Social Justice Movements [was: Rename offensive terminology (master)]

From: lkcl@lkcl.net

simon,

sadly i regret to inform you that both the subject line that you've used, and the assertion that you make - that "master" is automatically an inherently offensive term - is what a lawyer would call "leading the witness". it is a false correlation and unfortunately nobody has picked up on this in a significant way.

it would have been far better and much less problematic not to have made any false language-based assumptions as the *fundamental basis* for this entire conversation, by using, for example, the following neutral and objective words:

    "some people may believe that there is an implication - false or
    otherwise - that the use of the word master in git implies a
    corresponding association with slavery.  whilst i appreciate that
    this is a technical list, in light of today's current social
    climate i would welcome open and honest discussion on this subject"

do you see the difference? instead of indicating that you respect that this is a technical list, and *invite* people to discuss it, you opened with a *demand*, backed up by not one but *two* false correlative assertions: one in the subject and the second in the opening sentence, which has proven difficult for people to unpack.

i notice also in follow-ups that you also use similar language and make similar assumptions, which _are_ picked up on and found to themselves be *offensive by readers*. in light of the topic being to change the use of an offensive word, this is highly ironic! (i am delighted to then see that you apologised and indicate that this was in no way intentional).

my observation is however that you have a pattern of this type of false-correlative language usage that you may wish to examine more closely, in order to not mislead or offend others. do not think that you are alone in this! we all do it, myself included, unintentionally. our strength of character is in how we react when it is *pointed out* to us our mistakes, and it is a hugely positive sign to see that you are well-intended and wish not to cause offense to others.

we have also engaged in a discussion on our list, provided some insights into this topic. as an ethical technology advocate with a responsibility and a duty to consider the full implications of the use of my skill, i have been thinking about this "political movement" to change the landscape of engineering terminology for some years.

summary: it's not a good sign.

interestingly, one of our team members opened the discussion with a similarly loaded question: http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008259.html

    "should we avoid the association with slavery?"

which is again a highly loaded / charged / false-correlative question (that i immediately picked up on).

the first follow-up simply pointed out that there are a huge number of alternative overload meanings for the word "master": http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008263.html

    Record-master
    Film-master
    Tape-master
    Digital-master

    Master (as in teacher)

followups on this include document management commonly-used phrases:

    Master copy
    Master document
    Master Bill of Materials

do you notice that *at no time* is there *any* association in any one's mind with "slavery"? nobody gets offended in Eastern countries when they meet a "Master"! it is a word of *deep* respect!

another follow-up goes into detail about the critical importance of the use of the words "master" and "slave" from an engineering perspective (we are implementing a processor: the Wishbone Specification for example *has* to use the terms) as well as providing further insights: http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008264.html

    the engineering meaning of master and slave is as follows:

    * master specifies unequivocably the action required.  this is
      an atomic contract

    * slave carries out that action unequivocably and atomically.

    in other words it is an atomically guaranteed 100 percent
    inviolate and 100% accurate transferrance of *information* from
    one source to another.

    any violation of that contract has such severe consequences in
    engineering (catastrophic data loss in the case of git, and loss
    of life in the case of mission critical real time control systems)
    that to consider anything other than this type of contract is
    unthinkable and flat-out impractical.

this reply also points out that the current motivation for changing the meaning of the word is, sadly, for the purposes of "Social Justice" that have at their heart a guilt-ridden desire to forget history by eradicating words from common usage, with complete disregard for the fact that the word has multiple meanings. the "if you're not with us you're against us" false-correlative argument that has caused untold misery and strife throughout human history.

this then led another of our team, who has a degree in Liberal Studies and Literature, specialising in the study of slavery, to write about the dismaying ongoing inversion and distortion of ethical and liberal movements: http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008277.html

he points out in particular that the current "Social Justice" movement has all the hallmarks of a modern-day religion!

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/postmodern-religion-faith-social-justice/

so i leave that with you to consider, and the observation that i am witnessing a huge amount of guilt and deep-seated unease over this topic, which is perfectly understandable and we - all of us - need to feel comfortable being able to express that unease in a public way (being part of an open movement after all), and to feel that we are being heard and respected.

yet... at the same time recognising that this is *engineering terminology*, for which, due to ongoing legacy usage, a substitute word would cause far more harm than allowing the continuing use of that word. further, that in an *engineering context* and in other contexts, that word simply does not have or cause offense in any way except in the minds of those who - and this is a whole new subject - *choose to be victims*, and in some contexts its usage is a deep and fundamental sign of respect!

in short: i invite everyone here to consider whether to choose to "react" to the Social Justice Movement / Religion - (become mired and victimised by it), and instead to focus on continuing to apply their superb engineering skills to develop technically excellent code, whilst at the same time remembering at all times to be deeply respectful and conscious of the fact that people *are* going to raise these and many other Social Justice style topics on public technical mailing lists, and to give such people the space they need whilst also reminding them of the core goals of the project on which they have brought up that Social Justice topic.

respectfully,

l.