[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @vstinner: > For diversity reasons, it would be nice to try to avoid "master" and "slave" > terminology which can be associated to slavery. This is too vague. Define what "diversity reasons" are and elaborate your point. Referring to some online discussions is not a way for making a serious argument. Make a point at least (i.e. define the term, add pro/contra arguments and explain why you've taken your decision). Your political standpoint is your political standpoint and it's not my business. However, making these changes without giving reasons and arguments for them is a problem. Let me ask: Are these "diversity reasons" really reasons? What I've heard seen so far regarding "diversity reasons, ..." had little to nothing to do with rational thinking or argumentation. Is it really necessary to pollute Python code base with SJW ideology/terminology? What comes next? Ad absurdum: If I find anything associated with something unpleasant to me in Python code or something which can be considered as e.g. "cultural appropriation", I'm free to change it for diversity reason? -- nosy: +suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @mcepl: I completely agree with you that we shouldn't waste time with this. I would be better not to dig into the discussion about "master-slave" terminology. IMO we don't even need to go into that as the problem here is more substantial: This case can create a very problematic precedent i.e. _on can modify (even drastically) a well established terminology based on "pseudo-reasons", political opinion or ideology_. IMO this should be stopped and prevented as soon as possible for all sake. On the other hand, I believe the @vstinner is a rational person and he is able to give _rational reasons_ for his decision which other could challenge as "potential offensiveness" of language is not an argument. -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @cheryl.sabella let me challenge some points in your arguments: > Based on that, I don't think it's fair to blame Victor for bringing it up for > discussion. Ok, but where was the discussion? @vstinner didn't even make a point and some of the PRs were merged. Maybe I'm too spoiled by the field where I come from but this can be hardly considered to be "bringing up something for a discussion" when someone doesn't even make a point (like e.g. "I think it should be changed because..."). Ad absurdum I could say: Because of because-it-can-hurt-someones-feelings reasons it would be nice to... > I don't recall that there were arguments a few months ago on the PR to make > the docs gender neutral. Maybe people were against that too as being 'too > politically correct', but they didn't feel the need to talk about. To me, > this issue is similar to that one. _Personally_, I consider that to be the same kind of PC/SJW nonsense and there should've been a similar discussion. However, there's a big difference. Making documentation gender neutral is unnecessary but it doesn't affect any established CS terminology and doesn't introduce artificial terminological inconsistency between related technologies. > But, I think it's mostly because it's what we're used to. Yes, and that's what is established terminology about. > Here's an idea -- find a friend and explain to them that there is a concept > in computer science... When you enter a new field a part of your responsibility is to learn its terminology and not voluntarily change it because it somehow affects you (hurts your feelings, not compatible with your political view point etc.). Imagine doing the same thing in physics, chemistry or mathematics. Would you redefine number 1 for diversity reasons (there are ways for making up diversity reasons even for this*)? The terminology used inside a field is primarily for the people who are inside the field and understand it. My arguments can sound a bit sarcastic as they try to illustrate the absurdity of this whole issue. They are by no means personal. Seeing all the PC/SJW nonsense around me, I'm afraid that this can be the starting of Python becoming PCython (by which I don't mean a combination of Python with Cython :)). * To see how far could this go, look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM -- nosy: +skrah ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Gabriel Marko added the comment: The discussion under GH PRs is now censored. What will be the next level? -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.
Gabriel Marko added the comment: Come on guys. Stop this madness. :( -- nosy: +suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34660> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34694] Dismiss To Avoid Slave/Master wording cause it easier for non English spoken programmers
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @Mariatta: > There will be no further discussion about this. Repeating this over and over again won't solve the (any) issue. This madness reached another level here: https://bugs.python.org/issue34660. That was exactly my point here: https://bugs.python.org/issue34605#msg324825. But let me guess: There will no (further) discussion about that either. I find this behavior from the Python core developers and representatives simply irresponsible. -- nosy: +suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34694> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Gabriel Marko added the comment:
@serhiy.storchaka: IMO, the problem isn't the master/slave terminology itself
but the way how the changes were introduced (no discussion) and the
justification ("diversity reasons"???).
IMO this is the next level: https://bugs.python.org/issue34660 and I can't
imagine what comes next. I find this nonsensical and I'm very disappointed that
this ideological nonsense is infecting Python.
IMO the core developers should make a clear statement about this (either pro or
contra). Once it's made, I'll have no other choice than respect that stance and
act accordingly. Saying that "there will be not more discussions" or sending
people to twitter like Guido did is not a solution and it's rather damaging the
Python community and its reputation. :(
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34605>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @terry.reedy: By madness I meant: 1. blank replacement of words without relevant justification. Collecting 5 links and labelling some words as pejorative or ist or do it for “diversity reasons” etc. is no justification. I have no problem with changing wording in documentation but it has to be justified. 2. that IMO this is _de facto_ PC/SJW language mutilation/censorship. I've made my main claim about that here: https://bugs.python.org/issue34605#msg324825 and IMO this is a continuation of the BPO34605 which is not any better or even worse than this one. I also expect more BPOs and PRs like this and IMHO _no more BPOs or PRs like this should be accepted or merged_. If I can advise: There should be a clear statement about how PSF and core developers will handle BPOs and PRs like this or BPO34605 i.e. if you accept/reject them in the future eventually what is going to be the rule of thumb for acceptance. It can bring some clarity into this whole issue/discussion. What I’ve experienced so far is very disappointing. Repeating “there will be no more discussion about this” is not a solution and I consider this to be damaging for Python community’s reputation. -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34660> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @terry.reedy > Gabriel, I believe I addressed most your concerns in my previous post. I don't think so (see below) but we don't have to agree in everything. :) > Are you are suggesting that we judge proposals _by the proposer_, rather than > the substance of the proposal? Definitely not. It really doesn't matter who has made a proposal if _it makes sense_. However, that doesn't matter either when a proposal doesn't make sense or it's ill-advised or not justified. > who made the proposal and _why_ I don't care about who but the _why_ is the matter here as I put it in point 1. of my previous post. IMO one has to be clear and explicit about his/her intentions/justifications i.e. if one does something for clarity than he or she should declare it :) > There seems to be a misperception that we have collectively changed how we > judge doc proposals. Should we 'announce' that we proceed as we have been? When I use your word: PSF and core developers should address the misperception. To be honest with you, IMO the "Python officials" handled these issues very badly and unprofessionally. Let me clarify. I'm not the only one who has perceived this BPO and V. Stinner's master/slave change (or some "gender neutralizations" of the documentation in the past) as PC/SJW ergo politically/ideologically motivated. So, what is perceived to be the main issue is the motivation. The way these were handled brings quite an _ambiguous_ impression and it's not clear if PSF or core developers are willing to proceed in this PC/SJW (ergo political/ideological) direction or what exactly is their stance. I read the BPOs and GH PRs and also some other articles and discussions where this ambiguity created a lot of confusion. There were statements in those articles and discussions like "GvR were asked to decide this question and he agrees with PC/SJW direction..." Therefore, I don't know how to interpret "that w e proceed as we have been" as IMO no clear statement has been made so far. tl;dr To conclude: I think we still aren't at the same page. However, I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue in this debate _at the moment_ at least for me. The amount of absurdity, nonsense* and misconduct, _I've perceived_ while discussing these two BPOs, made me disappointed and discouraged me for any further participation on trying to make Python better at least for now. I want to give it some time and come back to this with a "cool(er) head". To be specific: merging unjustified politically or ideologically motivated changes without discussion, not addressing factual arguments, silencing and censoring discussions**, sending people to Twitter (even if they don't have an account), using Code of Conduct as a tool***, making "feeling-based" arguments aren't characteristics of rational discourse or open community. I can't imagine what comes next but after all these things, I'm (rather) pessimistic. * e.g. "cleaning/censoring" language based on its "potential offensiveness" is a nonsense as any language _is_ potentially offensive. ** "no further discussion is needed" (or even welcomed) without further context or clarification _can be perceived_ as arrogant as saying "Shut up! I know it better!" *** To be clear, I don't mean your warning under issue34694. I can completely agree that I shouldn't/mustn't make sarcastic comments. IMO CoC is a written-down common sense. If it needs to be used as an argument (i.e. a tool) in a discussion, it's a sign of deeper issues or that something went to far. -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34660> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34694] Dismiss To Avoid Slave/Master wording cause it easier for non English spoken programmers
Change by Gabriel Marko : -- nosy: -suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34694> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.
Change by Gabriel Marko : -- nosy: -suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34660> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34605] Avoid master/slave terminology
Change by Gabriel Marko : -- nosy: -suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @terry.reed: I politely ask you: Please use my proper first name if you refer to me and please don't call me an extremist (like here https://bugs.python.org/msg325802). Feel free to criticize my opinion but don't put labels on me. We don't know each other. Labeling people (not actions or ideas) is ad hominem argumentation or can be considered to be a personal attack which as far as I understand isn't complaint with CoC either. And please don't misrepresent what I wrote: > Marko called our actions 'madness' and here called us 'irresponsible'. > (https://bugs.python.org/issue34694#msg325802) I called _the behavior_ irresponsible not the people. Even responsible people can sometimes have irresponsible choices or behavior. > I find this behavior from the Python core developers and representatives > simply rresponsible. (https://bugs.python.org/msg325499) I hope we can end this debate here. -- nosy: +suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34660> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34694] Dismiss To Avoid Slave/Master wording cause it easier for non English spoken programmers
Gabriel Marko added the comment: @Larry and Terry: I want to stay out of this discussion or participation on Python development for the future as I've expressed it elsewhere (https://bugs.python.org/issue34660#msg325515). However, I want to address the unfair treatment of my person and what I consider to be a violation of CoC in the previous comment (https://bugs.python.org/issue34694#msg325802). > We have been and will be attacked from extremists on both sides if consider > changes on a case-by-case basis, accepting some and rejecting others. > We have been and will be attacked from extremists on both sides for > considering changes on a case-by-case basis, accepting some and rejecting > others. Labeling people as "extremists" without justification is _ad hominem_ and can be considered to be a personal attack. The term "extremism" has strong negative connotations and it's often related to "calling for violent action". The comment doesn't make clear neither 1) who or what group of people is meant to be extremist here nor 2) what was considered to be extremist. In general _ad hominem_ arguments and attacking someones reputation are not part of civil and rational argumentation/discourse. As far as I understand this isn't compliant with the Code of Conduct either. > Marko called our actions 'madness' and here called us 'irresponsible'. I find this unfair and a misrepresentation of what I wrote: > I find this behavior from the Python core developers and representatives > simply irresponsible. (https://bugs.python.org/msg325499) I explicitly referred to _behavior being irresponsible_ not the people. Even responsible people can have sometimes irresponsible decisions or behaviour. I also explained what I'd meant by "madness" (see here: https://bugs.python.org/issue34660#msg325503). And as I've already said elswhere: > I can completely agree that I shouldn't/mustn't make sarcastic comments. > (https://bugs.python.org/issue34660#msg325515) I also agree with Larry that sarcasm isn't the best strategy :) However, silencing discussions like this "There will be no further discussion about this." (https://bugs.python.org/issue34694#msg325437) isn't a good strategy either. I don't want to be involved into further discussion and I politely ask you to not refer to me or labeling me. Thank you, Gabriel -- nosy: +suic ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34694> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
