RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)

[zeurkous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:58:02 -0700, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Eric Cook <llua@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.
>
> This is the point (which I tried to make in my "thoughts" message):
> The term of offense is not "master" by itself, but that's the word
> that all arguments against making a change have latched onto.

Not me. To me, it's about both words, together.

> A
> secondary point is that its hypocritical to claim both that this
> should be an apolitical technical decision and also to assert that
> it's only a valid issue if certain recognizable segments of the user
> base are those expressing an opinion.

Apparently me hasn't been clear: to me, it *is* an apolitical technical
decision; yet, me can perfectly live w/ the fact that other people feel
differently, and me's been trying to accomodate them, /even as me does
not agree/.

No hypocrisy there. Just civility.

> There is no use of "slave" I can find that does not imply being
> unwillingly bound or restricted. Playacting at same does not
> constitute an exception.

Me's not into BDSM, but me's pretty sure not all of it is "playacting"
as such.

Perhaps me's splitting hairs...

> That a particular use does not refer to
> human trafficking does not remove the implication or the analogy.

You're right.

> Changing unrelated uses of "master" is not even up for debate here.

A neutral observation: one change like this tends to lead to others in
different places. Thus they may very well being up for debate (or worse:
silently taken for granted, just because an earlier change, in the same
vein, was accepted).

A non-neutral observation: me's concerned about that.

> However, what should be considered is the ten or so other and more
> visible (because they're in shell scripts) uses of "slave".  As far as
> I'm concerned, that's the only reason this discussion hasn't already
> been called by fiat (as in, by PWS pushing the patch he's already
> proposed, or something very much like it).

If anyone pushes the change: me'll consider the matter closed.

Me disagreement is not worth this churn.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!