| General > General Technical Chat |
| 'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts |
| << < (295/352) > >> |
| magic:
--- Quote from: nuclearcat on July 22, 2020, 03:27:35 am ---If decision makers in industry think English is so shitty and need adjustments, don't stop, just rewrite the freaking labels, notation, whatever in Chinese, Russian, Esperanto, and stop changing them. --- End quote --- Do you realize that other languages are even shittier and need more adjustment? Do you know there were already ideas suggested by Americans to make Spanish fully gender neutral, for example? I humbly propose to keep Western politics contained in the West, where they duly belong >:D And there is no "we". The "we" fallacy is exactly why Westerners go along with any bullshit they see on TV/Twitter - all of it is designed to make them feel like "everybody" is already with "us" and they just keep falling for it again and again. They yield to peer pressure, they underestimate the amount of resistance they will meet, they remain ignorant of problems until it's too late. This applies about equally to all the "classic liberals", "libertarians", "neoliberals", "fascists", you name it. It's all a popularity contest and intimidation game. They have no problems saying "look, everybody is with us, join us or you will be the weird one left out" in one sentence only to say "look, everybody is against us, join us or the world will collapse" in the next one. How is a bunch of blue checkmarks campaigning for language changes a big deal if the silent majority is clearly against? Why not just ignore them? Why do they keep winning? How is it a problem that they stir up racism if racism is illogical and nobody intelligent could possibly believe it? If there is so many idiots who believe illogical things, why even bother with that "popular democracy" thing, when it clearly should be some brand of merito-authoritarianism instead? :-// The left is doomed to eat their own. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote --- if the silent majority is clearly against --- End quote --- How do you know they're against if they're silent? |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on July 22, 2020, 04:05:57 am --- --- Quote --- if the silent majority is clearly against --- End quote --- How do you know they're against if they're silent? --- End quote --- You don't, however most people who are for this sort of thing are not the least bit shy about it. Many who are against it are quiet because they've seen the way those who are for it bully anyone who dissents. I suspect in many cases the vast majority are actually completely unaware that there's even a debate, or don't give a rat's ass because it isn't something that affects them. |
| nuclearcat:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 22, 2020, 03:38:25 am --- --- Quote from: nuclearcat on July 22, 2020, 03:27:35 am ---Don't sit still. Maybe then we can have adult conversation about all this madness. --- End quote --- These people do not want conversation or rational or nuanced discussion, they want full and unquestioned compliance with their fantasy demands. Unfortunately, at the moment, the "cancel culture" built up around this forces compliance from large organisations who don't want to be seen to be offending anyone. And those glorious woke points incentivise penalising employees and even customers who dare speak up that this is just crazy. --- End quote --- That can be countered by slightly less "cancellation" force with different polarity, if they bend over too much and implement any sort of bullshit. Organizations might keep promising, make empty statements, but as soon as they really start to promote bullshit, i will not buy their products/renew subscriptions, if i have alternatives. The most important thing is not to overdo it, otherwise it will turn into a self-oscillating process and might even resonate, destroying industry further. This is typical case of "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority" by Taleb, and as he suggest solution is to decentralize. Means we dont need one huge organization, but we need several of them, like as example - opensource certification bodies, where most of them cooperate, each has their own audience with suitable policies. We will not suffer then from lack of choice, when one of them go nuts and start to play politics, instead of doing their job. Good example is OpenSSL, when they started to screw up, immediately appeared LibreSSL, BoringSSL. I guess same have to be applied to OSHW now. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: james_s on July 22, 2020, 04:15:43 am ---You don't, however most people who are for this sort of thing are not the least bit shy about it. Many who are against it are quiet because they've seen the way those who are for it bully anyone who dissents. --- End quote --- I tweeted about this topic when it first surfaced back in 2018 I think it was. Quite a popular tweet IIRC, got likes of likes and comments like "this is stupid" etc. Now that old tweet has recently been bought up again as part of the latest BLM fueled outrage mob on Twitter by people who are out to "cancel" me, or otherwise prove that I'm "racist" etc. They are going through all my old tweets for an skerrick of ammunition they can use against me. So yeah I don't blame anyone for keeping their head low on this one, especially if they are in a position at a woke company (now or in the future) etc, and could possible lose their job. But even in the recent climate, Hackaday still got such a backlash on this that they had to lock the comments thread. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |