone take a weapon of an officer , wtf was he thinking? It could and should have ended differently.

One of the problems IMO in the US is that many people carry or have access to firearms.
If you have experienced as an officer a situation like this one where some guy also resists arrest and even two officers with tasers can not get him to comply and it even gets worse where the guy shoots the officers you probably don't think twice before pulling the trigger next time. It is not that simple, each situation is unique and an officer has to train for those dituations but how can you really train someone for this ?
And then your boss will not have your back, fire you ? I think policeofficers in the US should go on strike for a week, see what happens 

[Kjelt]

s

[tom66]

I'm completely against the antifas and the BLM movement, but in the USA you've got a problem with the police guys:

That stupid guy got what he deserved. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you want to live, you don't punch a police officer in the face, steal taser and then shoot with it at police officer.  BTW he was a felon on parole, not some innocent guy.

Are we really saying a guy fleeing deserves to be shot?

The man clearly has a family, just turn up the day after and arrest him!  Put out a warrant for his arrest, chances are he will be in custody by the end of the week.  It is very hard to hide from authorities if you want to live any reasonable kind of life (job, house, etc.)

The only case I can see for when someone deserves to be shot while fleeing, is if they pose an imminent and immediate danger to the public (historic record of it, or possessing a dangerous weapon with intent to use it.)

A drink driver, as bad as they are ... is just that. Murder is not an appropriate punishment.