On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:39:01AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 9/20/18 9:17 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Obviously every case is different, but in the case of python, i can't
> > see how this helps slaves and as Steward nicely described the desired
> > semantic is quite well represented by the prior choice of language
> > (master/slave).
>
> I don't think it's particularly difficult to find other terminology,
> but I'll agree that the will to do so appears lacking.
The question is also always how to usefully address
sensibilities/problems, and doctoring with language just
has a tradition of being done instead of more effective means
of addressing them.
> Anyway, the
> Python folk really are committed to building and diversifying their
> community and are proactive about reaching out to people from
> countries where human trafficking is a current and pressing problem.
Sure. And you really think that this change in python is at least
perceived as a useful ? I fear it would be perceived cynical as
just a theater because it does not really help the matter.
> I grew up in the US south and am old enough to have known the
> children and grandchildren of slaves. We are shown time after time
> after time that universalizing our own experience leads us to make
> some fundamental mistakes, as you do here.
I guess in this case i am probably arguing from an absence of
an eperience with slavery, while you may be universalizing your
experience with it.
I am always happy about crisp examples how some proposal does actually
help. I have not seen this for the master/slave case.
> I'm also really unclear on what you expect the outcome of replying
> "No, you actually don't" to people who say "I care about <x>" will be.
Calling out virtue signaling is not denying that someone cares,
just that its not helping.
Cheers
Toerless
>
> Melinda
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
