It does not reflect on history, it is not a reference to it.
That's not how language works. Language is years of words being
assigned meaning. As you
described it, master/slave terminology has the same exact meaning of a
relationship between a
real master and slave. That connection is the problematic bit, because
in some countries slavery
wasn't all that long ago, and in some places it's never left or it
changed forms.
If we want to be an inclusive project, it would be beneficial to use
language that doesn't scratch at scars
when we have other metaphors we can use.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:12 AM, Pat Suwalski <p...@suwalski.net> wrote:
On 2019-04-25 9:58 a.m., Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote:
If you cannot maintain even a semblance of a civil discourse, the
door is shown to you at the bottom of every email.
Fine, if you want it stated a different way, the terms being used are
as accurate as possible.
There is a master process. It tells a slave what to do. The slave
process does it, no questions asked. This is what machines do.
It is accurate. It does not reflect on history, it is not a reference
to it.
--Pat
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <mailto:desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>
<https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list>
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
