Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Dnia 2024-02-24, o godz. 14:42:39
Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> napisał(a):
> jeremy ardley wrote:
>
> >> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
> >> market" work just fine?
> >
> > The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45.
> > It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in
> > the dark, not visible, not official.
>
> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
> with everything negative that is black in language.
They are not associated with everything negative. The people that want
those changed just assume that people think that. I assure you normal
people don't see the word "black" attached to something and
automatically think it means something about the people.
People wanting to change common unoffensive terms just assume everyone
else *must* be racist so they play the pretend game and imagine that if
their idealized proxy for minority that they imagined in their heads
would get offended that it needs to be changed
One of recent (and also not so recent as similar thing was tried few
decades before with same character) examples of that was when some
activists decided "surely Speedy Gonzales stereotypica presentation
of Mexicans is racist, lets remove it".
Someone imagined people portrayed might be offended, decided to not
ask anyone (or as the single person offended they could find in hundreds)
in actual demographics, then remove it. Then the activists patted
themselves on the back after doing the good in the world.
Then the minority told them to sod off and bring it back because thats
the opposite of what they wanted and all they ended up doing is pissing
off or wasting time of everyone involved
As for that particular phrase I'm guessing black market came from being
under cover of darkness, underground or otherwise secluded area, but
I'm no etymologist. People just like short descriptive terms and dont
care much about source of words.
Slave kinda came from that too; in many hardware setups it does
actually means "the device's every action is directed by master" and
not just "a replica or a secondary node", like for example in SPI or
I2C protocol the master is only one putting read/write commands on the
bus and slave device just respons to orders. You could maybe replace it
with thrall but I'm sure someone would be offended on behalf of someone
else by that too somehow...
--
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com>
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu
Reply to: