RE: Re: The request of words matter updated

[zeurkous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:28:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In terms of jcb's thesis, the two positions on master/slave terminology
> seem to be "tactlessness is a strict liability faux pas; if Bob opines
> Alice spoke tactlessly, she should speak differently" and "Alice wasn't
> being intentionally racist/speciesist/*, and Bob should follow Postel's
> Law".
>
> If I wrote the last paragraph well, I mispresented /both/ positions
> equally badly :P

[disclaimer: didn't read "jcb's thesis"]

The real problem with an "it causes offense, so it must be wrong"
attitude is conflicting norms, an inherent property of the very
"cultural diversity" that companies like IBM claim to persue.

In simpler terms: it's very easy to say something that constitutes an
insult in $CULTURE[0], while constituting lavish praise in $CULTURE[1].

(The words "not bad" spring to mind.)

We can never get it right; or, rather: we can never please everybody, no
matter what terminology we use, *someone* will be offended.

That's why it's important that keep technical terminology technical.

Unless we're willing to outright make up words that no-one will be able
to intuitively learn or understand. That would be quite a regression,
wouldn't it?

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!