I mean, I can understand someone not viewing it as particularly important, but you seem to view it as very obviously ridiculous which is an attitude I really struggle to understand.

This seems like a tiny little harmless improvement of the world.

What makes it all hilarious is the fact that the PR was merged almost immediately into MASTER without being fully tested first. It's as if not merging it ASAP would have started WW3 or something.

You'll find two arguments against this in the wild – "we've always used that terminology," and "it's the only way to describe the relationship." I don't think either are that convincing.

I used to be pretty clear that I thought this was a stupid thing to complain about, until one day when I was presenting a small distributed software project to a group including non-technical people. I explained about the 'master' and the 'slaves', and at the end someone asked 'why did you use those terms? Isn't there something nicer we can use?'.

I realised that they weren't complaining because they were offended or anything, but because slavery is sort of not a nice thing to talk about – the fact that I was used to those terms in a technical context maybe blinded me a bit to the fact that others might find them distasteful. They were changed, everyone was happier, nothing was lost.

It's like banning Huckleberry Finn for using the word 'nigger', or Der Untergang because it's about Hitler.

TL;DR I totally agree that commonly used terminology that can be perceived as insensitive to some is best avoided.

If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn about using the word in a technical setting that makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not black but I'm using logic I feel my black friends would use.

If you're white and feel the word is insensitive, you're actually making a big deal out of it when it's really not your place to do so, which is ironic in my opinion. If you think not using the word where its meaning is used properly and in no way is intended to offend will somehow lessen the heinous and repulsive nature of the acts committed by your predecessors, then you're misguided.

Of course, this is the way I see it. Perhaps I'm out of my depth.

Being offended by words without regard to context, meaning, or idea being communicated isn't really a race-specific thing, its a thing a certain subset of the population independent of race, gender, etc., does.

People in that group who are black or concerned with the black experience in America are likely to be offended by "slave" in any context (except, perhaps, an actual disapproving reference to the historical practice of slavery.)

People who are not in that group, even if they are black or concerned with the black experience in America, are unlikely to be concerned by the use of "slave" in this context.

(Since apparently we need to disclose this in this discussion, I am black. I am actually offended by people making a deal about things like this without reference to context and meaning, because it distracts from and trivializes actual racism, which remains a real and significant problem.)

If only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

> We need to be making an effort to describe these relationships differently, and to use a set of terms just because "they've always been used" is just laziness.

Using terms that have well-established meanings in a particular context for those established meanings in that context isn't "laziness", and its not something that needs to change because the origin of the terms is an imprecise metaphor.

It might need to change if the origin is a metaphor that incorporates, e.g., blatantly racist or sexist, etc., assumptions -- which master/slave does not, even though the practice of slavery in some times and places was tied to institutional racism -- (though even there maybe not if the use and language is so distant that there is no immediate association with those assumptions despite the origin.)

So then the only real issue left is whether on a social/psychological level the words can cause pain. If someone is bothered by it, because they are bothered by it, then it's up for discussion and change. I also doubt that anyone is actually upset by the use of master/slave in these contexts.

So what's left is 1) people who for whatever reason find it necessary to get upset on behalf of a hypothetical other, which leads us toward lots of pointless drama, and 2) people who cannot distinguish symbols from their meaning.

A very similar issue that also seems to be particularly American (although I'm not sure) is 'forbidding' or 'taboo' words. In my culture (Holland) we don't have any words that even remotely carry the weight that a term like 'cunt' carries (I cringe even as I write it, because, well, American culture is big in Holland too). Sure, we have rude words. And using some of them offend people. And we have our practices that are being discussed and rightfully so.

But we have no words that are so bad that even neutral usage is socially punished.

And that strikes me as very sensible. The more weight you give something, the more power it has, and the more it can be abused by various parties.

Instead, consider how the word 'gay' has been, to a degree, actively defanged and as result lessened in negative power.

What bothers me the most is that I cannot help but feel that very real issues are sometimes coopted by people who just want to be righteous about things and pick fights. To me, that's almost worse than accidentally using offensive language, and definitely worse than doing nothing at all.

And then what bothers me is that I write this with the greatest trepidation, because the previous paragraph itself could be coopted and reinterpreted in various ways to prove that I'm a terrible person...

Can't we all just take a breath and remember Vonnegut's words:

"There's only one rule that I know of, babies - God damn it, you've got to be kind."

Can't we be kind and try to work on these issues?

But then I realized that "primary/replica" is offensive to the replicants out there (think Blade Runner)...

I don't think it's the most accurate term because in many cases the subordinate actor ("Slave") is not "the property of" or entirely subject to, the coordinating actor ("Master"). Usually it is a matter of coordination, or of information flow, signalling path or perhaps merely a question of which process is accountable when a decision needs to be made.

In that light, Boss/Worker is another couplet of terms I've seen used that seems more apt.

But otherwise I agree with everything else you have said.

You're not, and neither am I - it's not your right to say one way or the other, but it is my right to be prudent. But this isn't just a racial issue - it's one of generally accepted social mores. Language changes and evolves. Nothing is lost in the transition to more eloquent terms.

It's like when visiting Southern Africa a few years ago - whenever I asked for black coffee I was prompted "you mean coffee with hot water?" on a few occasions before I realised it's a politeness thing. As oversensitive as that might sound to my privileged ears it wasn't my place to argue - so from then on it was "coffee without milk please!" - as with leader/follower nothing was lost in the translation but I found myself getting fewer funny looks.