Mozilla gives 15k to remove "Slave" from build bot documentation

[Zombie_Fish]

And yes, as society changes and evolves, I may change my opinion on particular words. After all, language serves society, not the other way around.

True, but that doesn't mean that language should change based on temporary ill-informed whims of minority.
While language should be adaptive, it should possess certain rigidity at the same time.

This debate has been running since 2003, and alternative terms such as primary/replica have already been seen in a number of products, publications and open-source projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_%28technology%29#Appropriateness_of_usage

Hardly seems temporary or ill-informed to me.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Well considering the slave thing mostly originated in the IDE cables of the past when you linked two pieces of hardware to the motherboard with a master/slave cable, I hope Mozilla has a time machine to go back and change a name from what, the 80's?

All joking aside, I never really liked the nomenclature of the design, and felt it was never in taste. It doesn't even make technical sense. The slave cable was never a slave to the master cable, it was just the secondary device cord for a less critical device. (The hard drive had more importance then the floppy drive.)

I don't specifically know how or why software design uses the name of an old IDE hardware configuration, but if anything is the same, the name is pointless and there should be no reason not to change it. It can even be for multiple reasons, from sensitivity to the word to even wanting to distinguish software/hardware configuration from each other. But of course in this society, anything that MIGHT become a hot button issue WILL become a hot button issue. Respect is the name of the game people.

 

[beastro]

And in all honesty, you're just a machine.

And there's always that wonderful retort that both means nothing and devalues actual living beings.

 

[TomWest]

Hm, this part makes me think you interpreted my usage of 'Feels before reals' as to imply that their feelings are not real.

"Feels before reals" absolutely implies that "feels" or feelings are not real (you can't be before something if you're part of it), and thus not worthy of consideration amongst the literally hundreds of factors that go into any well-considered technical decision.

Since you agree with me, I'll consider my main point won - feels are real and thus the statement "feels before reals" is nonsensical.

To clarify, I have NO doubt in my mind that there are people that are, indeed, made uncomfortable by the mere useage and existence of the words 'master' and 'slave', regardless of their context. Lord knows I've seen people take offense to sillier things on the internet.

However, as you mention with cost, I find it incredibly unlikely that the general societal cost of scrubbing certain words out of usage - ignoring their context(and this is the important part) - to EVER be worth it.

My stance on that holds true for even openly offensive words, such as ******, or ******, or gook, etc. Because if we toss words out the window with no regard to context, then that means we can't utilize those words in fiction where they're used, nor historical accounts where they very literally WERE used, and their usage is enlightening/educational.

First, fiction is written for the current audience. What matters to the narrative is whether it feels real. Notice that dialogue of foreigners is written in English so you can read it? Notice that older terms whose meaning has completely changed or are unknown are left out because they'd confuse the reader?

Once again, I point out that communication is as much about the receiver as the sender.

As for expunging the words from history, now you're just being silly. Especially with master/slave, the complaint is that using the term 'slave' for something other than ownership of another human being diminishes the impact of the word. They would like it used exclusively for its historical meaning.

Honestly, if there are a few millions people who are deeply affected by certain terms, then common courtesy is clear that I should minimize their use where practical. I have long since abandoned terms like "gypped" and "niggardly" because even if I never knew or meant their racial implications, they had racial implications. When I learned better, I stopped using them. Is there a cost to me? Sure, a minor one. Is the cost worth reducing the discomfort of those affected. Depends on how many people are affected, and their level of discomfort.

But I'm pretty comfortable in saying if it's several million people who have been direly affected by racism, claiming that the cost of switching terminology is just way too high to be worth my effort makes me... insensitive. Especially when alternate terms are already in common use.

But I understand. The sanctity of our language, which otherwise never changes, is way more important than millions of people not actually feeling excluded.

I think most people can agree that using slurs or other targeted, specifically derogatory or offensive language is something you shouldn't direct at other people.

Okay, so you won't go out of your way to actively cause more discomfort to others. You just don't think it's worth it to spend effort to cause less discomfort. Fair enough. I am, however, going to guess that you, like me, are not members of a culture that have been (and still are to an extent) victims of racism and racially directed violence.

However, someone reading a word, completely ignoring the context of it's usage, and deciding that "This word shouldn't ever be used, no matter the context or reason" does a LOT of damage to our communication mediums, and isn't something that should be endorsed, let alone paid for.

Luckily, no-one is claiming that.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

And in all honesty, you're just a machine.

And there's always that wonderful retort that both means nothing and devalues actual living beings.

I don't think understanding what a machine is devalues the living, though I would argue that your misunderstanding of what constitutes life does. Life is a highly complex machine, occasionally with the capacity for reason, generally with the capacity for self development and adaptation. Is a machine that meets all those standards inherently any less valuable than another?

 

[RandV80]

The only problem I have with it really is that the primary master/slave thing has become a global technical term, while the 'sensitivity' reason behind changing it is a US cultural thing. So as I'm not American, this just makes it seem even more silly.

 

[Areloch]

Hm, this part makes me think you interpreted my usage of 'Feels before reals' as to imply that their feelings are not real.

"Feels before reals" absolutely implies that "feels" or feelings are not real (you can't be before something if you're part of it), and thus not worthy of consideration amongst the literally hundreds of factors that go into any well-considered technical decision.

Since you agree with me, I'll consider my main point won - feels are real and thus the statement "feels before reals" is nonsensical.

Fine. Lets expand the semantics and context of the saying to avoid the apparent confusion. "One's feelings are apparently taking precedence before objective reality".

Not that "One's feelings are not real". The shortening of the words is to make it catchy to say.

I would certainly hope that while we agree that one's feelings are indeed real, we would ALSO agree that one's feelings are not inherently representative of reality, because that's completely impossible when you take all possible feelings on an issue into account.

As for expunging the words from history, now you're just being silly. Especially with master/slave, the complaint is that using the term 'slave' for something other than ownership of another human being diminishes the impact of the word. They would like it used exclusively for its historical meaning.

So we're changing the usage of a word because it's offensive to NOT use it in context of humans? That's bizzare.

Honestly, if there are a few millions people who are deeply affected by certain terms, then common courtesy is clear that I should minimize their use where practical. I have long since abandoned terms like "gypped" and "niggardly" because even if I never knew or meant their racial implications, they had racial implications. When I learned better, I stopped using them. Is there a cost to me? Sure, a minor one. Is the cost worth reducing the discomfort of those affected. Depends on how many people are affected, and their level of discomfort.

But I'm pretty comfortable in saying if it's several million people who have been direly affected by racism, claiming that the cost of switching terminology is just way too high to be worth my effort makes me... insensitive. Especially when alternate terms are already in common use.

But I understand. The sanctity of our language, which otherwise never changes, is way more important than millions of people not actually feeling excluded.

Firstly, if we're having a reasonable discussion, I would highly recommend avoiding the snark/sarcasm. That's a fast way to annoy everyone involved and kill an otherwise level-headed discussion.

I have to ask. You reference 'millions of people who have been directly affected by racism', and 'deeply affected my certain terms'.

Can you point me to someone who has been deeply affected by the word 'slave'? Not by the state or activity of slavery, but deeply affected by the WORD 'slave'.

I think most people can agree that using slurs or other targeted, specifically derogatory or offensive language is something you shouldn't direct at other people.

Okay, so you won't go out of your way to actively cause more discomfort to others. You just don't think it's worth it to spend effort to cause less discomfort. Fair enough. I am, however, going to guess that you, like me, are not members of a culture that have been (and still are to an extent) victims of racism and racially directed violence.

Unless the word's usage is DIRECTLY inciting harm, you are correct, I see no sufficient reason or cause to change an otherwise perfectly valid word's usage. It also sounds like you think a relatively small group of people get hit with racially charged insults, hate or violence, and you're assuming I've never seen insults utilizing my race as a spring-off point, or other people of my race being attacked BECAUSE of their race.

I mean, racism in day-to-day life isn't really common anymore, but acting like the people that DO get hit by it are some small, exclusive club strikes me as misguided. If being part of a group that's been targeted by racism in the past is all it takes to be able to weigh in on the matter, then I think I can sit comfortably here still.

And I'm 100% certain that merely using the word 'slave' in a technical sense is NOT propagating racial violence. If you can find me an example though, that'd be a very interesting read.

However, someone reading a word, completely ignoring the context of it's usage, and deciding that "This word shouldn't ever be used, no matter the context or reason" does a LOT of damage to our communication mediums, and isn't something that should be endorsed, let alone paid for.

Luckily, no-one is claiming that.

It's close enough currently to make me raise my eyebrow, at least.

Your counter-points above seem to ignore that the word's usage in this context doesn't endorse, cause or propagate slavery, racism or racial violence, but it sounds like you feel that because slavery, racism or racial violence has happened, that's sufficient cause to remove the word's usage just in case someone that's been affected by it is offended, on the actually affected people's behalf in fact.

I mean, I'd be 100% for getting someone who's actually been subjected to slavery opinion on the matter, but I don't believe I've ever met one personally.

Oh, to be sure, and I'm 100% cognizant of the 'Societal Compromise' game, where it's not "make everyone happy" but "make everyone the least angry".

The root of my problem with this, is it's removing a word or words from usage while completely ignoring the context in which they are used. As I mention above, this line of logic can be very readily applied to other words that MAY make someone uncomfortable and if we toss any and all context out the window, that means that fictional and historical usages of the word should also be game for removing words over the possibility that someone could be offended.

I find this to be untenable, which is, indeed my subjective opinion.

But as I said above, the objective reality of the word's usage in this case does not endorse, cause or propagate actual human slavery, and is merely an accurate, technical descriptor of the relationship between two objects in software/hardware, and whether someone feels offended by it or not does not change the objective reality of it's usage in this context.

It would be untenable if taken to the extreme, or applied in all cases. It's very unlikely that will be the case, though; people have been replacing words in various contexts since language began, and we've never tipped over into the extreme of replacing everything potentially problematic. I don't see any particular reason to think it has much chance of happening now.

Of course, this is quite aside from whether I think this instance was silly or not.

Indeed, it's only *truely* a problem if it goes into the extreme. I'm voicing my opinion on it because it'd like to avoid it ever getting there, however minimally likely it is to do so. I feel it's a bit akin to voting, these days. My vote's not really worth anything, but I can at least say I tried.

And in my defense, if there's ANYTHING the internet is good at these days, it's blindly jumping into the extreme end.

And in all honesty, you're just a machine.

And there's always that wonderful retort that both means nothing and devalues actual living beings.

I don't think understanding what a machine is devalues the living, though I would argue that your misunderstanding of what constitutes life does. Life is a highly complex machine, occasionally with the capacity for reason, generally with the capacity for self development and adaptation. Is a machine that meets all those standards inherently any less valuable than another?

To interject: my stance on it is if an entity displayed enough cognizance to be close to or at the level of human, then they should be afforded the same treatments and rights. Until then, however, the machine is just a tool. Come to think of it, an interesting sci-fi story would be how people would react to a 'dumb' AI, where it's more aware than your average animal, but not fully sapient. Do you afford it human-level rights, or delegate it to just the general respectful treatment animals get.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Guess they should probably remove any variation of the word "robot" too while they're at it, given the etymology. No robotics, no "-bot" suffix.

Robot means slave.(Spoiler removed, because it was inconvenient.)

Actually, robot in terms of robotics was a term coined by a Czech play writer by the name of Karel Capek, the play was Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot derives from the made up word "roboti" which is similar to the Czech word "robota" which refers literally to "corv?e", or "serf labor", figuratively means "drudgery", or "hard work" and generally in Czech means "work", or "labor". Capek coined the word "roboti" to mean "worker", or "laborer" in this particular case. So in short robot does not mean slave. Source. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Etymology]

OT: I like how people are conflating this reward entirely to the removal of the term "slave" from the technical usage in Mozilla's buildbot, when they're also asking for improvements to the program. That means they're not just paying to have the word "slave" removed, but also for improvements of the program, also known as an update. Which is something Mozilla specifically says that they use their donations for. This is kind of missing the forest for the trees here. Mostly because they're paying for two things, to remove a term from the program which will require editing a giant number of lines of code, along with a substantial update to the program itself.

Honestly, if the Mozilla team finds a word disagree agreeable because of it's history outside the technical context, that's not really a big deal, neither is a desire to change the word. A lot of this looks like people trying to be outraged over the concept of "political correctness gone too far", which is more irksome than a development team wanting to change a term to use a less loaded word. The only complaint I'm seeing that has any meaning is really that, people are outraged because a development team wants to use a different word for a coding function. They can use what ever word they decide works for the function, that's not a problem really. The complaints that they're offering the money to only change the word are baseless, really this seems to me to be anger for the sake of anger at "PC culture". I chalk it up to absolute silliness that people are upset about this. They want the word changed, they're the company that owns the program, they can change the word, it'll take work, but it can be done, and it might just please some people. Really that's all it's a word change that might make some people feel good, so a company can pat itself on the back. I just can't find the horrible conspiracy or giant glaring ethical issue with an update that includes a term change.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Guess they should probably remove any variation of the word "robot" too while they're at it, given the etymology. No robotics, no "-bot" suffix.

Robot means slave.(Spoiler removed, because it was inconvenient.)

Actually, robot in terms of robotics was a term coined by a Czech play writer by the name of Karel Capek, the play was Rossum's Universal Robots. Robot derives from the made up word "roboti" which is similar to the Czech word "robota" which refers literally to "corv?e", or "serf labor", figuratively means "drudgery", or "hard work" and generally in Czech means "work", or "labor". Capek coined the word "roboti" to mean "worker", or "laborer" in this particular case. So in short robot does not mean slave. Source. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Etymology]

Actually, it means "Forced Labor", aka slavery. Roboti derives from Robotnik, which is Slavic for Slave, Robota, "compulsory servitude"(aka slavery), and the Old Slavic word for slave, "rabu".

My Source, which I may say is not wikipedia, which I would personally only use to find sources to cite, not actually cite them:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=robot

Robotics was the technological solution to the moral problem of slavery.

EDIT: The play "Rossum's Universal Robots" was also an allegory of Slavery itself.

Source snobbery in this case is counter productive, as Czech linguists have contributed to the generally accepted meaning of a word. I say this because I'll take a source which backs up the common accepted etymology contributed to by native speakers and scholars alike, over a publicly available research archive made by a single person.

Also while R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) is analogous with a concept of slavery, it touches more on the humans playing god, by creating emotionless, simple creatures that lack self preservation instincts. Calling in to question if creating such beings is an ethically acceptable solution in the name of convenience for the creators. While there are parallels with slavery, the more important question is weather or not mankind should be creating beings specifically for servitude, especially if said beings are more than what they were designed as.

 

[Batou667]

I had a relative who died of a viral infection. I think we should rename computer viruses to something less antiquated and offensive.

Likewise, house fires are horrific. Who thought "firewall" was an OK term to use? I suggest "pleasant barrier" as a family-friendly alternative.

Also, "floppy disk" triggers me because... reasons. Let's get rid of that too.

 

[renegade7]

I find it a bit amusing that there seem to be more people offended by the change than who were offended by the original language. The real political correctness is the reactionary kind: one person offended by what is, at worst, a poor choice of words results in a thread full of people offended by the fact that someone is offended.

I also have to think that the

", and also to make improvements so Buildbot works better in the Amazon EC2 cloud".

part is probably a bit more significant in that decision than the

... remove the term "slave" from all documentation, APIs and tests

part.

 

[Dango]

Man, there's always something going on around words like this, as if the concept of a slave and a master hasn't existed for thousands of years and isn't exclusive to American/Modern/Or even Western history. Even then they aren't words that specifically have a racial meaning. Yes it has a negative past behind it, but are we supposed to abolish every word or concept that was connect to a dark point in history?

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Wasn't there anything else they could've put that money towards? Y'know, something meaningful like Homeless shelters, food banks, the ASPCA, a charity deadicated to helping women in places like the middle east? No? Just "problematic" computer language? Okay then.

Nice to know we live in a world where the biggest "problem" facing people today are micro-aggressions.

 

[visiblenoise]

Oh yea, why not also remove all instances of 'deploy' from technical documentation, think of the soldiers

 

[Patathatapon]

I like Firefox. I'm using it right now, but I don't donate to them. I donate to Wikipedia, a few patrons on patreon, but not Mozilla. Why? Because I don't trust them with my money. I don't know enough about their company, or like them enough to give a donation. This isn't exactly helping it's case.

 

[PhantomEcho]

It would be untenable if taken to the extreme, or applied in all cases. It's very unlikely that will be the case, though; people have been replacing words in various contexts since language began, and we've never tipped over into the extreme of replacing everything potentially problematic. I don't see any particular reason to think it has much chance of happening now.

Of course, this is quite aside from whether I think this instance was silly or not.

You try to diminish the danger of this by implying that "It's unlikely EVERY word will be changed", but that is not and has never been the danger inherent to the purging of potentially inflammatory words. What we are at risk of losing is not merely a word, but the UTILITY of our language. Each word purged, each word rendered taboo, is an IDEA that someone is attempting to cull from the collective consciousness. We use our words to THINK... the language we speak is the language our brains are programmed in.

It's the intellectual equivalent of a lobotomy, with the hope being that if we just lobotomize enough people then eventually whatever idea said words might cultivate will die alongside them as public consciousness fades.

Today it's Master/Slave in the tech sector, with the clear hope that we'll all just forget that slavery was a thing... unless of course forgetting about slavery is offensive... (which it is, naturally, to many)... so we'll just hypocritically make it okay to talk about in the VERY context we're hoping people will forget about whilst stripping an important technical term out of the tech sector because 'what could possibly go wrong?'

It was made pretty clear above what can go wrong. People rely on their language to convey their thoughts to others. When that language suddenly changes for no rhyme or reason, miscommunication occurs. If there's one place we really can't afford people to be miscommunicating right now it's the technology sector. One small misunderstanding, and suddenly tens of thousands of people might be finding their personal information getting stolen, online retailers suddenly losing tens of millions of dollars worth of business, the power-grid fails and suddenly people on life-support are dying and tens of millions of terrified people are left alone in the dark.

Is any of this going to happen because one company strips out the Master/Slave terminology?

Almost certainly not!

What will happen is that the perpetually offended will see this as justification to go attack some other word that bothers them. One more point of confusion. One more round of lobotomies for the masses. One more idea that becomes just a little harder to convey. One more piece of literature that needs revising. One more... one more... one more.

It's untenable because there will ALWAYS be one more word that upsets somebody, somewhere... and the loss of that word will forever damage our ability to THINK about the concepts and ideas it represents.

 

[Silvanus]

You try to diminish the danger of this by implying that "It's unlikely EVERY word will be changed", but that is not and has never been the danger inherent to the purging of potentially inflammatory words. What we are at risk of losing is not merely a word, but the UTILITY of our language. Each word purged, each word rendered taboo, is an IDEA that someone is attempting to cull from the collective consciousness. We use our words to THINK... the language we speak is the language our brains are programmed in.

Indeed. And people with entirely different stables of words-- those from other cultures, or other time periods, or even just those with different vocabularies-- are still entirely capable of speaking and thinking. The line is not drawn in what phrases are present in some technical documents.

It's the intellectual equivalent of a lobotomy, with the hope being that if we just lobotomize enough people then eventually whatever idea said words might cultivate will die alongside them as public consciousness fades.

Today it's Master/Slave in the tech sector, with the clear hope that we'll all just forget that slavery was a thing... unless of course forgetting about slavery is offensive... (which it is, naturally, to many)... so we'll just hypocritically make it okay to talk about in the VERY context we're hoping people will forget about whilst stripping an important technical term out of the tech sector because 'what could possibly go wrong?'

You're assuming, quite irrationally, that the intention of removing the word in this one instance is to remove it, somehow, from the English language. It is quite clearly not that. Nobody wants us to "forget slavery", least of all the people who find slavery immoral. They merely don't want the word used here.

Say, a lecturer marks an essay, and tells his/her student that their use of a particular term is confusing/misplaced/wrong. Does this mean the lecturer wants to remove the word from the English language, and from thought itself?! Of course not. They just think it shouldn't be in that place.

We pick and choose our words every time we speak. Every time we speak or write, we choose some words above others, and deselecting some is not deciding that they must be purged.

It's untenable because there will ALWAYS be one more word that upsets somebody, somewhere... and the loss of that word will forever damage our ability to THINK about the concepts and ideas it represents.

The concepts will still exist. Nobody is trying to make us "forget" slavery, and nothing anybody is doing could possibly make it happen anyway. Being discerning about its use is not-- in any way at all-- somehow destroying the word.

EDIT: I should clarify, this is all quite apart from whether or not I think this Mozilla instance is silly or not.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I also have to think that the

", and also to make improvements so Buildbot works better in the Amazon EC2 cloud".

part is probably a bit more significant in that decision than the

... remove the term "slave" from all documentation, APIs and tests

part.

Despite the fact that I think this has been mentioned at least once on each of the three pages of this thread, I don't think that people will take the time to stop getting angry about the "reactionary response" to actually find out the details of this story before commenting

 

[Neonit]

lol, a fool and his money are soon parted.
im sure its gonna help to solicit more donations next time. if people will notice at least.

but hey, sooner or later we all gotta choose our poison. they just chose one that is ridiculous.

meh, i never head of buildbot, so i guess they got their advertisement?

 

[PhantomEcho]

Indeed. And people with entirely different stables of words-- those from other cultures, or other time periods, or even just those with different vocabularies-- are still entirely capable of speaking and thinking. The line is not drawn in what phrases are present in some technical documents.

The original concepts of many things as we know and understand them today have been forever lost to time, in an unending linguistic game of Telephone in which the meanings of various words and the intentions behind them have been mistranslated, deliberately sabotaged, and in many cases simply overlooked and forgotten.

So much of History has been spent re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, trying to catch up to technologies we had in some cases two or three thousand years ago. Much of this is due to warfare heavily emphasizing the destruction of historical archives, libraries, and places of learning.

Concepts may "persist" without their words of origin in some form or another, diluted or mistaken attributed as a regional/cultural idiom, but they will not survive in our society. They will not retain their significance and importance to us. In the past 50 years, we've reached the point of advancement where concepts like actual physical Phone Books and Land-Lines are foreign to our children. As the usage of these "obsolete" technologies dwindles, fewer and fewer of them are passed down as concepts to the next generation.

This is the organic, natural process by which words pass out of usage.

You're assuming, quite irrationally, that the intention of removing the word in this one instance is to remove it, somehow, from the English language. It is quite clearly not that. Nobody wants us to "forget slavery", least of all the people who find slavery immoral. They merely don't want the word used here.

Say, a lecturer marks an essay, and tells his/her student that their use of a particular term is confusing/misplaced/wrong. Does this mean the lecturer wants to remove the word from the English language, and from thought itself?! Of course not. They just think it shouldn't be in that place.

We pick and choose our words every time we speak. Every time we speak or write, we choose some words above others, and deselecting some is not deciding that they must be purged.

Correction: You are assuming, quite irrationally, that I believe the intent of this maneuver is to somehow remove it from the English Language. What I have deduced, through my many years studying linguistics and propaganda, is that Mozilla is pandering lazily to a crowd of people it knows care more about the appearance of change than any kind of actual change. By making a grand showing of altering a word in the name of being 'Discerning', they're hoping to draw in new support and donations from a group of people who already don't support them for a myriad of different reasons and certainly aren't likely to change their minds.

This maneuver is not a genuine attempt to purge a term, but rather to appease a politically volatile group known for blindly throwing money at any cause that makes even the most token gesture of capitulating to their demands. They don't want people to forget what slavery is/was... they want people to forget about the word slavery for a few minutes while reading through some dry, boring technical data.

The only problem, of course, is that nobody had any legitimate cause to be thinking about slavery while reading that.

However, let's say a lecturer DOES mark an essay with such a comment as you have stated. You again seem to be assuming that the lecturer is CORRECT, without any accounting for the biases and personal agenda of the lecturer as an individual. Under even the most basic of critical analysis, it's easy to see that if "Mozilla" is the lecturer in question, the reasoning behind their claim that the term in question is misplaced is absolutely irrefutably wrong. It is standardized terminology that has been in use for more years than Mozilla has existed, and serves a limited but very specific purpose which YES... can (is capable of) be replaced... but SHOULD NOT BE without any adequate reasoning to do so. So what is their reasoning? Does it hold water? Does changing very basic terminology do more good than the confusion and misunderstanding it will create? Is this a reasonable course of action?

These are all questions that are being asked, right now, and answered. Which is good, great even!

However, you're conflating the picking and choosing of words under pressure from outside sources, under penalty of being declared "wrong-headed" or "bigoted" or "confusing/misplaced", with the natural process by which words pass out of usage over time... and that's not good. That's exactly how language devolves and degrades, which opens it up to exploitation and abuse.

The concepts will still exist. Nobody is trying to make us "forget" slavery, and nothing anybody is doing could possibly make it happen anyway. Being discerning about its use is not-- in any way at all-- somehow destroying the word.

Yep, there's definitely no historical precedent for the destruction of literature, art, and ideological opposition as a means to subjugate and oppress a population... no sirree.

-EDIT- I just want to add that I'm quite enjoying this, even if we do disagree. I'm not arguing against you on a personal level, I'm just having fun flexing my philosophical muscles with someone who doesn't buckle and fold the minute I throw a few heavy terms their way. If I come across as condescending, it's an unintentional byproduct of my usual debate opponents being the local drunks.