Conversation
Notices
-
I haven't made a fuss about the master-slave topology, however now things have become weird.
There's an ongoing effort to deprecated the master branch's name in Git, which I find to be a strange move as the master-slave topology doesn't even apply to git – all branches are independent by design.
Maybe I'm employing an overly rational approach, but shouldn't our actions make sense?
Is making an implication that the word "master", in any context, is a sign of a slave owner a good idea at all? What about headmasters, people with master's degree, master records?
A similiar thing can be said about the deprecation of terms whitelist/blacklist. They even predate the European colonisation of the Americas. I.e. they never had anything to do with skin pigmentation. And they never could, as skin pigmentation is observed with eyes, not lists.
One can argue that it's fair as here "white" is employed with a positive connotation and "black" – with a negative.
But the same can be said about the terms "blackmail", "black market", "black humour", etc.
Is it a half-measure or are they next? I cannot tell.
- LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} repeated this.
-
@xrevan86 When trying to fix historical social ills, people will resort to silly triviality like eliminating "master" in situations where it does not imply slavery, because it is easier to rename things than to reshape problematic behaviors.
.
Even in #CHAZ, they seem to have areas reserved for non-whites, instead of being fully "all ancestries are treated equally". In my opinion, that's a mistake, as it feeds the cycle of group X against group Y, then group Y against group Z, ... .
.
How to go from where we are today to a place where we do not use ancestry in workplace, housing, education decisions is tough. Renaming git branches (and soon, git itself) is an easy substitute for substantive action.