251–260 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's no such thing. It wasn't even an argument - not everything on HN needs to be. As per the guidelines please assume good faith in further discourse.
You misunderstand me. There was no need to assume anything. You used a manipulative debate tactic called motte and bailey. It invalidates your point entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blocklist is actually a better name IMO, and I've seen it used in places, and an easy enough change. You should try to avoid using "Blocklist" in most code IMO, it's ambiguous in a number of contexts as the word block itself is ambiguous and can mean very multiple different things such as blockchain blocks or data/filesystem blocks which would be something very different from the intended definition of a disallow r…
I would assume in most cases context would differentiate the meanings adequately unambiguously, especially in userland rather than when coding. But you have a point, block is unhelpfully overloaded on the English language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a line should be drawn somewhere. You use he in "He said", should you not be more careful about your gender assumptions? Are you sure they won't take offense?
1) I don't think a line has to be drawn somewhere. It's fine to evaluate on a case by case basis. 2) Even if I make a mistake, I think it's fine to apologize, say I didn't realize (and not repeat it with that person), and move on. It doesn't have to cripple me into not being able to speak... we're all reasonable people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if instead of master/slave the terms were master and "n-word". Would there be a reasonable argument to change it at that point? If you say "yes" then you agree there is a line somewhere. If that's the case then we should discuss where the line should be and why it should be there instead of saying "stop [worrying] about being politically correct". If you say "no" then your argument is that no words are too of…
Master/slave has a technical meaning beyond the sense of one person enslaving another. "Nigger" has no use case outside of making horrible and offensive remarks, aside from historical writing (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird) or making a point about racism, cases in which it is accepted.
It's not “beyond”, it's literally the use of human slavery as a metaphor for relations between technical components.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that master/slave actually conveys a relationship between two things. It was picked for technical use because of that. Naming something "nigger", even in a technical would do what, offend some other piece of code? If somebody chose an offensive name arbitrarily (like, say, "git"), I would understand the impulse. Though the former is fraught with specific and awful connotations towards a very specific grou…
To me master and slave is soemthing that shouldn't convey a relationship. Slavery exists with the shitiness of our culture. That's not something that should be used to convey a relationship between things. Abuse shouldn't be part of our technical language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's their choice, but I still don't like the precedent it sets. I don't really care what they call it, I just don't want this kind of thing to become an expectation, resulting in me either having to do a bunch of renaming work or risk being seen as some kind of ist.
I'd try worrying less about possibly having to do some menial work or being perceived as an ist, and instead try to understand why some might be offended by such terms or what impact their prevalence might have on our profession and wider society.
Easy: attention seeking in attention (or, rather, outrage) economy. Who gets offended in most absurd way wins all their retweets. And then they get to be taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am happy to see this. You say bullied into compliance but all I see is a community consciously putting efforts to become more inclusive. It may not be that big of a deal for you but it is a big deal for those who don’t share the same worldview as you. Are your principals so low that you wouldn’t accommodate change of language and behavior to be more welcoming of others? What do you think about people who curse like…
Same here, I honestly don't even get why people are angry about this. You're saying master isn't a big deal, well, neither is main. Would've you cared if git updates this without the discourse of "let's remove master from our everyday conversations."
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Probably people thought about it for 2 seconds and realised it isn't true.
"The tranquility that comes when you stop caring what they say. Or think, or do. Only what you do." - Marcus Aureliu
"When someone is properly grounded in life, they shouldn’t have to look outside themselves for approval." - Epictetus
"Learn to be indifferent to what makes no difference." - Marcus Aurelius
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t really get this sentiment. Are you so absolutely dedicated to the phrase “falling on deaf ears” that if somebody says to you “hey, that phrase might hurt somebody’s feelings, can you use an alternative” you take it as some sort of massive imposition on your life? I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection. I’m hearing im…
I feel for your problems, but I don't think you being hearing impaired gives you a right to be offended at the usage of the word "deaf". It's a functional description, not a slur. I have some similar things which I'd rather not expand upon, but I don't think that gives me the right to be offended at terms unless they are slurs. As a comparison, people shouldn't be offended at any usage of the word "smart", but they'r…
Additionally, common usage of the phrase "falling on deaf ears" is almost never used to actually describe communicating with a deaf person. It's usually used to describe communicating with a hearing person who, for some reason other than physical hearing impairment, did not listen.
Therefor I think it is the exact opposite of a functional description. Instead it uses a physical disability to describe folks without that disability behaving in unproductive ways. Given that, it seems quite reasonable to say "this phrase could be seen as excluding to folks who have that disability".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t really get this sentiment. Are you so absolutely dedicated to the phrase “falling on deaf ears” that if somebody says to you “hey, that phrase might hurt somebody’s feelings, can you use an alternative” you take it as some sort of massive imposition on your life? I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection. I’m hearing im…
By your logic, how can you can casually say "walk in my shoes," when you can be sure it bugs people confined to wheelchairs? Do you owe us all an apology and a promise to never use that common and easily-understood idiom again? I don't think you do... but do you think you do? If not, why not?
However, I don't think I owe you all an apology, and you'll notice that I never asked anybody for an apology for using "fall on deaf ears" or anything else. I did say we should practice radical compassion and if somebody says to us "hey this phrase bugs me or hurts my feelings" there's very few reasons I can imagine why we shouldn't accept that and consider using different language.
I'm happy to trade "live my life" for "walk in my shoes" in order to make folks who use wheelchairs feel more included in my communities. Why not? What do I lose? It's not like "walk in my shoes" is some deeply important idiom to me and if I never say it again I will be forever a less-happy person.