Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 12:40:19
Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> napisał(a):
> On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I know this is a loaded topic...
> ...
> > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
> > activism
>
> Statement one above proven.
>
> ...
> > All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the
> > have to fix
>
> If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
> terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.
So you do nothing all day or ? Because there is always someone that
will find something a problem.
> If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.
That's HORRID argument. You can do massive variety of unexcusably bad
things with that excuse. "But that person was happy for it"
> If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
> such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
> ones.
>
And that 0.001% that isn't even affected by term want it changed is
argument to you why ?
> As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.
>
How about "unable to discuss actual topic but throwing useless
generalizations in every sentence"? Is that woke or rude ?
--
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com>
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu
Reply to: