• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    647·
    6 months ago

    I’d argue that abolishing the term “slave” isn’t the worst idea, implying that the word “master,” only in context where it’s paired with “slave,” should go as well - but that, of course, requires nuance, which a simple word filter lacks.

    • lowleveldata@programming.dev
      552·
      6 months ago

      This. To avoid the “master” branch on our git to be associated with “slave” I now name new branches “bitch”

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        452·
        6 months ago

        There aren’t “slaves” in git, though. The term “master” in that context is that of a master copy.

          • Citizen@lemmy.ml
            111·
            6 months ago

            “Historically, the default name for this initial branch was master. This term came from Bitkeeper, a predecessor to Git. Bitkeeper referred to the source of truth as the “master repository” and other copies as “slave repositories”. This shows how common master/slave references have been in technology, and the difficulty in knowing how the term master should be interpreted.”

            Excerpt from the link the other member posted above! You’re welcome!

          • Miaou@jlai.lu
            7·
            6 months ago

            It’s funny, because a quick online search shows gitlab runs operations in Saudi Arabia. But at least a bunch of idiot westerners get to feel good about themselves 🤷‍♂️

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          524·
          6 months ago

          And a master copy is used to produce slaves - though slave isn’t widespread in version control it’s still quite present in databases. And it all comes from the same Master/Slave naming habit.

    • sping@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      377·
      6 months ago

      And yet there’s a big push to rename git “master” branches, which have no slave connotations and are more analogous to master recordings.

      Its not like I’ll fight it, but it’s stupid.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        295·
        6 months ago

        It is stupid, and it’s because of a failure to understand the nuance.

        I will not inconvenience myself or anyone else by making any changes to existing configurations, which will surely break workflows, but I don’t give a shit what the main branch is called as long as it’s obvious.

          • sping@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            31·
            6 months ago

            Black/white as bad/good is a clear case where there is a clear logical reason to change IMO. That perpetuates unconscious bias.

            • jsomae@lemmy.ml
              3·
              6 months ago

              Evil forces of darkness and good forces of light is engrained into our cultural DNA. Night=dangerous, day=safe is just something you have to learn early as a woman, it is a fact of society and we can’t pretend it isn’t.

              Dark lord, black rider, white knight… why focus on whitelist/blacklist specifically?

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                2·
                6 months ago

                Because allow/blocklist are just as old if not even older and are way clearer terminology.

                “white” and “black” there are metaphors, the “master” in git branches and SCSI isn’t.

                See at some point you have to ask yourself the question whether you’d be opposed to the change if blue-haired college students really into performative politics weren’t a thing. Imagine the idea coming from your slightly computer-illiterate 60yold shop floor boss saying “I don’t want to think about the terms here, I want to do CAD/CAM. Speak English, whippersnapper”.

                • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  5 months ago

                  You’re probably right about that. It is irritating though that we’ve added more syllables.

                  I’m just grumpy because I don’t like random change for no reason. I think I’m probably in the 99th percentile for how irritated I get when software or a website changes its layout. I also haven’t seen any trustworthy anecdotes of people who find the term blacklist/whitelist offensive to them, but I don’t really go looking either. Perhaps I should.

      • NotSteve_
        2·
        6 months ago

        I thought it was dumb too but, to be honest, I kind of prefer using “main” now. It’s quicker to type lol

    • FederatedSaint@lemmy.world
      216·
      6 months ago

      Why abolish the word slave? I’ve heard of people advocating for abolishing the word “black” also. It’s crazy to me. I don’t understand how using the word at all somehow advocates for human slavery.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        145·
        6 months ago

        It draws unfortunate parallels.

        I do agree that the proposals to abolish “black” feel a bit misguided though surely well-intentioned; the etymology of “blacklist,” for example, has no relation to race whatsoever. However, there are unfortunate parallels with how “black” and “white” people were and indeed are still treated differently.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          5·
          6 months ago

          the etymology of “blacklist,” for example, has no relation to race whatsoever

          What happens is that the term “black” takes on negative connotations in a million different ways. “Blacklist” being one example. It may have no overt connection to race, but it gains it through repeated use in different contexts. Your brain doesn’t necessarily encode the different contexts in separate ways. You may be able to think it through at a high level of rationality in a debate, but not when you’re out on the street going about your day.

          The solution may not be to change the language, though. There are too many longstanding cultural associations with black = evil, and there’s just no way to get rid of them all.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-effect/

          “Although psychologists have known for a long time that people associate dark skin with negative personality traits, this research shows that the reverse is also true: when we hear about an evil act, we are more likely to believe it was done by someone with darker skin. This “bad is black” effect may have its roots in our deep-seated human tendency to associate darkness with wickedness. Across time and cultures, we tend to portray villains as more likely to be active during nighttime and to don black clothing. Similarly, our heroes are often associated with daytime and lighter colors. These mental associations between color and morality may negatively bias us against people with darker skin tones. If this is true, it has far-reaching implications for our justice system. For example, eye witnesses to crimes may be more likely to falsely identify suspects who possess darker skin.”

          “Overall, the “bad is black” effect only underscores the importance of finding ways to combat the various ways that our inherent biases can influence perceptions of guilt and innocence. Understanding the extent of these biases, as well as what may be causing them, represents an important first step.”