It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

    • @[email protected]
      1•4 months ago

      Idk if that’s for white folks like me (and you?) to decide, and there is no harm on erring on the side of caution.

      It’s like the deal with micro-aggressions. Alone they’re not much, but a constant buildup of these little things can leave someone feeling raw and very sensitive to it.

      I don’t think the etymology started with race, I think it started with day/night. But I’m not an expert on etymology, and while I’m very curious, it probably doesn’t really matter here.

        • @[email protected]
          1•4 months ago

          It’s better to identity specific facets of society that are problematic […] as opposed to “treating the symptom” so to speak.

          I think it’s difficult to separate the two, they form a feedback loop. It’s like the broken window theory.
          People see these little ambiguously exclusionary acts, and if they see enough of them then they get the subconscious message that exclusionary acts are ok, and the (possibly accidental) targets of the acts get the subconscious message that they’re not welcome which makes the subject raw and sensitive and primes them to look at acts through that lens.

          In college I took a class on how humans and computers interact, and one of the things my professor was passionate about was how the terminology of programming languages tended to be exclusionary to women. Not explicitly so, but just using violent language that women were raised to find uncomfortable (eg killing a process), and it was pushing women out of computer science.
          This was like 15 years ago, and he was already passionate about it at the time, so this isn’t really a new thing, its just getting broader attention.

          I don’t know if that’s happening here, but it costs nothing to change so even a potential minor improvement is worth it.

            • @[email protected]
              1•4 months ago

              Did they ever mention the history of the CS field generally being sexist towards women? Yes, of course. WTH? Why would you ever think someone passionate about this would not bring that up?

              I would also argue that women being “averse” to terms like killing is equally presumptive Ok I think you’re intentionally misinterpreting my words now. This is not a dichotomy.

                • @[email protected]
                  1•4 months ago

                  There are many problems and many solutions. We don’t need to focus on one problem and pick only one solution.

                  My entire point here was that there is concern that industry jargon can be accidentally exclusionary to some demographics, interest and research on it isn’t new, and the effect is usually a “death by a thousand cuts” type thing, like migroaggressions are.

                  I didn’t specialize in this, so my knowledge on it is from one part of one class I took like 15 years ago, but I can absolutely see how it could matter.

                  People aren’t rational and society doesn’t raise us rationally. We can be perfectly ok with something in one context but not ok with it in another context. We can be ok with one thing, but not ok with another similar thing.

                  I agree there are deeper societal issues about how we raise boys and the incentives/traumas we put on kids. That doesn’t mean we cant pick off this low hanging fruit at no cost.
                  It’s important to meet people where they are, not where we think they should be.