https://twitter.com/mikewhoatv/status/1510704890212925445

Watching Stephen Yaxley Lennon  being a whiny terrified child is so absolutely chef's kiss.

Rev wrote:

MattyJ wrote:

How do we all feel about the term 'Master'? Discussion at work around project management chartership, and it has the term master in there for top level, which my senior leader is kicking back on for its associated connotations. We have an issue in attracting diverse people into our profession and the concern is this sort of terminology doesn't help.

I think it's a term that long needs retired as it has direct connotations with slavery. I see people defending it because 'it's been around so long it would cause hassle to change it' but it's a very weak lazy arguement.

Hmm... I get where that's coming from so whatever if it was retired (and of course it's my upbringing) but I'd never have thought of master in this way. I master a skill. I am a master at guitar playing etc. (That last one is not true but you get the point). There are master documents. We have grand masters in sports etc. I feel its picking the least used part of the word here to change for what exactly?

Edit: just to clarify, I wouldn't be arsed to lose the word. But given its varied uses maybe just drop the noun aspect. You can't be a master of anyone?

Can I still masterbate?

MattyJ wrote:

How do we all feel about the term 'Master'? Discussion at work around project management chartership, and it has the term master in there for top level, which my senior leader is kicking back on for its associated connotations. We have an issue in attracting diverse people into our profession and the concern is this sort of terminology doesn't help.

Touched on this briefly in the politics thread.

If you want a good laugh / interesting extreme, then check out out this link.
https://itconnect.uw.edu/work/inclusive-language-guide/

If you want a personal opinion, depending on the context, a few random labels, or a reasonably well observed lexicon associated with a longstanding project, won't be too big a deal for anyone who's in a workplace to work.

If there's a new project, and a concerted effort is made to examine such things when starting it (and I guess a project to review the impact of such language is a... new project), then that's a positive action, sure. But I would suggest it's not the most important thing...

The more important thing, is actually inviting a diverse group of people to apply to work with you, and giving them the support they need to settle in. Then over time, stuff like work related terms, you'd expect, will work out more organically.

The above is more of an opinion, than an idea worth following.

Yossarian wrote:

I don’t feel strongly about the term master either way around, personally speaking. My mind doesn’t go to the slave trade when I hear the word, but I’m not attached to the term in tech either, and if changing it makes others feel more comfortable, then by all means change it.

Yeah, reckon I'm good with that. 

What word could we use instead (as in master documents, master a skill etc)

Learn a skill doesnt quite cut it nor does original or main documents. 

Maybe master documents could become Bear documents.

And Might I suggest you "badger" a skill. I am a "Badger" at SF2. I want to "badger" the guitar. It is ok to "badger"bate. In fact I am a Grand "Badger" at "Badger"bating.

Which race does the word 'slave' refer to?

Ill be sure to book mark this page for when you raise it in some obscure way in 9 months time.

No I think you have a problem with arguing a point.

But I'll be fair and expand on my question.

I have noticed a shifting in regards to the words 'slave' 'slavery' etc that seems to want to pigeonhole them exclusively to describe the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. This is almost certainly an Americanism given how central it is to their history and how insular they are but its spread over here. The fact it is being discussed in this thread is a part of that.

Slavery has a long history, much longer than a few hundred years, it has existed in various societies and many different groups of people have been victims and perpetrators of it. However this isnt a "well we suffered it too" argument.

My concern is that where slavery still exists today the severity of that can potentially be diluted if the words surrounding it are increasingly attached to one time in history, one form of slavery or one race who were the victims of it.

So as an example. In the local news where I am the other day there was a story about the police working with Romanian authorities to shut down an organised crime gang who were involved in the sex trade. Romanian women were groomed in Romania, sent here and forced into the sex trade by Romanian gangs. While the Johns will almost certainly be from a multitude of backgrounds this is quite clearly an example of slavery that isn't race related at all.

There are countless other examples, some of which are inter-race but slavery can appear in communities even in the same family.

Attaching these words and concepts to one race or even to the idea of racism doesn't sit well with me as it is in danger of excluding victims.

Makes you wonder why they went with those terms in the first place doesn't it?

LivDiv wrote:

No I think you have a problem with arguing a point. But I'll be fair and expand on my question. I have noticed a shifting in regards to the words 'slave' 'slavery' etc that seems to want to pigeonhole them exclusively to describe the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. This is almost certainly an Americanism given how central it is to their history and how insular they are but its spread over here. The fact it is being discussed in this thread is a part of that. Slavery has a long history, much longer than a few hundred years, it has existed in various societies and many different groups of people have been victims and perpetrators of it. However this isnt a "well we suffered it too" argument. My concern is that where slavery still exists today the severity of that can potentially be diluted if the words surrounding it are increasingly attached to one time in history, one form of slavery or one race who were the victims of it. So as an example. In the local news where I am the other day there was a story about the police working with Romanian authorities to shut down an organised crime gang who were involved in the sex trade. Romanian women were groomed in Romania, sent here and forced into the sex trade by Romanian gangs. While the Johns will almost certainly be from a multitude of backgrounds this is quite clearly an example of slavery that isn't race related at all. There are countless other examples, some of which are inter-race but slavery can appear in communities even in the same family. Attaching these words and concepts to one race or even to the idea of racism doesn't sit well with me as it is in danger of excluding victims.

With the example I reluctantly isolated elsewhere, if you read the source (which again, I won't post), there was also a reference to Rosa Parks, so there seemed to be a developing theme there that I found offensive.

I get your point about ambiguity though. Especially after what happened to Corbyn in regards to antisemitism. Sure, you have to be weary of arguments like that (unlike comparing meat eating to slavery, comparing Israeli domestic policy to South African apartheid, is a valuable comparison to make).

But I hope you can also imagine that the idea of 'qualifying' a transgression, is a very painful thing for the subject of the transgression itself, right?

This is why I do get frustrated by people who feel these problems can be dealt with in a purely logical fashion ('hair splitting'). Look at people like Shapiro for example, who have mastered ('hurr hurr') this. People as skilled as him can nullify almost any argument.

So yeah, the context switching bit is a cunt. The words 'Master', 'Slave', 'Monkey', 'Cracker', 'Chink', and 'Arab'' all have very clear and innocent definitions. But you're having a bubble if you think those words are always used in innocence. 

Much like that famous quote about porn ("I know it when I see it", or something like that), I think the more honest thing to do, is explore the complaint, rather than hide behind the logic of grammar or etymology.

Context and intent, are key. Some attempts to police/corral language don't take this into account.

cockbeard wrote:

One of the points Liv raises, maybe accidentally, is something that does worry me, that given globalisation and the popularity of American media, that people confuse their own history with the history of others and never get to explore their own actual roots

That's an interesting idea.

I'd wonder though, if contemporary African American culture is a bigger obstacle to the exploration of Black history, than the forced displacement of 3 or 4 generations of people?

What's more, almost every immigrant is aware of their heritage. In fact, I've never met a non-white Brit who was entirely oblivious to their heritage. So I don't think it's as great a problem as you've suggested (in the same way I wonder how many Brits know just how 'German' the Queen is. Especially when rattling off WW2 jokes).  

The real problem, for some, is that their historical timeline is abruptly cut off, and you realize it will be close to impossible to learn anything more, even with all the will in the world.

Ooh I had a big response all written up about how intent is utterly irrelevant and not key at all - shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour and ignorance, lack of thought, ill education, and pernicious cultural baggage may indicate lack of ill intent but are also no excuse: examine your behaviour and thoughts before inflicting them on others. All that said, there are different ways to deal with someone's uneducated / ignorant but not ill-intentioned shitty behaviour / words: patiently explain why their shitty behaviour is shitty.

As Cinters says, judge by their response. If it's "fuck off I didn't mean anything by it just words never meant that before not going to change it now" sort of thing then fuck intent

Its terminology used in engineering and mechanics as well so possibly a carry on from there.

Is it just the link to Master/ Slave thats at issue or is it any use of the term/ word Master? i.e. Masterpiece, Mastery, Maitre in French etc.?