There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
Master wasn’t banned. The default name was changed from master to main. Literally nothing is stopping you from choosing to use master.
While this is technically correct, when you say “we’re switching the default branch name from master to main to be less culturally insensitive”, you kind of imply that people who continue using master are culturally insensitive. And nobody likes being called that (generally), so it still feels like a ban to people.
That implication is correct?
Look, if it’s pointed out that “x” makes some minorty uncomfortable, but you keep using “x”, you are culturally insensitive to that minority. You can choose to be, nobody would care if you’re not a person/company with milliona of followers.
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case so there was significant controversy surrounding what was perceived as “performative activism” that benefitted noone.
“We’re switching from master to main” was controversial? My god, people must’ve been bored out of their fucking minds.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
I reacted like this too. But you I don’t think the opponents had invalid arguments to be honest. It was mostly:
Lack of an actual outcry to change it.
‘Master’ in git did not have any connotations to slavery, so there was no reason to be offended by it (different from eg master/slave databases or something).
The change was hamfisted through without the community actually finding consensus and agreeing with the change.
It invalidates 15 years of git tutorials, which is confusing for newbies.
The defaults for git mismatched with the default in github, which as a very large player put undue corporate pressure on the git project to go along with the change.
Changing the branch name does have impact on users, which without a good reason to change it is unnecessary.
And the big one: the rename is just performative. If you want to address inequality in tech, make sure people of colour get the same access and opportunities that white people get. Github in particular was ridiculed because they pretended to be so socially conscious, but as it turns out despite having black employees, not one of them had managed to promote into a management function at the time. They put up a smokescreen but did not make any actually impactful changes that improved the position of people of colour, and in doing so abused the BLM movement for PR purposes.
BLM didn’t advocate for this though! Microsoft/Github sort of assumed they would, so decided to change it. But I can’t find any actual outcry that it should be changed from those who were supposedly offended by the term.
Fair points.
Weirdly, that BLM source in wikipedia led nowhere. My fault for not checking.
However performative it may have seen at the time, I’m glad the terms are gone. Master/slave was particularly uncomfortable to use for me personally (I mainly associate it with BDSM)
Yeah I don’t mind it changing either, but unfortunately people who disagreed with the process here were imo unfairly criticised.
I certainly hope Big Tech will get properly scrutinized in future for this stuff, so that they take proper meaningful action instead of causing a ruckus like this.
While they are incorrect about the specific term, their main point is correct. “Slave” was removed from the terminology. Same with Blacklist and Whitelist. They are no longer the preferred terms.
Wait, you’re not supposed to say blacklist and whitelist anymore? Shit.
Nope. Blocklist and Allowlist I believe. Because despite having no racist origins, “black” being the “bad” list and “white” being the “good” list made some people uncomfortable. It’s the perfect example of meaningless surface level changes imo
I used to have a word for how ridiculous this is but the op said I shouldn’t use it anymore
Yeah I mean if that’s the standard I’m fine with it. But as I mentioned in a reply to somebody else, to make something black you don’t add darkness, you subtract light. So inherently black is subtraction and white is addition. Saying that addition is good and subtraction is bad is like a weird byproduct of “positive” meaning good and “negative” meaning bad, when they are just numbers on either side of zero.
Colors are additive or subtractive depending on the medium, so you are entirely wrong here and just spouting nonsense, fyi. Paints are additive, light is subtractive. All colors of light makes white and all colors of paint makes black.
What does black paint do to light?
Now it’s CaucasianList and AfricanAmericanList.
Where is the AsianList? I thought we were supposed to be inclusive now!
deleted by creator
Why does one automatically associate black with bad and white with good? Think about it.
Remember that we also do things subliminally. So black = bad rubs off on people who can be called “black”.
I mean I get it, but I never thought of it that way. Like black is the absence light or color. You don’t add darkness to something to make it black, you subtract light, color, energy etc. So black is “negative”. White is the opposite of black. On a color slider, it’s all of everything all the way, it’s “positive”, and I don’t mean “positive = good” way, I mean like mathematically positive, like a “+” sign. Like do electricians need to stop using black cables for negative? It just seems like a reach unless it originally had some racist etymology. Like if the term" blacklist"was originally used by restaurant owners during segregation and they didn’t allow black people in, or anybody on the “blacklist” because anybody on that list should be treated as if they were black then I would be like “Oh yeah holy shit, we should definitely not use that term”. But I think saying black is negative and white is positive has both scientific and mathematical origins.
I’m fine with using blocklist and allowlist. I guess I just never got the memo that we weren’t supposed to use blacklist and whitelist.
Except you do, when you’re using additive mixing (I.e paint)
I’m not saying it’s that it’s inherently racist. I’m saying that black people rightfully dislike that “black” is associated with “negative”
It has neither.
It’s almost like it’s a common theme that dark, dingy, places are associated with danger and bright warm areas are associated with safety, life, purity, truth, etc. and when you simplify that to a basic theme, you end up with black = bad and white = good. It’s a theme that springs up from nature itself.
Which further goes to my point: the words are just placeholders for feelings and emotions. So to change the words does nothing to change the feelings. If you remove all the hateful words, you won’t remove hate. You’ll just end up with “I hope you unalive yourself you bottom of the bell curve” instead.
Dark places aren’t inherently more dangerous. Light, bright areas aren’t inherently positive.
These are the subliminal ideas that were put into your head by literature, religion, popular culture, etc (that was often seeped in racism).
Just like numbers aren’t inherently good or bad, but certain numbers rise associations with “good” or “bad” 3, 7, 13, 666, 777, Etc.
“Nature itself” argument is completely BS, as many animals hunt and spring to life at night, while daytime and light means danger to them.
Dark cave vs open meadow.
Clear skies vs stormy clouds.
Clear still water vs murky turbulent water.
Death and decay vs life.
But nah, I’m just making up literary themes that have existed for centuries. For fucks sake, the vast majority of horror movies rely on darkness.
The fucking yin yang is literally the fusion of light and darkness, good and evil.
You’re just being intentionally obtuse or you’re really that dumb that you don’t get any of these themes.
When you’re a rodent?
When you’re stranded in the desert?
When you’re a fish?
How does that have anything to do with black/white?
You’re trying to disprove that it a subliminal bias induced by other people who lived a while ago by… giving me examples of it?
Oh the irony…
Additionally:
Pink is not “feminine”
Blue is not “masculine”
Since we’ve drifted so far from the point, let me bring us back.
You are an imbecile. A low intelligent, dimwitted individual. Someone who lacks understanding of subtext or really any basic reading comprehension. You are an overall drain on society. A moron. A few fries short of a happy meal. Your elevator doesn’t go to the top floor. Lights are on, no one’s home.
Now, you see how I was able to easily insult your lack of intelligence without once calling you retarded? So pray tell me, how would removing that word have changed this interaction at all? I’d still be calling you shit for brains without using the dreaded “R-word”. Do you maybe see now how it’s not the language, but the emotions of the person uttering them that matters? That you need to change my emotional state, not just restrict my use of words. Because as I’ve clearly pointed out, I can still call you a fucktard without using “retarded”.
Also man in the middle changing to “on path”
Wtf?
New preferred term for MitM attacks is “on path” attacks, in pretty much every updated cert doctrine that discusses the concept.
“Morally banning”. But you got my point