Is it a problem that programming languages have terms like "master" and "slave"?

[Xcalibur]

1 minute ago, jerrysheppy said:

 

I mean if saying "all else being equal, it's good to be considerate of people" is "subtly controlling the use of language to adhere to ideological orthodoxy" then hoo boy the sky is the limit. 

there's a difference between being considerate, and kowtowing to an ideology that is attempting to shape language and thought in its favor. That's what this is about.

 

2 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

Anyway: A few people have alluded to the concept of Orwellian language in this thread, which makes me think that they don't actually know what they're talking about, because a key principle of Orwellian thought policing is to make it impossible to think or speak coherently of a given concept at all.  To use an example from Orwell's "The Principles of Newspeak" itself, it's still possible in Newspeak to say something like "Big Brother is ungood", but that would be considered simply absurd, a contradiction in terms.  The concept itself is rendered no longer sensical by the thought police.

 

Here, it seems obvious that no such loss of meaning has taken place, because the items in question still exist and fulfill exactly the same function as they used to.  (or, in the event their functionality was changed at some point, it has nothing necessarily to do with the terminology change.) If you called it a slave yesterday, you can call it a child (or whatever) today and nothing about the concept or its utility has changed.  At least, that is my understanding as a layman with regards to programming.

I understand Orwell. just because it's not exactly the same thing, doesn't mean I can't draw a comparison. by policing language, they are imposing their ideology onto others, and manipulating them into falling in line with it. controlling and altering what you can say and what things mean is a subtle and pervasive means of control. that's the point of my comparison.

[jerrysheppy]

me: I don't like onions on my hamburger, can you please make mine without

 

waiter: certainly, sir

 

waiter (later, in the kitchen): fucking customers strong-arming us into making hamburgers a different way

[jerrysheppy]

Just now, Xcalibur said:

what things mean

 

how has this altered "what things mean"

 

like literally, the only way this could possibly be a case of "altering what things mean" is if the association with human slavery is somehow relevant to the "meaning" of a particular python process. 

[Xcalibur]

7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

It doesn't say pythion has been forced to remove those terms and come up with new ones. There is no policing going on here. The people who "do python" decided that they wanted to change something about their product, for lack of a better expression. There is no agenda going on here that forces some sort of ideology on anybody.

the article strongly suggests otherwise.

 

6 minutes ago, dew said:

And is your opinion based on being a disgruntled python programmer, or rather a participant of the larger scale cultural war in which the lib sjws must be owned for their attempts to silence the (sane, reasonable and beautiful) conservatives, even if you don't really give a damn about the topic at hand? You know, just so that we get informed on your particular bias as well.

 

I program for moneys and I don't care except for one thing: why parent/child, ffs? Every third concept in programming is called parent/child, don't make things more confusing dammit!

my bias is in favor of freedom of speech and expression, and against censorship and moralizing in general.

 

6 minutes ago, Pegg said:

Yes but my reply was just giving more reasoning to replace the name.

there are valid reasons for changing a term, but obedience to an ideology is not one of them.

 

4 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

 

Gotta say that it's a pretty big jump from "it would be nice" and "there have been complaints" to "they are being strong-armed".  Businesses and organizations disregard complaints all the goddamn time if they don't think those complaints are valid.

based on my general observations, it's not that big of a leap. at least, the statements in the article can easily be construed that way.

[Sparktimus]

It's just another case of "some people have said" or "It's probably this group". It's easy to make assumptions when you've been swayed to be either for one side or the other, disregarding the fact that there is indeed a middle ground. It sounds to me like the devs themselves have made this decision of their own volition. Saying that every decision of this nature must be influenced by some sort of invisible SJW force is once again enforcing the idea of "us vs. them" when there's actually no need for that. People get too caught up in the blame game because they want to believe that their side is good and the other side must be evil. Like I said, I think censorship, at the federal level, is pretty dumb. This is no such case, though.

[dew]

1 minute ago, Xcalibur said:

my bias is in favor of freedom of speech and expression, and against censorship and moralizing in general. 

I already checked your post history and made the conclusion you're just a concern troll myself, but thanks for the confirmation.

[Nine Inch Heels]

6 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

article strongly suggests otherwise.

I don't care what the article "suggests", and let's not pretend that news outlets don't have agendas of their own.

Unless the article delivers some kind of proof that SJWs were literally pressuring the people in charge into making the choice they made, you don't have any sort of argument that is worthwhile.

 

6 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

there are valid reasons for changing a term, but obedience to an ideology is not one of them.

There are indeed reasons involved that have nothing to do with ideology, hence the terms were changed.

[Xcalibur]

5 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

me: I don't like onions on my hamburger, can you please make mine without

 

waiter: certainly, sir

 

waiter (later, in the kitchen): fucking customers strong-arming us into making hamburgers a different way

there are different interpretations of this. you're assuming that's how it went.

 

3 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

 

how has this altered "what things mean"

 

like literally, the only way this could possibly be a case of "altering what things mean" is if the association with human slavery is somehow relevant to the "meaning" of a particular python process. 

this is an example of language control. meaning may not be particularly relevant to this case, but it is in others. 

[Xcalibur]

2 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I don't care what the article "suggests", and let's not pretend that news outlets don't have agendas of their own.

Unless the article delivers some kind of proof that SJWs were literally pressuring the people in charge into making the choice they made, you don't have any sort of argument that is worthwhile.

it's not proven, but it's strongly suggested, as I said. you certainly can't disprove it, so it's a valid consideration.

 

2 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

There are indeed reasons involved that have nothing to do with ideology, hence the terms were changed.

That's not what the article says, though.

[Benjogami]

Is the issue that people complained? Or that Python obliged? Aren't both of those things in the realm of "freedom of speech and expression"? Or should Python not "control the language" that describes its own product?

[Xcalibur]

2 minutes ago, Benjogami said:

Is the issue that people complained? Or that Python obliged? Aren't both of those things in the realm of "freedom of speech and expression"? Or should Python not "control the language" that describes its own product?

the issue, to me, is the very likely possibility that the terms were changed due to pressure and imposition by a particular ideology. they should be able to use any sort of language or terms that they want, without being dictated to by a small group of ideologues.

[Nine Inch Heels]

4 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

That's not what the article says, though.

Believe it or not, I read that article. And it says that the terms were removed because of how people feel about a certain period during america's history to this day. Mind you, slavery is something that neither democrats nor republicans approve of these days, hence the notion that there is some leftist agenda in play is nonsense, because the decision is reasonable no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on or not. That's also why your attempt at playing the concerned and upstanding citizen is laughable at best.

5 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

it's not proven, but it's strongly suggested, as I said. you certainly can't disprove it, so it's a valid consideration

Yes, as you said, because as it always has been with people who run out of things to say: You're starting to repeat yourself.

[Benjogami]

Well, I don't think there was any imposing or dictating. It seems like there was discussion and then a decision. Seems fine?

[dew]

1 minute ago, Xcalibur said:

the issue, to me, is the very likely possibility that the terms were changed due to pressure and imposition by a particular ideology. they should be able to use any sort of language or terms that they want, without being dictated to by a small group of ideologues. 

Dude, the python devs won't go on a date with you. Stop with the farfetched whiteknighting ffs.

[Xcalibur]

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Believe it or not, I read that article. And it says that the terms were removed because of how people feel about a certain period during america's history to this day. Mind you, slavery is something that neither democrats nor republicans approve of these days, hence the notion that there is some leftist agenda in play is nonsense, because the decision is reasonable no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on or not. That's also why your attempt at playing the concerned and upstanding citizen is laughable at best.

there is a clear precedent of the 'leftist agenda' I'm referring to aggressively shaping discourse and expression in accordance with its orthodoxy. that is not reasonable.

 

3 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Yes, as you said, because as it always has been with people who run out of things to say: You're starting to repeat yourself.

 

any redundancy in my posts is caused by my points being disregarded.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, Xcalibur said:

any redundancy in my posts is caused by my points being disregarded invalid.

FTFY

[Xcalibur]

3 minutes ago, Benjogami said:

Well, I don't think there was any imposing or dictating. It seems like there was discussion and then a decision. Seems fine?

again, there is plenty of support for this in the article:

""I'm not super-excited by the idea that Python has to change its behavior based on secret comments," lamented Larry Hastings. "Python has traditionally had a very open governance model where all discussions happen in public.""

""Is it really necessary to pollute Python code base with SJW ideology/terminology?" asked Gabriel Marko. "What comes next?""

"noting that there have been complaints but they've been filed privately – presumably to avoid being dragged into a fractious flame war."

this does not suggest that it was a decision made via popular support and open discussion. rather, it opens up the possibility that a small group of people dedicated to an ideology wielded influence to cause this to happen.

 

5 minutes ago, dew said:

Dude, the python devs won't go on a date with you. Stop with the farfetched whiteknighting ffs.

it's a matter of principle. I don't have a fetish for programmers (although I respect what they do).

[Xcalibur]

2 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

FTFY

there is much to back up my points, including the article itself.

also, I've been restrained and reasonable while discussing this topic.

[dew]

10 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

there is a clear precedent of the 'leftist agenda' I'm referring to aggressively shaping discourse and expression in accordance with its orthodoxy. that is not reasonable.

So let's summarize!

• You refused to tell if you code in python, or if you code at all.
• You're doing it for freedom and civility, just a concerned citizen with no political bias or agenda.
• You're incredibly vague in your accusations, but keep dogwhistling about the left and the evil sjws.
• You're unhappy that your debate partners aren't as civil as you in this discourse about programming vocabulary freedom. What happened to rational debate???
• You have 23 posts since 2012, 20 of which are unrelated to Doom. The last time you talked about Doom was in October 2012.

Am I forgetting anything in this filthy disgusting ad hominem attack on your integrity as a poster on Doomworld?

[fraggle]

2 hours ago, segfault said:

It's fucking stupid and the people pushing for this are pushing for it because they have zero technical ability but a gnawing need to have some, any, relevance to the group they're trying to cling to. Fuck'em.

The people making the change are Victor Stinner, a core CPython dev since 2010, and Guido van Rossum, the inventor of Python. I think it's fair to say that they have enough technical ability. Sorry that it doesn't fit the narrative you want to push :(

 

Quote

I'm sick and fucking tired of this bullshit. Do sysadmins who had to bury their own kids start crying whenever they have to deal with killing off child processes? No.

You'd be surprised - sysadmin / SRE work is a pretty tough job. I've seen people yelling at their screens and all sorts. Generally speaking, the fewer annoying things we have to deal with the better, and in SRE there are a lot of annoying things.

 

Quote

Is the "reactionary Internet outrage machine that stirs up a big unnecessary drama" the people who try to change words so that nobody will ever be offended, or the people who are annoyed at said moral guardians?

Happy to clarify - it's the latter. None of the really technically competent people I know have a problem with changing this stuff to make it more inclusive. It only ever seems to be angry people on the Internet who have a problem with it and it's never really clear to me why. As I said in my last comment, I just see it as a token effort to make things a bit better for everyone. If that makes me a (*squint*) "post-Columbine bible-thumper" then I'm not sure what to say. I hope some day maybe you'll stop screaming, listen a bit and hear the good news.

[DarkShroom]

i don't understand the debate here

see, guido said so.... that's the end of it!

he likely thought to change it in advance BEFORE someone got offended, that's how it works... better to change one pointless word to another now before anyone has a problem future

[Benjogami]

10 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

again, there is plenty of support for this in the article:

""I'm not super-excited by the idea that Python has to change its behavior based on secret comments," lamented Larry Hastings. "Python has traditionally had a very open governance model where all discussions happen in public.""

""Is it really necessary to pollute Python code base with SJW ideology/terminology?" asked Gabriel Marko. "What comes next?""

"noting that there have been complaints but they've been filed privately – presumably to avoid being dragged into a fractious flame war."

this does not suggest that it was a decision made via popular support and open discussion. rather, it opens up the possibility that a small group of people dedicated to an ideology wielded influence to cause this to happen.

 

I have no doubt that some people (including Larry, Gabriel, and you), felt like the decision was made by a secret council because of secret comments, and the article is of course eager to play up that angle, because that's news these days. But do you really have a problem with confidential or anonymous complaints? Or with a group of people privately making a decision about the future of their product? I bet they even drank deeply of the forum discussions before making the "secret" decision.

[Xcalibur]

4 minutes ago, dew said:

So let's summarize!

• You refused to tell if you code in python, or if you code at all.
• You're doing it for freedom and civility, just a concerned citizen with no political bias or agenda.
• You're incredibly vague in your accusations, but keep dogwhistling about the left and the evil sjws.
• You're unhappy that your debate partners aren't as civil as you in this discourse about programming vocabulary freedom. What happened to rational debate???
• You have 23 posts since 2012, 20 of which are unrelated to Doom. The last time you talked about Doom was in October 2012.

Am I forgetting anything in this filthy disgusting ad hominem attack on your integrity as a poster on Doomworld?

1. one can have an opinion on a situation without being directly involved.

2. I see nothing wrong with this.

3. I don't think I've been vague at all, I've made clear statements on this matter. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'd be happy to do so.

4. All I've done is state my views, and I've been accused of trolling and white-knighting with the ulterior motive of sex. Yes, I think that's a little absurd. Civility is important.

5. I've mostly been active on the wiki, doing Hexen content, which I've been meaning to finally finish. That's what brought me to post here on occasion.

[DarkShroom]

5 minutes ago, Benjogami said:

 

I have no doubt that some people (including Larry, Gabriel, and you), felt like the decision was made by a secret council because of secret comments, and the article is of course eager to play up that angle, because that's news these days. But do you really have a problem with confidential or anonymous complaints? Or with a group of people privately making a decision about the future of their product? I bet they even drank deeply of the forum discussions before making the "secret" decision.

if guido wants to run a secret council and make changes that's okay as it's what guido says that goes... that's why we all use python 2.7 still

[fraggle]

14 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

this does not suggest that it was a decision made via popular support and open discussion.

That's not actually how open source software is developed or how decisions are made anyway (open source projects aren't democracies). As far as open discussion goes, it's almost certainly because discussions like these nowadays almost always end up being targeted by entryist far-right trolls with no connection to the project, exactly as we're seeing here. It's actually pretty sad to see how online harassment like this ends up shutting down free speech and open discussion in open source projects.

[Xcalibur]

9 minutes ago, Benjogami said:

 

I have no doubt that some people (including Larry, Gabriel, and you), felt like the decision was made by a secret council because of secret comments, and the article is of course eager to play up that angle, because that's news these days. But do you really have a problem with confidential or anonymous complaints? Or with a group of people privately making a decision about the future of their product? I bet they even drank deeply of the forum discussions before making the "secret" decision.

I take issue with a particular ideology dictating to others and having undue influence through various means. This is just yet another example of that. I believe that it's not a good thing, and that's really all I've been trying to say.

 

3 minutes ago, fraggle said:

That's not actually how open source software is developed or how decisions are made anyway (open source projects aren't democracies). As far as open discussion goes, it's almost certainly because discussions like these nowadays almost always end up being targeted by entryist far-right trolls with no connection to the project, exactly as we're seeing here. It's actually pretty sad to see how online harassment like this ends up shutting down free speech and open discussion in open source projects.

I simply spoke my mind on this issue, and then got dragged into this. That has nothing to do with harassment or trolling.

those are valid concerns, and I certainly wouldn't claim that open source development is or should be democratic. However, one could just as easily decry projects being targeted by SJWs who don't really care about the subject matter, only perpetuating their ideology in every area possible.

[dew]

5 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

I take issue with a particular ideology dictating to others and having undue influence through various means. This is just yet another example of that. I believe that it's not a good thing, and that's really all I've been trying to say.

By which you're obviously talking about yourself, dictating to the devs of python what they can or cannot do when you feel like their decision is giving "The Other" a win. And we must not have that, brethren. Ban freedom to save freedom!

[Linguica]

Call them "dom" and "sub" ywia

[Nine Inch Heels]

^That gets my "slap of approval"

[Xcalibur]

3 minutes ago, dew said:

By which you're obviously talking about yourself, dictating to the devs of python what they can or cannot do when you feel like their decision is giving "The Other" a win. And we must not have that, brethren. Ban freedom to save freedom!

I'm not dictating to them. they can do as they see fit. I simply think that anytime a moralistic ideology imposes itself, that it's not a good thing and shouldn't happen. I haven't had contact with the people involved, and I'm not attempting to influence their decision. I'm simply pointing out why I find this disagreeable. if it were some other ideology dictating its orthodoxy, I would have the same opinion.