[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP





On 02/23/2024 07:33 AM, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
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 ?



Neither. it's a waste of bandwidth!

I'm guilty of that for posting this.

--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
https://insilicochemistry.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype:  smolnar1


Reply to: