|
|
|
|
|
|
by usrbinbash
1199 days ago
|
|
|
> why not start with the places where the words actually mean the same thing If a word describes a bad thing, that's a reason to get rid of the bad thing. It's not a reason to ban the word. Because the latter doesn't help anyone with real problems. Wow, we banished "master" from git. Did that make the world a better place for the people described in these articles (see links)? https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/4.htm https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_... Did it positively impact any of these lives? Is it going to do so at any point in the future? If so, what specific outcomes can these people expect from it? My point is, banishing words describing bad things, doesn't make the bad things go away. |
|
|
As for the reasoning, nobody thinks not having a "master" and "slave" chip in SPI is going to erase slavery and especially nobody (on the right side) is trying to erase the word altogether. The most common argument is that these terms should not be "watered down" by using them elsewhere - when you hear the word "slave", your immediate thought should be "human rights are being violated! who? where? how can we stop it?". It should bring up the thought of some of the worst human suffering in history, not some chips talking to each other.
(again, I'm not giving a judgement of the idea, just explaining the arguments for it the way I understand them)