[montereynack]

I’m unsure how to feel about this. On the one hand, I can most definitely sympathize with feelings that a name, no matter how inoffensive to some groups, might be deeply offensive to others. However, in my mind there’s the question of standardization to be considered. Science (unlike the software world) can’t change every few years (at least it shouldn’t). Some of these definitions have become so ingrained in existing literature and cultural knowledge over the decades that you have to ask what happens if you suddenly decide to change something; you have to wonder what effects it can have on a field if something is suddenly and forcefully renamed (students can get confused, older but sill quite valuable reference texts can be made confusing to read).

I also had issue with how the article decided to present its opening argument, by saying that an African American felt disturbed when they went to “noose” lizards in a group of white people. While I absolutely agree that this would be in bad taste if they were at all implying doing this same thing to people, the context I got is that it was a purely academic term derived from the shape of the tool they’re using, and NOT at all oriented towards the act itself or the specific things they’re trying to catch. To me that sounds very similar to someone saying that programmers referring to “killing the child” is offensive, when everyone knows the act is not related at all to the death of actual children and is not trying to make light of situations where that happens. It’s a historical and technically functional reference, nothing more.

To be clear, I don’t feel that all of these causes are wrong. I’m just worried that in our haste to make symbolic changes, we’re pushing towards alterations that only have an effect years later when everyone that would be able to explain the changes is dead. I’m also worried that these very symbolic changes will be used as a band-aid and aren’t addressing the deeper issues at play here, and that they might even distract from what actually needs to be done.

[542458]

TBQH I think the noosing one is pretty innocent (since it is an actual noose after all) - but note that the ending paragraph says that that proposal doesn't have much support.

I think most of the things described in the article that are actually changing (things named after eugenicists or unethical researchers or slurs) are good targets to change.