[kelnos]

So what you're saying is that you agree with the underlying message, but because it was presented in a way that offends your sensibilities, you're going to ignore it and continue to use a phrase derived from something that's incorrect and never existed?

And really, you're bothered by the idea that 'main' is a more neutral name for the default branch of a git repository, and want to cling to 'master', when that term has traditionally been used to describe someone who enslaves other humans? Really? You're that attached to something like a default branch name in a VCS? Or you aren't, but because it sounded like people were trying to make you feel bad about yourself for using 'master', you're just going to be obstinate and own those libs?

All that seems kinda spiteful and petty. You do you, I guess.

[esperent]

> So what you're saying is that you agree with the underlying message

No, that's the complete opposite of what I said.

Please read again. The part where I said that the underlying message is "you are wrong, you should feel bad, you're not allowed to use the thing you were wrong about anymore".

If the message had been "you're wrong about something, here's the truth, now make up your own mind about whether you want to keep using it", I'd be completely on board with the article. My decision would probably be that I'm gonna keep using the phrase because all of linguistics is built on misunderstandings, mistranslations, and downright lies, so avoiding every phrase that has "bad" origins is a step on the road to 1984. But that's just like, my opinion, man. You can decide otherwise and we can all get along just fine.

[djur]

I assume you think it's a good thing that we don't use phrases like "[black person] in the woodpile" or "[black person] toes" or "[black person] rigged" anymore. Maybe you agree we shouldn't use names for the Romani or Jewish people as idiom for being cheated. I am certain that there is some phrase or term you wouldn't use that my grandfather would have considered harmless, or his grandfather, etc.

I don't like arbitrary language policing, either. I think there was a much stronger case for eliminating "master"/"slave" than "master branch", for instance, and if people were to argue for eliminating "mastery" as well I'd consider that ridiculous. It's fine if you don't consider this particular argument persuasive, but if it's a step toward Ingsoc we've all already been sprinting in that direction for centuries.

[peoplefromibiza]

> Maybe you agree we shouldn't use names for the Romani or Jewish people as idiom for being cheated

All good and admirable, but

when I meet someone from the States and say I'm Italian, it usually ends up like this

https://www.alessandravita.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12...

or this

https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uplo...

or with a combo

https://preview.redd.it/italian-stereotypes-starter-pack-v0-...

It's not the words or the metaphors, it's the people!

If someone wants to use words against someone else, they'll find a way, no matter what.

Policing words is fascist, if anything, police people bad behaviour, actually, police how your society works and start investigating why you you masterfully created, nourished and spread to the World so many cultural stereotypes about everyone who is not you and doesn't want to be like you! They talk to us about you, it's not the words you use, but *how* you use them.

Try to understand that thinking "you person of color -> you bad" it's not any better than thinking "you [n word] -> you bad".

[JohnBooty]

I’m always puzzled by this common sort of tone-policing reaction to an article that says “we should do X” or even “you should do X.”

This sort of phrasing of one’s opinion is as old as essays and speeches themselves, as far as I know. Here is an english translation of a speech by Cicero, the one from which our good old lorem ipsum placeholder text was derived.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de...

Of course it is sensible for a person to have an opinion on the conduct of others, and to express that opinion. Where is the problem?

Unless said author was in a position of power over me I would understand the “we should X” phrasing as kind of like… the standard way that opinions have been expressed throughout history…

[esperent]

Well, maybe this - writing in this imperative tone - is something that we should work on changing? It seems like a more useful change than policing individual words or phrases because of dubious historical misunderstandings.

[JohnBooty]

Did you ever write something like this in a school essay?

   "I think that people should do XYZ"

If so, and your English teacher was at least minimally engaged, they should have pointed out why the "I think" is entirely redundant and best removed.

The reader knows that this is your opinion. They may reasonably presume these are your opinions and that you are not writing the essay at gunpoint or while under the influence of alien mind control. Furthermore, no reasonable reader would mistake your opinion for some sort of imperative they are compelled to obey.

(Now, I hope this isn't misconstrued to mean that all opinions should be expressed authoritatively and imperatively. That is not always the right tone.)

[esperent]

I think that your focus on high school grammar is (perhaps intentionally) missing the point here. I've explained my position on multiple other comments in this thread, if you care to look, and it's not about a grammar issue. It's a societal issue which I've seen called SJWs (social justice warriors) which is characterized as mostly wealthy white Americans (although it spread to other groups too) deciding that they need to "help" minorities that they've never met in some way, usually by policing language or fashion. It's a low effort way to appear to be affecting social change while actually not doing much and in fact most likely just alienating potential allies who would otherwise be supportive of more important changes.

[JohnBooty]

Can you talk about your observation (assumption?) that people talking about these issues are talking instead of helping in material ways. This is a false dichotomy. Talking about a thing is not incompatible with doing a thing.

(I see from your comment history that you've talked about Typescript, and being Irish. Does that mean you don't actually write Typescript and you're, uh, not being Irish in a proper enough way? No.)

It's acceptable to discuss a societal issue even if you're not actively doing something about it. There are a lot of things going on in the world and a finite amount of hours in one's day. We can only personally reach out and touch a depressingly small subset of them. I think Putin is a rather malignant head of state, but I am not actively working to depose him, and I don't see a conflict there as long as I'm clear about that.

    deciding that they need to "help" minorities that they've 
    never met in some way, usually by policing language or fashion.

This is a key concept and I'm sure I won't change your mind. But for the record: the belief here is that when you have a privileged group and an underprivileged group, the privileged group has a large role to play in righting this wrong.

As an admittedly contrived example, suppose we work at a majority-white company where white employees are openly using racial slurs against black employees. As a white person, I've got a responsibility to confront this and steer things in a better direction. If I'm in management then part of my job is to shape enact and enforce policies to keep this from happening.

I think we'd agree on that cartoonishly obvious example, but another key belief is that there are a lot of "lesser" racist acts that may not be as egregious as the "n word" but are still well worth combating.

Certainly, I think that any particular policy at any company is up for discussion. I've no doubt there's a lot of overreach in this area. Some companies are surely doing real shitty jobs, but the problem here is "companies doing real shitty jobs" and not the core idea of "hey, let's shape a good company culture here."

But I think you are making a lot of other unsupported assumptions: that these policies are enacted by "rich white people" with zero input from the groups they claim to protect, and that these policies are being enacted without other more material changes, and so on. Again: surely true in some cases, but I believe you are conflating bad implementations with bad ideas.

[poulpy123]

I don't care about using main, master or whatever, I'm not a word fetichist. But I care about people campaigning for changing a perfectly innocuous word I'm using because they decided they didn't like it for absurd reasons.

It's the word equivalent of numerology

[erichocean]

I call these people 'word thinkers'—they can't get past the actual words used to the concepts being expressed.

[motorest]

> It's the word equivalent of numerology

I won't say that. As much as I frown upon the holier-than-thou attitude plaguing talks on social justice topics, the words we use do have influence on how we think and act.

[homebrewer]

master in the context of git never referred to slavery, it's derived from the "master record" used by the audio industry. The process of renaming the default branch was started by someone outside the project who never contributed to git in any way before or after that.

Thankfully, there are many countries outside the US where this sort of 1984-style language policing is not accepted and we'll continue "clinging" to our "legacy terms", tyvm.

[sergiosgc]

Portuguese has the word "mestre" from the same Latin origin. Since it has evolved in a separate context, it may give a glimpse of the original meaning, way before slavery. A "mestre", in Portuguese, is one of three concepts:

- Someone who has mastered some art;

- A teacher;

- The lead artisan in a team, the one who has mastered the art, teaches and leads.

The slave master is a very narrow interpretation on these meanings, and the woke push against the word is myopic. The word has a long history, none of it connected to slavery.

[b800h]

This is the same in British English. I found the main/master switch absurd. I went to school, and was taught by masters: an English master, History master and so on. In my cultural context, the switch was just cultural colonialism from America.

[TeMPOraL]

This is the same in other European languages. For example in Polish, the equivalent word, "mistrz", refers to all the things GP said, but doesn't even have a meaning that could be applied to slavery.

As for American English, wake me up when they rename Master's degree.

[b800h]

Well, the tide is going out now. That's unlikely to happen until the virus mutates and reappears in thirty years' time.

[bigstrat2003]

Also, even with the master/slave interpretation, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not offensive to use terms that refer to slavery. No reasonable person thinks "oh because this database has a master and slave replica the maintainers think slavery was ok". No reasonable person is so psychologically fragile that the mere mention of slavery hurts them.

[ben_w]

> No reasonable person is so psychologically fragile that the mere mention of slavery hurts them

And yet, weirdly to me, there's a lot of people acting like it costs them personally to switch words.

I never gave this topic much thought when it first came up, because it never mattered to me in the fist place if the default branch was called "master" or "A1" or "πρώτα".

Someone wants it called different because of aesthetics? Sure, have fun with the new name! It's no more significant to me than "jif" (the cleaning fluid) being renamed "cif", or Marathon, Snickers.

Of course, if anyone were to have suggested to me that the name alone would be enough to solve racism forever, I might have pointed that the Berlin Wall's official name translated as "anti-fascist protection barrier", as an example of the way people use words to divert from a complete lack of real action or worse to act in direct opposition to the normal meaning of the words.

[motorest]

> Portuguese has the word "mestre" from the same Latin origin.

I don't think this concept is unique to Portuguese. Whenever anyone talks about, say, the dutch masters, they are not talking about slavery.

[scotty79]

It's a bit like banning the word 'owner' because there used to be slave owners.

[LinuxBender]

Thankfully, there are many countries outside the US where this sort of 1984-style language policing is not accepted and we'll continue "clinging" to our "legacy terms", tyvm.

FWIW some of us in the USA will also continue using the original words as they were intended rather than injecting social issues into language and trying to control people with compelled speech. I for one put all the words back when people swap them out by using FoxReplace for Firefox, Word Replacer II for Chrome and nobody even notices unless I happen to quote them. The people trying to control language are quite selective. For example they have chosen not to tamper with "Masters Degree" but they will change master everywhere else.

[mrguyorama]

>I for one put all the words back when people swap them out

This is the silliest, pettiest, snowflakiest thing I've seen in a while.

"Words can't hurt you" say people who are so upset that languages change through various means (yes even intentional! Ask the French) that they go out of their way to edit other people's content to say what they would rather it say.

It's really funny to decry 1984 Ingsoc as you actively rewrite your individual view of reality to conform to your sensibilities, as if that isn't exactly the same ideology.

[LinuxBender]

This is the silliest, pettiest, snowflakiest thing I've seen in a while.

Partially agreed. I am silly and petty in response to other people trying to force BDSM on me. They try to force everyone into Domination, Submission and Humiliation so I neuter their pseudo mind-rape and teach others how to do the same.

[heeton]

I get that the core issue was frustrating for some and I agree it felt a bit performative, but: I’m always amazed when someone tries to claim that this incredibly thin step away via a music term _with the same originating meaning_ somehow completely disconnects “master” from slavery.

Why don’t we spend energy on getting to the issues we actually care about instead of standing on shaky arguments and calling it a day. It’s lazy thinking.

[marliechiller]

The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all. In the same way we wouldnt connect cotton with slavery. It was a term used within the context of slavery, but wasnt created _for_ slavery. In fact, it long predates african-american slavery:

_late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"_

So if we dislike the user of master, do we ban whip? Or any other term negatively associated with slavery that actually predates it? I think the actual answer is contextual, and in the context of git, there is no relation to slavery whatsoever for most of the worlds populace

[heeton]

I'd wager good money that if you did a rapid-fire word association test on a spread of non-us english speakers, over half would say "slave" after master.

[marliechiller]

Id wager we could do the same with the word "quarter". Whats your point exactly?

[heeton]

> The thing is, most non-Americans dont connect master with slavery at all

[esperent]

As a counterpoint, why do we spend huge volumes of energy trying to change minor linguistic term that is only tenuously related to a historical issue, rather than deal with the countless real social issues that exist today?

The reason: because it was easier, it allowed corporations (especially Microsoft) to give the appearance of making social change, and because it distracted us from dealing with the real issues. In other words, laziness.

And you know what, if you're firmly on the progressive left, as I am, that's no big deal. It's annoying, maybe it alienates me from taking part in social action. But it won't, for example, change who I vote for.

However, we (the West) live in a period of history balanced on a narrow edge between social progression and social regression, with all manner of bad actors waiting on the wings to take advantage of our slipups. And this was a slipup, no matter how well meaning the people who pushed it through were. This, and many, many other small annoyances, were in all likelihood what it took to push a significant number of people to change their vote in the recent election. It's not the only reason, perhaps not even the main one. But any change is significant when you're balanced on an edge.

[heeton]

> distracted us from dealing with the real issues Strongly agree with this. (And this kind of moral licensing in general. Ooh, well done for switching your toilet paper to an eco friendly version you were marketed on instagram, but why haven't you changed anything else in your life that matters).

But also, small things do have to change. If nothing changes, the status quo remains, and the status quo is stacked against many people. (Because of gender, race, culture, wealth, location, etc). It's easy to say "focus on the big things" but the small things can change along the way too.

[esperent]

This was not a small thing to change. It was a minor thing, in itself. But the actual process of changing was huge, and took months of energy and pointless discussion from millions of people. I would guess the change could be counted in the millions of people hours.

I'm strongly in favor of progressive social change. But when even the smallest of change takes this much effort and leaves people frustrated and alienated, we should not be focusing this much effort on insignificant changes. It's like trickle down economics - hundreds of minor changes like this will not trickle down into large changes. Most likely the opposite - they'll alienate and infuriate enough people over time to cause a societal swing in the other direction.

If we're gonna put effort like this into bringing about change, let's make it meaningful, something that effects our daily lives now.

[whatwhaaaaat]

Just understand if you’re the one forcing language, hiring based on race, and forcing people to take part in medical experiments — you’re the regressive one.

There is nothing progressive about any of that.

[esperent]

Nice strawmen, but I've never done or been involved in any of those things and I don't, personally, consider them progressive. I'm more inclined to think of changes like improved rights to self expression (as trans, gay, or pretty much anything else that doesn't too badly infringe on other people), social safety for poor people, more equitable sharing of generation wealth, especially related to land ownership, better care for the environment, better access to healthcare, education, and housing for all people, considering other species as sentient and according them the same rights as humans, and not viewing corporations as human as socially progressive issues.

I also recognize that in all of these things, balance and nuance are required and conflicts are common and won't always be resolved in a way that makes me, personally, satisfied.

> forcing language

This entire thread is a majority of people, on a generally quite progressive forum, arguing strongly against forced language change. I do not believe that the majority of genuinely progressive people want or believe in forced language changes, with the exception of a few specific ethnic and gender based slurs.

[whatwhaaaaat]

So you don’t believe in forced language unless it includes issues you believe should be forced language changes.

Thanks for making my point.

[heeton]

I agree.

[Ray20]

I think you are unfair to your leftist comrades. Yes, perhaps the problem of using disrespectful words is not very serious, and there are more important social problems. But this is not a reason to ignore them and especially to belittle the merits of people who SUCCESSFULLY solve those problems and little by little ensure social progress in our society.

[bigstrat2003]

> Yes, perhaps the problem of using disrespectful words is not very serious, and there are more important social problems. But this is not a reason to ignore them...

That is, in fact, a reason to ignore them. Even if you agree it's a problem (I don't), triage is important. Use your social capital on solving problems of importance, not on annoying people with solutions to minor problems.

[CRConrad]

> _with the same originating meaning_

[Citation needed], as they'd say on Wikipedia.

I don't think that's the origin at all. Why do you?

[heeton]

I personally thought it because of some exposure to that industry / video / AV over the years. But then I looked for some examples to confirm and easily found many.

Some decent examples here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26504086

Googling "Master Slave audio manual" has a bunch of examples. E.g. this manual from 1959 - https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Ampex/Amp...

[CRConrad]

Aha, interesting, thanks! I had no idea; I'd always thought it was from "master copy" like in, say, a manuscript that is duplicated by hand. (Sure, the life of a mediaeval monk working in a scriptorium was pretty strictly regulated, but I doubt anyone saw them as slaves, exactly.)

Though that Ampex manual isn't all that convincing in this context, IMO. It's about the hardware level, all capacitors and oscillators and stuff, in "master" and "slave" amplifying circuits. That has pretty much nothing at all to do with "master tape" per se; it's more like "master" and "slave" hydraulic cylinders in the clutch or brake system of your car.

Your HN link feels like a much better argument here. (Though I admit I haven't followed any of the links in it yet; going just by the quoted bits in the comment.)

[strken]

I read the above replies as believing the linguistic use of "cargo culting" is fine, yet also appreciating knowing that the origin is nuanced and not completely correct (although building a radio mast from bamboo is close enough). "There's more than one way to skin a cat" has an unpleasant origin, yet I'm not going to stop saying it.

As someone who has recently been converting our branches to use main everywhere because they were previously a horrid mix, I don't care what American politics thinks is linguistically problematic today. In other dialects where the word master is more common, it's not a problem any more than the word "owner" is a problem. I feel roughly the same way about changing master to main as my Guatemalan friend feels about the word "Latinx": I don't want someone making $350k in San Francisco telling me how problematic it is to speak my own language.

[psychoslave]

There different pragmatic level of matters that overlaps, and when things are so thightly commingled, it’s hard to get one subset of the lore without the rest of it.

Take "owner". What’s a product owner in a SCRUM terminology? Is that the person that when leaving the company will keep full exclusive (or even communal) rights on the product? Or is that just corporate novlang to put motivation/pressure on the "wage slave" (to honor/take/loan/steal vocabulary from an other extremity of social perspective)?

[brabel]

> you're going to ignore it and continue to use a phrase derived from something that's incorrect and never existed?

I would guess that 90% of phrases and proverbs used in any language fall into that category.

[CRConrad]

> a phrase derived from something that's incorrect and never existed?

As I understood from the article, "cargo cults" exactly as in the widely-used metaphor did exist; it's just that they were a small minority of what anthropologists call "cargo cults".

So it seems to me it's you who are being not only spiteful and petty but above all, just plain wrong.

[cultofmetatron]

the whole switch from master to main was absolutely idiotic. Especially because it was a way for corporations to appear buddy buddy with disenfranchised people while doing nothing meaningful for them. Case in point, microsoft whom owns GitHub having zero issues with helping Israel commit genocide while pretending to care about black lives. Everyone is happy to be "woke" and "diverse" as long as it doesn't interfere with making a profit.

[esperent]

Exactly, this was by far the worst part of it. Corporate lip service to social change, and all the people who apparently are spending large parts of their lives and energy campaigning for social change just ate it up as if it was real social change. It wasn't, it did nothing except for muddy the waters and anger potential allies.

[xocnad]

So what can a corporation do today to promote social change that isn't lip service that won't get attacked as woke? The backlash against these linguistic change efforts is spending proportional amounts of pointless energy attacking them rather than investing in more concrete outcomes themselves. I mean really keep using master branches if you want and push for things you think actually help rather than upping the engagement/outrage on something that you can easily ignore.

[snackbroken]

A corporation can donate to charities/provide grants/implement policies that help people based on their actual circumstance rather than their membership of some arbitrary group.

For example:

Offer wage negotiation coaching to the bottom x% of earners in any given position in the company (or just straight up give raises to them unprompted). Such initiatives will by definition disproportionately help disproportionately disadvantaged demographics without codifying systemic racism/sexism/etc. The reason corporations don't do things like this is because they are interested in scoring brownie points without undermining the status quo class related power structures.

Similarly when providing scholarships, don't limit them to certain ethnicities. Doing so tends to mostly favor the members of the given ethnic group who are already well off. Instead make the scholarship inversely proportional to household income and select applicants randomly weighted by 1/income without regard to skin color.

Build community centers and libraries in poor communities regardless of who lives there. Give money to the ACLU and other organizations that help victims of abuse rather than tweeting a rainbow flag in June while simultaneously organizing an industry event in Saudi Arabia.

[CRConrad]

> The reason corporations don't do things like this is because they are interested in scoring brownie points without undermining the status quo class related power structures.

And above all, without incurring any actual monetary costs. (Unprompted raises??? Muahahahahaa!)

[xocnad]

I'm doing what I told OP not to do.

> Offer wage negotiation coaching to the bottom x% of earners in any given position in the company (or just straight up give raises to them unprompted)

1. What positions rate this treatment?

2. when do you stop doing this?

[stephen_g]

I mean, if anything the whole thing caused far more harm than keeping a branch name that maybe could but didn't really have a loose relation to the concept of slavery (there are many other senses of the word 'master' with nothing to do with slavery that the git branch name would make sense to mean), in the division and debate that the whole thing caused. Didn't really help anybody, just caused problems...

[djur]

Every company I worked at which put this change into practice did it as a result of employee volunteer effort, not as a PR thing.

[peoplefromibiza]

Do you realize that the only one offended here is you and are using that to gaslight people into feeling bad for something they haven't done and it's mostly not even wrong?

for example: you should learn that main and master mean absolutely nothing to 95% of the people of the World. In my language "master" translates to maestro, which predates US slavery and symbolizes something completely positive: a master of some - usually artistically relevant - craft with followers that branched from the original (like the master branch in git). they are just labels to us,, if you are offended by that, there are a lot of other ways to cope than attack people who don't care about them and rightfully so.

[esperent]

> symbolizes something completely positive: a master of some - usually artistically relevant - craft with followers that branched from the original (like the master branch in git).

Even in English, the term "master" branch has nothing to do with slavery. It originates from a master audio recording, usually just referred to as a master, from which other recordings are made.

[marliechiller]

It actually has the same origin as the parent poster of your comment:

Late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher" (source of Old French maistre, French maître, Spanish and Italian maestro, Portuguese mestre, Dutch meester, German Meister), contrastive adjective ("he who is greater") from magis (adv.) "more," from PIE mag-yos-, comparative of root meg- "great." The form was influenced in Middle English by Old French cognate maistre.

Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/master

[CRConrad]

> In my language "master" translates to maestro, which predates US slavery and symbolizes something completely positive: a master of some - usually artistically relevant - craft with followers that branched from the original (like the master branch in git).

Exactly. Which is also (what at least I think) where "master copy", which has been claimed to be the origin of git's "master branch" comes from. Whether via the music industry's "master tape" as claimed elsewhere in this discussion, or more directly from the "master's manuscript" all the other monks duplicated in a mediaeval monastery's scriptorium, who knows... But zero to do with slavery, AFAICS.

[psychoslave]

"maestro" (in many languages) just as "master" come from Latin magister, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magister

This is not to say it’s fine to make ad hominem attacks to anyone on its vocabulary. But telling people they should silently accept to use words rooted in a notion of social dominance, doesn’t seem any better. There is a difference on pointing every occurrence of social practices that favor the spread of a domination system, and blaming personally the people who instantiate these practices.

[robertlagrant]

> But telling people they should silently accept to use words rooted in a notion of social dominance

The paradox I've observed people disagreeing with is you either believe in words having magic powers that, such that even if no one knew these connotations they would still have them, or you believe in keeping old connotations alive precisely so you can tell people to stop using them because of the old connotations.

[psychoslave]

Telling people what their vocabulary can imply is one thing. Telling to others which word they might consider instead is a separate step, that can certainly be fine, don’t we agree?

Unilaterally telling others what words they must use is a domination mechanism, whoever engage in such a practice, don’t we agree?

If we don’t listen to what our words inspire to others, how can we know if it matches our intended meaning? If we don’t continuously hone our habits, including our language habits but definitely not only that, how can we progress as human individuals, collectives and societies?

>believe in words having magic powers that, such that even if no one knew these connotations they would still have them

The trick is simple to explain, isn’t it? We can perfectly be healthy carrier, and yet people will die from this virus we contributed to spread.

Just because something is untroublesome in our own specific case doesn’t mean it won’t contribute in the diffusion of something awful at societal level. That is, the only scale level at which we can measure how much benign or hurtful this thing is for humanity.

[TeMPOraL]

> The trick is simple to explain, isn’t it? We can perfectly be healthy carrier, and yet people will die from this virus we contributed to spread.

Except words aren't pathogens. They aren't complex molecular nanomachines that actively avoid our bodies' defenses while incidentally doing damage to it. The only effect they have is in what connotations they trigger in people. In this case, even if the word has troublesome origin, if approximately no one knows about it, then the person bringing up that connotation is the pathogen causing harm to people by convincing them to get worked up over a word, where they wouldn't before.

[psychoslave]

Words aren’t pathogens, indeed, pathogens are not that great to produce analogies and parables.

We can’t know what words will actually have on people until we release them. But we know that words we use can make a significant and measurable difference:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-minute-therapist...

https://brm.institute/neuroscience-behind-words/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

>if approximately no one knows about it

How close to "approximately no one knows about" are we in an antonym association like master/slave?

>the person bringing up that connotation is the pathogen

Well, that is what we can call focusing on the person rather than the social mechanism at stake, isn’t it? Kind of an equivalent to the mechanism through which we produce reactions like "look this bird of ill omen that pretends that there is an invisible entity passing from one person to an other but whose malign effect only reveal randomly, clearly this person is the actual cause of the issue".

[themaninthedark]

Generally, these "conversations" have not been:

>Telling to others which word they might consider

Instead the pattern seems to be a group of people on Twitter/Mastadon/social media de jur all taking a quote and sharing talking about how awful it is that someone use the word "blah" in this day and age and how they are a horrible person and we should call up their work and get them fired...

Sometimes even completely misunderstanding what the person is talking about; as one of the first examples of this rousing to cancel people was a guy telling his friend that he would fork that code and someone misunderstood it to be sexual....followed by much ado about dongles.

[psychoslave]

Hey, thanks for the feedback, I’m glad I don’t spare any time in these platforms… :)

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

> But telling people they should silently accept to use words rooted in a notion of social dominance, doesn’t seem any better

could be, but...

most words are rooted in a notion of social dominance and only carry a a notion of social dominance when used in the context of expressing social dominance (to oppress or abuse of other people).

words like reign or empire or dictator are absolutely rooted in a notion of social dominance, but we accept that it's completely fine if we use them as a metaphor or as an hyperbole. If someone gets offended, it's their fault.

Some example:

- 2013 was the year in which the reign of Federer at the top of the men's game had supposedly come to an end

- Amazon empire: the rise and reign of Jeff Bezos

- Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, has been called a benevolent dictator for life

[psychoslave]

>most words are rooted in a notion of social dominance

Most, I don’t know really, that would need a lot of statistics, but we can certainly agree that a significant portion of the vocabulary pertaining to social matter do.

>words like reign or empire or dictator are absolutely rooted in a notion of social dominance, but we accept that it's completely fine if we use them as a metaphor or as an hyperbole.

Yes, sure, when the context is appropriate, we totally agree. We might lake enough proper bandwidth with flat text alone to discuss that properly though. :D I’m confident it would be far easier to have a conversation on that topic topic around some drinks and laughs for example.

That said, in all example given here, the connection to the toxic social attitudes are obvious.

Every competition-focused sport is rooted in the parable of imposing one dominance on an other, carrying a supremacist perspective with it. That’s why for example yoga competitions will be controversial, while it tennis is not.

As for the two latter celebrities, they don’t really have a reputation of being paragons of empathy that we can point to and say "if everyone would act like this in its interpersonal relationships, humanity would live in gentle bliss and harmony." To be more precise, I don’t know them personally, this remark is really not about these individuals, but more on pointing that in these specific cases, the matching reputation doesn’t serve well the point of uses in metaphoric or hyperbolic ways.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

> Most, I don’t know really, that would need a lot of statistics

Believe me.

You wanna know something funny?

The word used in Latin for betrayal (tradunt from which derives tradimento in Italian) at its origins meant "to give, transfer, deliver"

When the Christians came to be, they changed its meaning to something bad because Judas "gave Jesus away".

A simple innocent word has become the quintessence of being an awful person because of a stupid religious myth that also started one of the many persecutions of the Jews.

So beware of changing the meaning of words or advocating for their removal from the public discourse, you'll never know who's gonna be hurt by it.

> the connection to the toxic social attitudes are obvious

the only thing that is obvious is that they are only hyperboles, Amazon is not an Empire, Linus Torvalds is not a dictator and Federer did not actually reign over anything.

I would also argue that Linus has been seen as "benevolent" and I really wanna know from you where the connection to the toxic social attitudes lies when we talk about Federer's reign.

It's obvious to me that the sentence was referring to "the king of mens' tennis" (as a metaphor, do you know what they are?) to celebrate him and not to some literal evil ruler who should be dethroned, with the use of the force if necessary.

[stephen_g]

Your comment seems so extreme and ridiculous to the point of Poe's law (can't tell if it's satirical or sincere). We would have to make every language very dull indeed if that was the kind of critera for acceptability of words... And how far back in the etymology would somebody have to go to determine whether it's sufficiently non-domineering??

[psychoslave]

I fail to see what is extreme in it, in all sincerity.

It’s not like it’s a call to act in any extreme way. Actually, the comment doesn’t even mention anything that one should do.

We can listen to other feelings and interpretations of our words even with zero etymological consideration at stake. But if we try to deny their feeling that some word is derogative and back our perspective on lexical neutrality, maybe we might double check we are not missing some well documented semantics of the word and its history.

That said, given the number of downvotes, it looks like I miss some contextual clues about what it might make it feels as some call to extremist POV.