This raises some valid points, like the validity of the singular they.<p>However, I think it is a bit to aggressive in listing unacceptable terms. I understand "off the reservation" because that still has a direct connection to racist origin. There is a defensible argument that it is referring directly to many atrocities that the United States government committed when moving Native Americans to reservations. Fine.<p>However, whitelist? That's just based off of a color. There's nothing directly racist about it. I'm sure some people feel uncomfortable when the word is used, but there's no logical reason why it should be a problem.<p>Just because one person is uncomfortable about a phrase doesn't mean the phrase is bad. I once had to leave the room when watching a movie because it had a scene that reminded me very strongly of an traumatic experience I had. However, there is no objective problem with the movie. I am not the main character of the universe, and it is not anyone else's fault that other things remind me of the trauma I experienced.<p>I don't believe people should be put in environments that are actively triggering, but "native feature"? There is no logical reason to be triggered by that.<p>This type of rhetoric is problematic because it vilifies people unnecessarily. Killing a process is fine, because processes aren't people. I'm not being violent. If you see the word "kill" and get distracted, that's a problem with your reading comprehension.<p>All in all, I agree that documentation should not be triggering or have terrible connotations. However, many of the words here are not triggering, and they do not have terrible connotations.
I understand (to some degree) if someone is willing to enforce things you shouldn't say. Although right to free speech is/should be universal, but it doesn't mean free of consequences of what has been spoken. But I strongly oppose situation and any attempts to enforce what I should say. No. No pasarán. Ni wuja. Claiming power over what one should or ought to be saying is claiming power over what one should or is allowed to think. "1984" of Orwell's says hi.
Say you come from this worldview, in which word choice is stealthy psychological aggression.<p>Then, when you could have said<p>"point out"<p>"highlight", or<p>"bring attention to"<p>you instead choose to say<p>"call out"<p>which is the same phrase used to mean "publicly denounce (typically on Twitter)".<p>Do you know what you're doing?<p>Are you <i>trying</i> to make your coworkers remember that they can be stoned by the crowd at any moment? To imply that you can cause that to happen?<p>In a world where wordgames become very serious surprisingly quickly, I wonder.
Really house keeping tasks is offensive to a group?<p>I can't think of any race, creed, gender, sexuality or other group that is excluded from having to clean their house?
I read the comments before reading the document and completely expected a 50 page manifesto on the origin of the English language. It appears more like a service organization trying its best to not put it’s frontline workers in what is likely already an uncomfortable position - apply the standard, albeit unfair, criticisms of “dealing with IT.” The brevity the lists makes me think that these are possibly specific instances they’ve encountered.
Lest you thought this was s joke, looks like Google’s version of this document is just as bad: <a href="https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation</a><p>I’ll mostly use these documents to remind me to use these terms more. What the fuck is wrong with “native”, “housekeeping”, “sanity”? The authors of this surely must be joking.
I read a lot of criticism on guides like these. And that makes me wonder, am I the only one that thinks that the 'inclusive' language is simply more clearer?<p>* blocklist/blacklist, I find blocklist clearer because it does what it says. Same for whitelist<p>* master/main, same as above, main describes it's function more accurately.<p>Regarding the genger wording, I have memories as a child where I was confused because for some reason, only the boys where adressed. Not thinking it through, I simply assumed that was intentional. And thus, if a teacher said 'boys, lets go that way!' I would be arguing with the girls since I thought they where not supposed to follow along.<p>Of course, this is not the case for ALL proposed inclusive language. I simply notice that most of the time, the inclusive alternative is a lot clearer.
<i>feed two birds with one scone</i><p>Tone deaf doesn't begin to describe the people who come up with these not-so-voluntary, thought-crippling "guides".
I just got a message from git in my terminal related to "master" branch. Whatever your sexual orientation, gender, race, disabilities FUCK OFF, I'm gonna stick to proper English instead of Newspeak.<p>The same statement is true for my native language, French, where I'll never use the "écriture inclusive" bullshit except to mock it. Luckily the Académie is with me on this one.