Are Computer Terms Offensive?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+29 November 2003 - 14:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 29 November 2003 - 14:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@29 November 2003 - 14:06
It&#39;s a well known fact that the drives were named after penises.&nbsp; AC&#092;DC&nbsp; sounds like it swings both ways. Insert and enter is obviously referring to sexual intercourse.&nbsp;

I feel the whole PC was named by a bunch of deviants.


:)

---

Honestly ? [/b][/quote]
I think "master and slave" appropriately decribes the relationship between the two components. It is neither personal nor racial. Had it been "Master and nigger", I think the offense would be obvious.


Should we not use the expression "slave to fashion"?
Should we change our titles in K-Lite, I am currently a "K-Lite Master".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@29 November 2003 - 19:20
I think "master and slave" appropriately decribes the relationship between the two components. It is neither personal nor racial. Had it been "Master and nigger", I think the offense would be obvious.

---

However it is possibly worthy of note that this is the particular mental picture you made.

Reinforcing the point that there are obvious connotations when these words are used in tandem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+29 November 2003 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 29 November 2003 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@29 November 2003 - 19:20
I think "master and slave" appropriately decribes the relationship between the two components. It is neither personal nor racial. Had it been "Master and nigger", I think the offense would be obvious.

---

However it is possibly worthy of note that this is the particular mental picture you made.

Reinforcing the point that there are obvious connotations when these words are used in tandem. [/b][/quote]
I guess my core objection stems from my skepticism that the offended person is genuine in his assertion.

We have too many political correctness nannies running around trying to tell people how to act.

I think I would have to meet the "unidentified worker". How does the offense of one individual merit overthrowing standard computer nomenclature?

To quote myself

"Not a simple annoyance, but a genuine hurt and offence."



Does it really matter how many people are offended, should it really be a matter of scale. Surely even one person being hurt is more important than computer nomenclature.

In any case if one person is really offended then there has to be a distinct possibility that others will also be offended.

I&#39;ve thought about this some more, and this is just a possibly theory asto why thing&#39;s like this happen but it seem&#39;s to me that this is happening because some peep&#39;s aren&#39;t willing to let go of the past&#33;?

Master and Slave no longer have the same power to them as they used to, the strength of the word&#39;s has become weeker over the year&#39;s due to better acceptence of individual&#39;s right&#39;s, belief&#39;s, religion&#39;s and race, so to me changing something which has no real connection to the word&#39;s origin&#39;s other than to indicate who&#39;s in control and who isn&#39;t is daft.

Perhap&#39;s though if they do insist, they could call them Boss and Worker (same difference really)?

Sniper.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SniperInTheShadows@29 November 2003 - 20:09
I&#39;ve thought about this some more, and this is just a possibly theory asto why thing&#39;s like this happen but it seem&#39;s to me that this is happening because some peep&#39;s aren&#39;t willing to let go of the past&#33;?

Master and Slave no longer have the same power to them as they used to, the strength of the word&#39;s has become weeker over the year&#39;s due to better acceptence of individual&#39;s right&#39;s, belief&#39;s, religion&#39;s and race, so to me changing something which has no real connection to the word&#39;s origin&#39;s other than to indicate who&#39;s in control and who isn&#39;t is daft.

Perhap&#39;s though if they do insist, they could call them Boss and Worker (same difference really)?

Sniper.

---

I can see your thinking and where you are coming from here.

However we have a line of reasoning in the UK. It goes along the lines of, it is the person who feels bullied who decides whether or not they feel bullied. It is not the person who is alleged to be the bully who decides on what is acceptable.

Now obviously some people pretend to be hurt, offended or whatever to cause trouble for others. Or indeed to just to seek attention themselves.

This does not mean that we should not take their feelings seriously. We must listen to everyone&#39;s argument and take a balanced view.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@29 November 2003 - 19:54
To quote myself

"Not a simple annoyance, but a genuine hurt and offence."



Does it really matter how many people are offended, should it really be a matter of scale. Surely even one person being hurt is more important than computer nomenclature.

In any case if one person is really offended then there has to be a distinct possibility that others will also be offended.

---

One person will take exception to anything and everything. I can&#39;t cater to one mans&#39; offense, just as the world does not cater to my personal "issues".

I refuse to make the extrapolation that an individual offense is held by many others. If he is so dead offended, then the impetus is on him to gather a petition of signatures to let us know that these words are still caustic and this nomenclature IS an issue. This burden will test the veracity of his offense.

I would certainly be willing to rename them at that time.

I find that offensive hobbes.










:P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@29 November 2003 - 21:54

One person will take exception to anything and everything. I can&#39;t cater to one mans&#39; offense, just as the world does not cater to my personal "issues".

I refuse to make the extrapolation that an individual offense is held by many others. If he is so dead offended, then the impetus is on him to gather a petition of signatures to let us know that these words are still caustic and this nomenclature IS an issue. This burden will test the veracity of his offense.

I would certainly be willing to rename them at that time.

---

Should the burden be placed entirely on the person who feels themself to be the victim.

Your points are fair and well made. However if the person is deeply offended, then surely it is a matter for all of us to provide the resources to establish whether his position is valid or not. If his point is reasonably made and has some prima facie virtue, then I would say that it is the authorities who should establish the true position. If necessary by reference to the courts.

That may not coincide with popular opinion, however right doesn&#39;t always do that.

I don&#39;t buy the whole idea of undefined victimhood.

J&#39;Pol has said the bully doesn&#39;t determine that an act of bullying has taken place.

I was once accosted by a female who demanded her male coterie force me to leave a drinking establishment based on her perception that the difference in our relative sizes oppressed her to the point she was afraid (she was tiny-4 foot-something).

I had not interacted with her or her friends, indeed, I hadn&#39;t left my barstool, and was at no point within 15-20 feet of her, yet she insisted, "He&#39;s scaring me&#33;&#33;" (I don&#39;t think she was drunk, but she may have been high) In any case, one of her entourage felt compelled to approach me with a sneer on his face.

At that point, I did arise from my stool.

He gathered her and the rest of her crew up, and left.

I have nothing but empathy for legitimate victims, and have stepped in on many occasions to stop bullies, BUT:

If someone is set on playing the part, and these serial victims are indulged, we are doomed.

I, for one, will not abide it. ;)