Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Branch off of main

davesnider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Branch off of main

#51

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

softwarebeware wrote: post #50
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Master is used in many context like master key, mastering a song, master copy, having mastery in something. To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.

That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .

I believe strongly in freedom of speech. To allow assholes and bigots to reveal themselves.

I believe the movement to alter what words we’re allowed to say in our vocabulary is lead by educated mostly white “allies”. These people don’t speak for the underprivileged, they’re creating ways to feel better about themselves through self-policing because they don’t have any real idea about how to solve the issues that actually affect people.

Re: Branch off of main

#52

Post by nerdponx »

jen20 wrote: post #8
vorpalhex wrote: post #5

> The basic thesis is one of dedicated roles, with the manager archetype focusing their time towards enablement, communication, and expectation. No, it's because programming requires a mental model of the software and most managers don't have that. Add in constant interruptions and the inability to focus and you have a recipe for disaster. Would you sometimes take a break from programming to go help accounting do the…

> It's because difficult problems are hard to solve. Most software development does not involve difficult problems however - other than how to comprehend the stitching together or "complected-libraries-du-jour" via maximal indirection.

I know this is a meme (I guess about frontend web dev sometimes?), but I don't think I've ever seen it play out in real life.

Almost every program source code that I've read or worked on mostly consists of "data processing" and "control flow", with various kinds of abstractions that depend on the problem, programming language, etc.

Even for applications that seem straightforward, writing software well requires quite a bit of mental energy and focus/attention. Especially once you consider future maintainability and interfaces that other devs will use, testing and testability, documentation, readability, et al.

Denigrating programmers for using frameworks and libraries (the horror!) is just pointless and arrogant. Sure, most programmers aren't implementing novel algorithms from scratch with manual memory management. But that doesn't mean other problems can't be hard, it just means that the level of abstraction is higher and the programmer is free to use their mental resources to work and reason differently.

Re: Branch off of main

#53

Post by trackflak »

softwarebeware wrote: post #49
trackflak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all…

That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .

It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it.

And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word".

Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?

Re: Branch off of main

#54

Post by hobomatic »

lostcolony wrote: post #48
vorpalhex wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every word has baggage. "The" was used in slave documents. So were receipts. Does this mean everytime a grocery store clerk gives you a receipt they are perpetuating slavery? Even Blacklist/Blackbook come not from anything to do with black people but Charles II and his list. If you are offended by it, it's because you chose to be.

What's your point? Does that logic excuse every word with historical baggage, or not? You state every word has historical baggage; either you then disagree with the parent logic, or you agree with the parent logic, and taken together with every word having baggage means you're saying every word is okay to use regardless of the historical baggage attached to it. Which is an interesting take, certainly.

It is OK to use words that remind people of troubling things as long the point of using it is not to do this antagonistically.

Someone could come along and tell me my name means 'short people are possessed by demons' and I would still go on using my name, even if someone said that was mean of me. Why? Because it's a ridiculous accusation, and you are a ridiculous person if you make such an accusation, or entertain it.

Now if I started calling myself '4 foot tall demons' that would obviously be different. It is entirely implausible that the 'baggage' is coincidental.

The point is that the sort of historical baggage you are talking about isn't relevant to the word or it's usage in context.

There is nothing to excuse.

Re: Branch off of main

#56

Post by pmarreck »

vorpalhex wrote: post #7
troon-lover wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

The same reason you aren't supposed to use the words: + master + slave + blacklist + whitelist + grandfather + brown bag + manpower + hijack + kill The list goes on (and on) and I have not transcribed even a portion of it. https://itconnect.uw.edu/work/inclusive-language-guide/ https://blog.ongig.com/writing-job-descriptions/a-list-of-of...

Is it frowned upon yet to describe something that may be deeply interesting to a niche as "porn" of it? (Like a pro-ZFS article being "BSD porn")
Post reply on HN