> if the analogy had been "master-apprentice" instead there probably wouldnt be as much pushback everywhere else
Except, you know, apprentices eventually become masters themselves. And the space isn't zero-sum; "Master Verrochio taught Master Leonardo" is semantically valid. It doesn't illustrate the semantics of, say, data replication where there is only one master at a time and the slaves are not supposed to be promoted. "Master-slave" captures the relationship succinctly.
True, it hearkens back to a dark time in US history but if that is the only criteria for censoring usage of this term, are we not also censoring discussions about this period? I agree with the sentiment to be ashamed of it but to the point where you can't even derive metaphors from it? Reeks of cowardly denial.
>only one master at a time and the slaves are not meant to be promoted.
So not like a historical master-slave relationship.
Master-slave may capture the relationship, but humans still have to read, write and interact with those systems.
Some of those humans still suffer from the legacy of slavery, jim crow and voter suppression.
We can come up with analogies and metaphors which arent so evocative and make working with systems more pleasant just on account of not flippantly referencing the darkest part of societies history.
This might be a difference in values but to describe the metaphor as "flippant" is rather puritan don't you think? It's not as if the metaphor is reducing the gravitas of the issue. It does not even make a value judgment on whether or not slavery is wrong. It is a neutral metaphor at best.
If we as a society move to a state where a metaphor like so is verboten just because it is less pleasant or already considered "evocative" then how can we have deep and nuanced discussions on this period itself? You know the ones where we explicitly acknowledge the horrors of slave dehumanization, the terrible working conditions in the plantations, the violence stemming from these racist beliefs, among others.
Those issues are too heavy to be evoked by the metaphor (and frankly irrelevant to its purpose) and yet our current trajectory would want people to do away with it when it only serves to illustrates the relationship between computing resources. It's not even a comment on social history.
Except, you know, apprentices eventually become masters themselves. And the space isn't zero-sum; "Master Verrochio taught Master Leonardo" is semantically valid. It doesn't illustrate the semantics of, say, data replication where there is only one master at a time and the slaves are not supposed to be promoted. "Master-slave" captures the relationship succinctly.
True, it hearkens back to a dark time in US history but if that is the only criteria for censoring usage of this term, are we not also censoring discussions about this period? I agree with the sentiment to be ashamed of it but to the point where you can't even derive metaphors from it? Reeks of cowardly denial.