[awb]

> People opposed to these words are making them racist (or acquiescing to those that want us to think that way) where their origin was never anything of the sort

I’m pretty sure actual masters and slaves were the origins of the words and predate your SCSI example.

> The master/slave relationship predated the American continent and across the broad swath of human history has been a pretty color-blind enterprise

But it’s never been healthy or admirable, wether based on racism, class, tribalism, religion, etc.

So we’re upset that we can’t personify inanimate objects and describe mechanical processes using words that were originally used to describe horrible human behavior? Is this really the hill to fight on? Does renaming a DB pair primary/secondary really mark the downfall of our society? No one is trying to make you “acquiesce”. If personifying an application with the words master/slave is super important to you, go for it.

It just seems more odd to me those that insist on using it rather than the multitude of words that aren’t associated with generational pain and suffering.

[aksss]

> actual masters and slaves predate

Obviously, where did you read me saying otherwise?

> [bunch of hyperbole about downfall of civilization]

The idiocy of attempting to change language like this and the rationale given is certainly making society dumber, to say nothing of the insulting nature of people pretending this buffoonery is perfectly natural.

> no one is trying to make you acquiesce

The comments on this thread contain many examples and testimonies to the contrary - corporate training programs, censorship.

> seems odd to me

Perhaps it’s odd to you because you see it as a small and limited change; it’s ridiculous to me because there’s no limiting principle to what’s offensive. This word pair is actually one of the less ridiculous attempts at linguistic overhaul (somewhat less ridiculous than trying to ban whitelist/blacklist, e.g.).

[awb]

> where did you read me saying otherwise?

> where their origin was never anything of the sort

It sounded like you were trying to use the SCSI example or the programming example to show that “master/slave” is an innocuous word pair commonly used in ways that don’t apply to the slave trade. But their semantic origin is the slave trade. It’s like if we started referring to DB wipes as “genocides”. The origin of “genocide” and emotional impact of the word doesn’t change when the word is co-opted (poorly and for no ideal reason) down the road.

It sounds likes silly argument to argue that the origin of the word pair and it’s emotional/historical context should be secondary (or even ignored) because it was used innocently in a niche domain like hardware or software far later down the line. I guess I’m arguing the reverse that the original meaning matters the most and the latter applications of the word matter the least, simply because the original meaning is still taught in school and used as a reminder of the horrors of human behavior while the overhauled use of the word pair is a poor analogy that directly attempts to reference that original meaning.

> This word pair is actually one of the less ridiculous attempts at linguistic overhaul

Yet there’s huge resistance and debate about it. I don’t understand why one would want to draw a line in the sand here and insist on overhauling the original meaning of an emotionally charged word like “slave” to poorly personify an inanimate process. Even if I was going to personify a replica DB, I’d call it a “clone” or “twin”. I don’t think renaming “master/slave” is the social oppression / thought police we’re all worried about.