Live data from Hacker News

Python: Avoid master/slave terms

github.com

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#11
It seems to me that two separate things are being conflated here. Removing "slave" and "master/slave" terms seems fair enough, for the obvious reasons, but "master" on its own also has the innocuous sense of "main" - as in "master switch", "master bathroom", etc.

It looks like this PR removes both sorts of usages reflexively (the author, apparently not a native speaker, perhaps not being aware of a distinction). In the ensuing discussion it seems like those who support the PR are focused on the former sorts of usages, while those who disagree are focusing on the latter - resulting in folks talking past each other.

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#13
> Every single time you people decide to change software for no other reason than social justice, all normal programmers decide to be more racist, sexist, transphobic and whatever else pisses you off - for no other reason than just to spite you.

Although I can't completely agree with this, there is definitely some negative effect of such actions whenever they're undertaken. People who think "this is going too far" will naturally oppose to them. So I wonder about the net benefit here, really. We've been using the master/slave terminology for years, but it has nothing to do with actual slaves and I can't imagine anyone thinking about them when dealing with technology.

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#14
post #10

I was surprised at just how comically angry people were over this. I can kind of understand their arguments against a trend of being too change-happy and over-correcting, but these things really should be considered case-by-case, not on whether it's part of a trend. It's an opportunity to use more descriptive terms, with being less insensitive as a bonus, and neither of these warrants the level of hate that's been co…

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, however one of the definitions of master is "main, prinicipal". Think of master bedroom, or the master copy of a key.

Removing the term "slave" seems like the big win here.

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#15
post #2

As a commenter noted, stones can hurt people too. But, that's not what people think of first when they hear the word stone. On the other hand, if you know the word slave, you know that the first meaning brings up some sad history. It's surprising that in the context of a programming language discussion, a programming language where exact syntax and meaning matters, that this change wouldn't be accepted more easily.

I guess the context here is skewed a bit based on your location for historical reasons. I.e. in Europe slavery ended much earlier than in the USA, and the aftermath is fundamentally different - we don't have a large distinct population that had slaves as ancestors.

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#16
post #11

It seems to me that two separate things are being conflated here. Removing "slave" and "master/slave" terms seems fair enough, for the obvious reasons, but "master" on its own also has the innocuous sense of "main" - as in "master switch", "master bathroom", etc. It looks like this PR removes both sorts of usages reflexively (the author, apparently not a native speaker, perhaps not being aware of a distinction). In t…

git push origin current?

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#17
post #2

As a commenter noted, stones can hurt people too. But, that's not what people think of first when they hear the word stone. On the other hand, if you know the word slave, you know that the first meaning brings up some sad history. It's surprising that in the context of a programming language discussion, a programming language where exact syntax and meaning matters, that this change wouldn't be accepted more easily.

I've never known anyone, minority or not, who got teary-eyed at the word "slave". Uncomfortableness with the basic terminology of slavery is a reflection of how people relate to their privilege, especially in an era where minority rights and minority power are at the forefront of the contemporary narrative.

That isn't to say that there doesn't exist terminology that people should be mindful of. But most privileged, white people wouldn't recognize it. When the candidate for Florida governor denied using the word "monkey" to illicit traditional racial animus in his conservative base, people on the left were incredulous. But why? As we're seemingly attempting to do with the words "master" and "slave", we work hard to erase the incidents of oppression rather than actually addressing oppression. Is it so hard to believe that, once excised from common speech patterns, the memory of the origins and import of words and phrases is forgotten, even if the undertones linger? Especially among earnest individuals? (You can be earnest but still prejudiced and even prone to using the language of prejudice.)

Now, no doubt blacks in Florida had good reason to be incredulous of his supposed ignorance. But context matters, in particular the perseverance of the more crass language of racism in Florida. The use of the word "monkey" was offensive because of the context and what it implies, quite concretely, about the motives of someone running for a very powerful office that has traditionally done horrible things to certain Florida communities. But nobody is, yet, arguing that we should remove the word monkey from zoo plaques, or stop using terms like monkey-patching.

And that's despite the fact that, very much unlike the word "slave", if you shout out "monkey" in the company of certain groups heads will turn. Chattel slavery doesn't exist and hasn't existed for a long time. Absent a malicious or awkward context, the word "slave" doesn't elicit or trigger any anxiety or anger or tension in African-Americans. That slavery is some pervasive obsession of African-Americans that shapes and colors their every thought is a TV trope, and a racist one at that. Blacks no more identify as a slave then they do a monkey. Again, context matters; it's the context which makes the implication; it's context which turns a word into an instrument of oppression. But when the word and topic legitimately come up it makes privileged whites very uncomfortable, which is why it's so memorable and poignant in their collective imagination, and why it makes for cheap tension in script writing.

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#18
Pythons are dangerous and oppress many people everyday. This is still a problem today and can trigger humans who innately fear snakes. To increase the diversity of people who use Python, we should avoid the use of predatory animals as names

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#19
post #8

An interesting other side of the coin here: Emily Wilson, in her recent translation of The Odyssey made it a point to call the slaves in Odysseus' house slaves. In other translations, this idea was glossed over, the people called different things, avoiding the term. Wilson instead aimed to stay truer to the culture the work was written in, rather than appealing to contemporary ideals, or what have you. It makes sense…

Some words are created to do intentional harm to others. Others simply have two meanings, one innocuous in its usage another, derogatory to some group of people. The mariam webster dictionary recognizes the word slave as: a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another.

source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave

Re: Python: Avoid master/slave terms

#20
post #2

As a commenter noted, stones can hurt people too. But, that's not what people think of first when they hear the word stone. On the other hand, if you know the word slave, you know that the first meaning brings up some sad history. It's surprising that in the context of a programming language discussion, a programming language where exact syntax and meaning matters, that this change wouldn't be accepted more easily.

Like someone else said, I would urge some Americans to have a bit more self-awareness about a lot of these issues, in that they are not absolute issues but america-specific ones (not slavery in general of course, but the modern guilt about slavery and racial segregation that is still a bit of an open wound in the USA).

A lot of the 'obvious' connotations to americans about words are simply not there for the larger anglophone world. That doesn't make their concerns invalid - just that it's not 'obvious' that the choice of words is poor.

I make no comments on the merits of this particular issue, just a general point about the context in which a lot of the debates are held, especially with non-american english speakers (e.g. antirez).

Post reply on HN