I genuinely can’t understand why words with alternate definitions linked to slavery might make people uncomfortable. It unintentionally reminds you bad things in history, and? Should we stop using words like "Nazi" or "War" too? Can we all stop using "death" while we're at it? It reminds me the mortal nature of human

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because there are words that have less violent associations that can still capture the relationship sought to be described.

[Stop using Nazi, war]

Those aren't used for computing though. And, yeah, I think if we did we probably should. Like if terms related to genocide were used for stopping a lot of processes at once that would be pretty weird to me.

[death]

Kill is used to refer to stopping processes and that's probably where the line is in my opinion. It feels very different to me to say "kill a process" versus "genocide a group of processes"

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We do use war. It's a common package in Java. Should we rename that because it might make people uncomfortable when we say "We are going to deploy the war tomorrow"? Why can't we just accept the fact that words have multiple meanings?

[–] Hupf@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I want to update the web app but war never changes.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

hmm... have you tried nuking everything? That might help

[–] kait@social.pengins.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@lowleveldata In general, I would say yes, it’s better not to use “Nazi” as a metaphor for otherwise everyday activities where there are plenty of unobjectionable alternatives.

I don’t know that trying to divorce it from context and find a general rule is particularly helpful, though. It’s not just “alternate” definitions, it’s the primary definition for most people that the industry adopted.

[–] kait@social.pengins.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@lowleveldata I am fully aware that most who use it regularly probably have recontextualized it by default, but why not be more inclusive to those who might be put off by it when we have perfectly cromuoent another options?

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because that's a theory that could be applied to any words. We're catering to some imaginary person ("who might be put off") so it's basically devil's proof.