Areloch said:
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.
Feeling are part of objective reality just like pain, which is also totally subjective, but still objectively real. Sure, it can't be precisely measured, but that doesn't make it objectively real. It does, of course, make it harder to judge tradeoffs, but any set oif guidelines to be used by humans should probably take into account the reality of humanity.
So we're changing the usage of a word because it's offensive to NOT use it in context of humans? That's bizzare.
Oddly enough, there are probably thousands of different nuances expected of those who use language. I'm pretty certain you can handle it, probably instinctively if you spend a few minutes putting yourself into the mindset of those who feel strongly about the matter. (My apologies if you have ASD, in which case, yeah, the intricacies of language usage suck.)
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.
Okay, my apologies.
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'.
Not being American, and more importantly, being white, male and middle-class, I'm *never* going feel excluded. Any term that might conceivably offend me was long drummed out of the language, and the perpetrators sanctioned. (Or if it was tried a century ago, quite possibly beaten to death. If you're part of the underclass, you learn to anticipate the majority's disapproval long in advance.)
However, I can read enough to know that there's a decent size group who feel impacted by slavery enough to find its use for less heinous purposes annoying. My touch point is how I feel when someone uses the term 'holocaust' for something relatively trivial. Basic respect for millions who died has me reserve the word for similarly cataclysmic events.
So, if the tech community chooses to not to make what's a fairly trivial change (there really are lots of good synonyms), then it makes clear that my concerns are not even minimally important. And that makes me feel excluded. And that is a bad thing.
Honestly, I don't care about the context. If everybody from a certain culture hated the word "DIN connector", I'd be happy to switch that as well. Trivial, easily done changes that make significant groups feel better are simply more important than terminology changes that are occurring all the time anyway. I don't demand cultures justify their desires to me. I only care about if it's easy to fulfill them. If it is, then once again, it's common courtesy.
It's kind of like crossing a deserted street at night when overtaking a single woman on the sidewalk in order to lessen her sense of unease. Sure, one can argue you have just as much right to the sidewalk, that you aren't a mugger, etc., etc. But in the end, it's just being a decent human being - justification is irrelevant.
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.
I mean, racism in day-to-day life isn't really common anymore
Ouch. I think you mean that overt, outspoken racism isn't common anymore, and even that's pretty questionable, depending on where you live. However, covert racism is still *massively* endemic. Just try submitting a resume with a 'black' name, and see how many replies you get. See racial profiling. And on and on...
And I'm 100% certain that merely using the word 'slave' in a technical sense is NOT propagating racial violence.
I agree. With 'slave', it's far more about making certain racial groups feel excluded than inciting racial violence. As I said, all the accommodations to ensure that you and I are comfortable were made decades or centuries ago and are still being made as our tastes and culture change. Offend us in any serious way, and society will crush you like a bug.
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.
Yes, that's accurate. I care about making society as inclusive as practical. And this term seems a trivial cost for a small increase in that inclusiveness.
As for other terms, I'm happy to judge each on case-by-case basis as to whether it's worth the change.
