General > General Technical Chat
'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts
<< < (343/352) > >>
Simon:

--- Quote from: paulca on July 29, 2020, 12:43:35 pm ---
--- Quote from: Simon on July 29, 2020, 12:22:37 pm ---Ever since I came back to the UK, if I fill in a form that ends with "and now to ensure racial equality in the way we deal with you please fill in your race" I refuse to fill that bit out. On any form I only give the information they NEED not the information that is supposed to help them deal with their own messed up idea of equality for, sex, religion or race.

--- End quote ---

In Northern Ireland they have been doing it with "community identity" for decades.  They ask you:

Do you consider yourself to belong to one of the following:
Roman Catholic / Nationalist community.
Protestant / Loyalist community.
Neither / Prefer not to say.

If you tick the last box or if you obstain the process requires the HR drone processing your form to determine it other ways, such as Primary School attended or current address.

The concept is meant to be opaque from selection.  In that those deciding if you get the job or not are not privi to the information and HR are required to separate these Fair employment forms from your application and only track the relationship via a pure number which they keep completely secure from everything including their bosses.  Do this happen?  Of course not.

Back on topic (well more on topic) I was having a rant about work today and it went something like:

"You ask me to do things, but when I go and attempt to do them I find I do not have the privileges nor rights to do those things, my role does not permit me to do those things I am denied.  I have to ask my manager who is privileged to do those things on my behalf or to grant me the privilege."

I stopped and thought, oh ffs when the far left get hold of those concepts (ACLs basically)... they will explode is showers of sparks/justice cries.

--- End quote ---

Adjustments for disability are one thing but as you show in your vegan example we have lost the live and let live and instead have live and impose on others. I would not put it past a vegan person refusing to use meat words as they generally are as fruity as fruitcakes come. But to not like something is fine, but to have the words banned from your hearing or vanished from your site is not realistic, fair to others or going to fix the reason you don't like them. And that is exactly what they are doing here, we don't like the word slave, so the word has to be abolished, not the thing that the word is but the word, completely pathetic. To equate banning master/slave to the ending or racism and i suspect slavery itself is beyond childish, a sentient cabbage could work that out.
MK14:

--- Quote from: Simon on July 29, 2020, 01:17:32 pm ---Adjustments for disability are one thing but as you show in your vegan example we have lost the live and let live and instead have live and impose on others. I would not put it past a vegan person refusing to use meat words as they generally are as fruity as fruitcakes come. But to not like something is fine, but to have the words banned from your hearing or vanished from your site is not realistic, fair to others or going to fix the reason you don't like them. And that is exactly what they are doing here, we don't like the word slave, so the word has to be abolished, not the thing that the word is but the word, completely pathetic. To equate banning master/slave to the ending or racism and i suspect slavery itself is beyond childish, a sentient cabbage could work that out.

--- End quote ---

You're right, I agree.
It is difficult to know where to draw the line, and has a significant risk, of being susceptible to feature creep.
It would also, to some extent, be eroding our own history, values and language.
The new words may also cause offence, from other parties, so it could be a lose/lose situation.

The problem is, if you created a word-processing file, and let all parties (let's say there were 500 programmers), have append_write (not read), access to it.
I.e. All users can extend the list, but they can't read what other programmers have said.

You could end up with a giant list of 5,000 or 6,000 words. It would then be getting really silly.
Some people might abuse the system, or get bored and decide to have a laugh. They then add, all their hated words to the master list.
If the list gets too long, it could eliminate virtually all the words, they might consider. 5 or 6 thousand, is too many to remember (easily), for most people. So, it would either take considerably longer to write software and/or not be possible, without taking extra steps, to compensate for the extra new words needed to write the software. Because of all the hassle and difficulties, coming up with (software standards code compliant) tests.

But there could be some sort of middle ground compromise, which largely keeps everyone happy. Such as only banning the most hated word(s), and leave it at that. I.e. the list is only 2 or 3 words long, in total.
E.g. N*****r, etc.
Simon:
And what annoys me even more these days is that before anyone say's anything they spend more time trying to clarify that what they are about to say is not meant to be misinterpreted this way and that way just in case someone takes offence for the thing they are about to say.
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: MK14 on July 29, 2020, 11:58:05 am ---It explains how a person of colour, was upset, by the computer system, sending him, an email.
That basically said "automatic slave rekick.".

Which I can understand, made him feel bad.
So, he and another employee, requested and got Twitter, to change their naming policies.

--- End quote ---
The next time someone brings crackers to the coffee room, I'll throw up a worldwide shitstorm for making me feel offended.  Fair enough?
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: Simon on July 29, 2020, 04:36:46 pm ---And what annoys me even more these days is that before anyone say's anything they spend more time trying to clarify that what they are about to say is not meant to be misinterpreted this way and that way just in case someone takes offence for the thing they are about to say.

--- End quote ---

There's been some significant shift in how people interact these days, especially since people use social networks, and get used to "delayed" interaction in general.

You notice that whereas when having a conversation with someone, and they weren't completely sure what you meant, they would (unless they were complete jerks) kindly admit they didn't quite understand you and would like you to rephrase your thoughts/make them clearer, now they increasingly tend to act like jerks (even if it's becoming the norm, thus now seems acceptable, or even "normal"), do not bother to even consider they didn't understand you, but instead will tend to have a preconceived idea of what you meant. Eventually, you end up apologizing for not being clear enough so that what you expressed may have hurt their feelings.

In other words, "sorry, I'm not sure I got what you meant exactly" has largely become "what you said hurt my feelings (/is racist/is discriminatory/whatever/...), now apologize or prove that what you meant is something else - but in the latter case, still apologize for having expressed things in a way that hurt me."

Oh, and for an increasing number of people, helped by the mob effect on social networks, actively *finding* "unacceptable" ideas in what others express, whatever they really say, has become a game. Like a modern form of hunting. They do not just happen to sometimes be offended by what someone else said. They actively look for it.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod