Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Jan Tojnar <jtojnar gmail com>]

As a person from a part of the world where slavery has been basically nonexistent after the end of the Middle Ages, it is very hard for me to imagine the effect the word itself has on people from areas where the presence of slavery is still felt today. Being an engineer, whenever I encounter a problem, I am trying to understand it better. This is also why I pointed out the word “leader”, hoping to hear something that would make the problem clearer to me.

I am not really opposed to using a more inclusive vocabulary but, first, I need to grasp what that actually is. If we choose the criterion “we will not use words that invoke traumatic memories for protected groups of people”, then the word “leader” can be problematic, as I can imagine it can be be painful for Jonestown survivors. How can I really be better without sacrificing the language? 

I would assume many of the people critical to this proposal are not actually averse to using more inclusive language either but, rather, fear the vagueness of such goals. Again, with a developer hat on, we try to imagine the worst case scenarios, so we are reluctant to give any way to progress, unless we have at least some degree of certainty it will not come back to bite us.

Ignoring those fears can lead to a backslash that will cause the exact opposite of inclusiveness we are aiming for, just look at US presidential elections. 🥕:-O Maybe linking some research on how self-moderation increases the inclusiveness without devolving into Orwellian thought police level hell would pacify those critics.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, 16:56 , <mcatanzaro gnome org> wrote:

Hard to believe this is a serious discussion that we're actually having.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:02 AM, jtojnar--- via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list gnome org> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr, 2019 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Playfair Cal via
> desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org> wrote:
>> "master/slave" -> "leader/follower"
>
> Please note that leader/follower terms are commonly associated with
> exploitation of people by cults and should be avoided as well.

Since it's impossible to tell what the intended tone here is: was this
a serious request to avoid the terminology, or a joke intended to make
a point? (I'm guessing the later?)