Github says it will replace the terms whitelist, blacklist, and master/slave for being...

candle_86

Posts: 729   +730
Primary and secondary already have a meaning, multiple devices connected to a primary or secondary are master slave but go ahead come into my house and change the printing on my hard drives.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,921   +2,195
TechSpot Elite
But what about yellow? When will #AsianLivesMatter? What about rest of the world, of which many were also slaves at some point in history? When will their lives matter?

I suppose that all depends on how many Asian people are killed by police sticking a knee on their windpipe for 8 minutes while they're already cuffed and not actually a threat any more.
 

Eldritch

Posts: 341   +524
Coming soon to the blacklist... I mean blocklist!

1. Blackmail : Why the offensive term like kidnapping should contain Black.

2. Blackhead/whiteheads : OMG! Calling the spores on nose by racially insensitive name is so inhumane!

3. Blackout : Evil white men have made it a point to keep people of color away from power and this is symbolized in the term blackout which insinuates Lack of power. Patriarchy at its most devious!
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,167   +6,924
Whewwww ..... so many opinions; I think I just sit down and watch the fights from the sidelines!
 

loading88

Posts: 52   +53
3. Blackout : Evil white men have made it a point to keep people of color away from power and this is symbolized in the term blackout which insinuates Lack of power. Patriarchy at its most devious!

You know this will probably piss me off come this fall when/if college football starts. Hawkeyes have an awesome blackout jersey and crap like this will probably axe it for the foreseeable future.

And honestly, where was everyone's bleeding heart prior to these events? Most people don't care unless it garners good publicity for them. Once this blows over the masses will jump on the next bandwagon ad nauseam.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 441   +705
tenor.gif
 
Last edited:

pelopidas

Posts: 33   +58
The American Taliban is making headwind. Just like the OG Taliban blew up the ancient Buddha statues so are our Anti Fa, BLM and other neomarxists now decapitating and destroying statues here. Non-leftists have already been stuffed into a digital burka and now all organizations are eager to swear allegiance and kneel before the new masters, before they too are drug out into the social media marketplace and executed publicly through defunding, deplatforming and shaming by the Twitter mobs throwing their virtue-signaled rocks.
I suppose the only truely woke way for github to present itself now would be to print grey text on a grey background. The racial affront of having black text on a white background must surely be too much to bear.
So the end of Johnny Walker Black Label is nigh and there surely cannot be anymore black tie events. We can no longer buy whitewash for our homes but must go to the store and ask for a Ca(OH)2 dispersion.
These little protomarxists can have their little tantrums and threaten all they want but I will be damned if I change my language to accommodate them or bow down to whatever alter their fascistic religion demands today. Shame on all the corporate eunuchs who do. In nazi Germany this same pressure was applied to make all aspects of society “politically correct” and was called Gleichschaltung. A good translation would by synchronizing. That is what is happening to us. At least the Germans knew who they were saluting. We don’t even know who this new master is whom we are preparing the world for.
 

panama patrick

Posts: 8   +1
Trump was never elected

The majority refused to vote for Trump or Hillary

But they're not listening!

Of those who did vote, the majority voted for Hillary

But they're not listening!

The next election will be the same

So, now who's listening?

It will take you approximately 39 seconds to read this email.
Last month the newly convened, Democratic-controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/7)
It seems that, since they couldn't win the last presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to
change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation of why this is a very bad idea

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the States were fairly represented. Why
should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
Electoral College makes sense. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States… Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State… Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it on!
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,921   +2,195
TechSpot Elite
It will take you approximately 39 seconds to read this email.
Last month the newly convened, Democratic-controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/7)
It seems that, since they couldn't win the last presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to
change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation of why this is a very bad idea

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the States were fairly represented. Why
should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
Electoral College makes sense. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States… Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State… Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it on!

You are of course free to express your bias whenever you like but your opinion is just a biased as the next and just as viable or non-viable.

It seems you're saying that a minority population should be able to elect the president. You're saying that some votes should count more than other votes. If more people choose to live in a city than in a more rural area, then for some random reason their votes should count less?

That seems to be your bias. I don't agree with it. Try this, just as an example:

Small, underpopulated Republican rural areas (Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
 

panama patrick

Posts: 8   +1
You are of course free to express your bias whenever you like but your opinion is just a biased as the next and just as viable or non-viable.

It seems you're saying that a minority population should be able to elect the president. You're saying that some votes should count more than other votes. If more people choose to live in a city than in a more rural area, then for some random reason their votes should count less?

That seems to be your bias. I don't agree with it. Try this, just as an example:

Small, underpopulated Republican rural areas (Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I AM NOT SAYING IT, THAT’S JUST HOW IT WORKS:
When Americans vote for President and Vice President of the United States, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three (District of Columbia) to 55 (California), for a total of 538. To be elected President of the United States, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes.
When Americans vote for President and Vice President of the United States, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three (District of Columbia) to 55 (California), for a total of 538. To be elected President of the United States, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes. SUGGEST YOU READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college


 

davidm71

Posts: 9   +1
This is just out of control. Those terms have nothing to do with race. Give me a break. What will they ban next. Dark chocolate. We’re becoming more like the Chinese Govt where even Winnie the Poo is not safe!
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,921   +2,195
TechSpot Elite
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I AM NOT SAYING IT, THAT’S JUST HOW IT WORKS:
When Americans vote for President and Vice President of the United States, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three (District of Columbia) to 55 (California), for a total of 538. To be elected President of the United States, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes.
When Americans vote for President and Vice President of the United States, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three (District of Columbia) to 55 (California), for a total of 538. To be elected President of the United States, a candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes. SUGGEST YOU READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college

I'm aware of how it works, no need to yell. It's an arbitrary setup like any other arbitrary setup, including a simple popular vote.
 

mattferg

Posts: 180   +173
It will take you approximately 39 seconds to read this email.
Last month the newly convened, Democratic-controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/7)
It seems that, since they couldn't win the last presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to
change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation of why this is a very bad idea

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the States were fairly represented. Why
should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
Electoral College makes sense. Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States… Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State… Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it on!

Because one person should equal one vote. Why on earth should your vote be worth more because you live further away from your neighbour? Why should your one, singular vote be worth more because your town is smaller? Why should your one state have more say in what tax is spent where, when it pays so much less of it versus another?

This whole argument is a joke. If 600 million people lived in 50% of the country and 6 people lived in the other 50%, it’s ridiculous to suggest those 6 people have as much say as 600. If more people live in NY, NY should have more say than Idaho. ONE VOTE PER PERSON, this is democracy.

Don’t try and act like this was anything more than a system to try and keep tiny pay-nothing tax states from having any say, when they drove the population away.

if you guys really cared about states’ rights and protecting individuals areas, why the hell would you block Puerto Rico and DC from getting statehood? One rule for one scenario, one more for another...

Also, Hillary got 3 million more voteS - not 1.5. Nice stats manipulation to suit the argument though.
 
Ngl personally my opinion is "Cool, whatever. So long as it doesn't cause any issues." I feel like the political angle is kinda overblown? I really don't care about what people think is ridiculous or not, nor what word is correct or not. It's, like, whatever, you can deal with some term changes because word and term always changes since the dawn of words.

The important question if it would cause any problems. If it does then maybe it should be opt-in, but if it doesn't then sure, it's their site. If people don't like it they can just migrate to GitLab or something.
 

pelopidas

Posts: 33   +58
The reason for the electoral college is because we are independent states, joined in a voluntary union. If less populous states do not have a way of participating politically and their vote would never count anyways, then they are just vassals. If the political direction of the country is wrong for them, no one cares and they have no voice. How can a voluntary union survive when New York and Los Angeles dictate their questionable policies to the people who Fight their wars, grow their food and make their stuff. Are the less populous states just supposed to stay quiet on the plantation and better not get uppity?
The founders decidedly did not want the shitshow that is direct democracy and built in elements to slow down and give plenty of time to cool off in political deliberation and law making.
States Votes Matter.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,205   +776
I get where they're coming from, a politically correct appease everyone stance, but that doesn't mean I agree at all.

I always considered IT to be a politics free zone. Should I be apologizing to my old secondary IDE hard drive for setting its jumper to slave? No. That's pure nonsense.
No you don't apologise. For the next generation stuff, you address the problem and move on. That is exactly what this announcement is about. It's NOT about YOU. Master/slave origins are clear as day. It's recognising the REAL VICTIMS and deciding casual racism, classist language is just poor form and has no place in society for people empathetic to the real victims of racism.

Everyone here complaining about this is butthurt like they are the real victims in all of this. US society (and many other countries) had slavery in the conventional definition. US still to this day has enormous wealth disparity from black to whites from entrenched wealth and power of the wealthy class in many many cases without merit.

Honestly ask yourself what the best way of getting high paid jobs are across the board? NETWORK. Look at the demographics of who are running the boards, in the senior positions. NETWORKS are NOT MERIT BASED.

Here is another example of how bias trumps merit traditionally.
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias
 

pelopidas

Posts: 33   +58
No you don't apologise. For the next generation stuff, you address the problem and move on. That is exactly what this announcement is about. It's NOT about YOU. Master/slave origins are clear as day. It's recognising the REAL VICTIMS and deciding casual racism, classist language is just poor form and has no place in society for people empathetic to the real victims of racism.

Everyone here complaining about this is butthurt like they are the real victims in all of this. US society (and many other countries) had slavery in the conventional definition. US still to this day has enormous wealth disparity from black to whites from entrenched wealth and power of the wealthy class in many many cases without merit.

Honestly ask yourself what the best way of getting high paid jobs are across the board? NETWORK. Look at the demographics of who are running the boards, in the senior positions. NETWORKS are NOT MERIT BASED.

Here is another example of how bias trumps merit traditionally.
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias

Master/slave origins are indeed clear. However, deciding to abolish words is stupid. They actually explain a certain relationship don't they? One controls the actions of the other. Having to use jumpers and put HDD 1 on Master and HDD 2 on slave was a limitation of old technology. I don't know if there was a commission on the rights and dignity of spinning discs called but maybe there should have been. The great emancipation that SATA brought deserves a monument! Or how about this? We could call one HDD independent and the other dependent. But dependent is a bad word because it means that it isn't equal and liberated. (like children on a tax return) How about Primary and Secondary. Yet we still have secondary be something less, like a second class HDD. Feelings are hurt. So please all you enlightened SJW geniuses, please explain the New Speak that defines a relationship where B cannot act autonomously apart from A but A does not need B to act?
More importantly, how many shackles will be broken and how many enslaved humans freed by changing words? What should we replace Whitelist/Blacklist with? Doubleplusgoodlist/Doubleplusbadlist? How about pinklist/mauvelist?
How will the removal of Whitelist/Blacklist resolve income inequality? What makes you think that that is even possible? What makes you think that trying to solve that problem too vigorously would not cause more harm than good? The Soviets tried that and it only cost 60 million lives and did not solve inequality. There were those who had much and those who had nothing. After killing 100+ million, the Chinese gave up on that stupid communist utopian dream and just moved on to Fascism. They still have inequality. They and everyone else always will.
There is a Pareto distribution in every aspect of life and nature and it seems to be a law like gravity. Railing against capitalism is stupid because this is a problem that cannot be solved, but it can be made much worse.
But tell me this, is a little black dress a good thing or a bad thing. Is a black box in an airplane a good thing or a bad thing. In your quest for racial equality, are you calling out BLM for their racist language, or is that Black privilage and its ok? Thats good racism right? Does hypocrisy bother you or is some of it justified and will pave the road to peace and harmony? WTF?
 

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 551   +439
What is the purpose of voting?

The electoral college should enforce the will of the people, which was (and is) that we have ZERO trust in the system "imposed" on everyone

Since the majority refused to vote for Hillary or Trump, why should we allow a few criminals decide for us?

Oh wait........we're not!
Nevermind
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 304   +502
Hilarious ... society has completely lost the ability to understand intent and context. Either that or we are eagerly willing to abolish the very important consideration of intent and context, just because of the fear that there might might be some who do not have the capacity to to consider those to things in relationship to content (erroneously).

Bending over backwards to do things just because of some peoples diminished ability to properly comprehend without error is a very slippery slope ... very slippery. And as a society, I don't think we want to be at the bottom of that slope ... it leads to hell.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do more to curb poor treatment of minorities, we absolutely should. But this isn't how you go about it, at all. This move won't fix racism in any sort of way (its "marketing" at best - "look at us! We're on the bandwagon too! We're saving black lives!"), and it is a dangerous enabling of peoples erroneous comprehension and considering them valid, when it is not valid.

Giving validity to error is in no one's best interest regardless of what race or ethnicity you are.

Slippery slope ...
 
Last edited:

williboi

Posts: 9   +3
People are way too sensitive about everything. Everyone's a snowflake these days. For god's sake, who gives if it's called blacklist or whitelist? You know how much that matters? NONE.

You know how much world hunger and other big issues matter? A lot. We're wasting our time and resources on things that don't matter.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 304   +502
People are way too sensitive about everything. Everyone's a snowflake these days. For god's sake, who gives if it's called blacklist or whitelist? You know how much that matters? NONE.

You know how much world hunger and other big issues matter? A lot. We're wasting our time and resources on things that don't matter.

Not only does it matter none, it is a "fake" way of trying to combat racism. There's zero percent about such a change that has anything to do with racism. Its all a bunch of fake BS catering to the snowflakes' inability to to understand context and intent, in order to "look good" ...

I got an idea, instead of wasting time pretending to combat racism, trying to "look good" to others, we actually just do something effective ... like training the police to call out their fellow cops when they break the law or are behaving with misconduct. That would actually help.

Banning the term "whitelist" and "blacklist" will do nothing more than divide people into two schools of thought on the topic ... kinda like the thing that actually drives racism.

The world is going to hell ...
 
Last edited: