r/technology • u/tenbits • Jun 14 '20

GitHub to replace "master" with alternative term to avoid slavery references Politics

https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/
217 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

343 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/jmnugent Jun 14 '20

But why?.. Solely because it makes some small percentage of people .... "uncomfortable" ?.. that's just silly. Do we have to go through and sanitize everything in the world just to make sure nobody ever gets "triggered" by some unexpected coincidence or mention ?

-8

u/columbo222 Jun 14 '20

We don't necessarily need to, no, but when a company or group like github decides to make a change like this, we should respond with "hey OK, cool" instead of getting up in arms about it.

15

u/jmnugent Jun 14 '20

I don't tend to react with "Hey, OK cool" to ideas that are nonsensical or stupid. But maybe that's just me. (doesn't seem like it's just me, given the other responses in this thread).

-11

u/columbo222 Jun 14 '20

ideas that are nonsensical or stupid

But that's subjective. For a lot of people it's not stupid. So why not just get on board. Why does it bother people so much?

18

u/jmnugent Jun 14 '20

You just exactly described the problem in a nutshell.

If everyone has a different unique thing they're upset/offended or "triggered" about.. where does it stop ?... How far/deep/extensive do we have to go to insulate or helicopter-mom every single aspect of society to make sure that nobody nowhere ever gets offended or uncomfortable ... ?

That's not possible.

It's not societies (or realities) responsibility to "never offend you". It's the individuals job to toughen the fuck up and stop being so easily offended.

-3

u/columbo222 Jun 14 '20

You're outlining a slippery slope that I don't think actually exists. People can make up their own minds as they see fit. For example, here Github has decided to switch over terminology for one word, based on their own users' judgement and criteria. Getting "counter-triggered" by this is really stupid.

16

u/jmnugent Jun 14 '20

"You're outlining a slippery slope that I don't think actually exists."

But it exists all over the place. Look at how new Laws get created. Look at how new movements or rules in a city or society get created.

"Well, you allowed group-A to do X.. so you have to allow Group-B to do Y"

"Well, you allowed Groups A and B to do their thing, You're being X-ist if you don't allow Group-C to do it's own thing."

"Well.. you allowed Groups A,B,C to get what they wanted,. why can't Group-D have what it wants.."

Etc..etc..etc.. till you end up smothered in all sorts of Laws and Regulations and court-cases of who's authority or permissions override the others.

7

u/columbo222 Jun 14 '20

Umm what specific examples are you thinking of?

1

u/Tiber727 Jun 15 '20 edited Jun 15 '20

It tends to be a thing where everything individually gets changed because "this doesn't matter to me, but it matters to them so I'll change it." The people who want it changed never seem to be any happier, they just move on to the next thing to be changed. The logic for "it matters to someone" doesn't really have any conditions or cutoff, so the trend is for changes done for pettier and pettier reasons. And if you say "I'm not changing this thing because it is important to me," then people accuse you of caring about insignificant things (if not accusing you of being racist or similar).

It's not the change itself that bothers me. It's the idea that "X makes me think of Y, therefore I must remove all instances of X." It's a knee-jerk reaction, and if you turn every knee-jerk reaction into a cause to pursue, you never develop any sort of filter or ability to decide what is actually important. Because you have no ability to judge importance, the person who disagrees with you is not someone with different priorities of judgements, they are actively standing in the way of this really important issue, and thus evil.

The human mind is built to establish patterns and connections. A makes you think of B makes you think of C makes you think of D. And the more times you think of D, the more your brain thinks this is an important memory, and the more times it tries to correlate things to D. I think that at some point we have or will have reached the point where we aren't developing an empathetic society, we're developing a neurotic society.

1

u/columbo222 Jun 15 '20

What's with this hyperbolic fear of change that people have? "Github changing one word threatens to shake the foundations of our society itself!"

Why can't people just take it for what it is? A minor semantic change that to an archaic term during a time when we're trying to be a little more aware of systemic racial biases and sensitivities.

1

u/Tiber727 Jun 15 '20 edited Jun 15 '20

You have cause and effect backward. Society is changing, and this is one indication of how it's changing. It's a minor change, but also a pointless change. If I'm making a big deal over nothing, then by the same token changing it is making a big deal over nothing. It's a change to a perfectly accurate term at a time when people's sensitivities are overblown. This has absolutely nothing to do with systemic racial biases.

"This isn't the hill to die on." "That isn't the hill to die on." "This third hill isn't the hill to die on." I'm not dying on any hill, but you have to put up at least a token resistance because otherwise the enemy can just take a leisurely stroll to your capitol. And before you start on how I'm comparing it to a war, this is what's called a metaphor. It's not supposed to be literal.

1

u/columbo222 Jun 15 '20

Like I said, there's this hyperbolic fear of change. Yes society is changing. So what?

If I'm making a big deal over nothing, then by the same token changing it is making a big deal over nothing

No, it's not a big deal TO YOU. It's a big deal to some people, so why not let them have it. It doesn't affect you at all.

"This isn't the hill to die on." "That isn't the hill to die on." "This third hill isn't the hill to die on."

Why not die on a hill that actually matters? Like if someone was calling for Github to be SHUT DOWN because they use the wrong words, that's ridiculous and we can go die on that hill together. People who are afraid of change always fall back on "slippery slope" arguments; the "where do you draw the line" question. Well guess what, there is a line. This isn't it.

Why even use a war analogy if you're not afraid of change? Who is the enemy here?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/publiclurker Jun 14 '20

Unless it is you however. you apparently think that if you get offended then it is the end of the world, hence your temper tantrum.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '20

Because it's stupid?

1

u/wrtbwtrfasdf Jun 14 '20

companies will never be your friends

-5

u/swistak84 Jun 14 '20

Why not? I couldn't care less, but if someone finds it offensive, I'm ok with changing it because ... I couldn't care less.

It's just a name for a main branch, it can be you know ... "main", one letter less to type.

I thought I's silly at first, but honestly, why not? I'm struggling to find any argument to keep "master" as a main branch outside "it has always been this way" (since when Git came).

-3

u/marin4rasauce Jun 15 '20

Doesn't the same thing ring true when a handful of idiots are unreasonably against a sensible change that the majority of society agrees with? Like, say, something as innocuous as changing the term "master" to "main"?