8 ms·

I thought this nonsense was about to go away noticed even github starting to default to master or maybe it was the terminal git. Sensoring tech words about thin

I thought this nonsense was about to go away noticed even github starting to default to master or maybe it was the terminal git. Sensoring tech words about things that happened 300 years ago is not OK

nicole_express 10mo ago
Changing defaults is an interesting definition of censorship. It's not like you can't configure it to still use a master branch if you want to.
- foobarkey 10mo ago
  Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD - it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle. PS: I have an african wife and let me tell you she has no beef with the word, she will have more beef with me talking to the cashier in a way that is too friendly
  - nicole_express 10mo ago
    See I'd say the definition of censorship is saying a word is bad and preventing you from saying it, even if you disagree. And git isn't preventing you from having a master branch. In fact, they're providing instructions for people who prefer that.
    - foobarkey 10mo ago
      Making you fee like less of a person for using the word is also censorship but in a more clever mean gaslighting way than a full order :)
      - oluwie 10mo ago
        you keep using that word but i don’t think it means what you think it means
      - pyth0 10mo ago
        This seems like a you problem. I have quite a few repos made before using "main" was the default in GitHub or Git. I have not changed them, and I have never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it, let alone worrying about being considered "less of a person" because of it.
      - collingreen 10mo ago
        Careful, you're almost arguing the points of "the other side" you seem to detest so much!
      - ash_091 10mo ago
        In the spirit of genuine curiosity, who is making you feel like less of a person wrt the choice of main/master, and how are they doing that? It sounds like you're saying that git maintainers are intending for you to feel like less of a person because you don't agree with their choice, but I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10mo ago
    > Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD No expressing an opinion, eve ln an unqualified unconditional one, about a word is not the fee definition of censorship. Forcing others not to publish what you don't like is censorship (even if that dislike is based in context and conditions, and not unconditional opposition to a word.) Presenting an opinion is just presenting an opinion. > it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle. Yeah, you not liking an opinion doesn’t convert that opinion into censorship, either.
conception 10mo ago
300 huh? That’s uhh that’s pretty inaccurate.

nicole_express 10mo ago

Changing defaults is an interesting definition of censorship. It's not like you can't configure it to still use a master branch if you want to.

foobarkey 10mo ago
Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD - it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle. PS: I have an african wife and let me tell you she has no beef with the word, she will have more beef with me talking to the cashier in a way that is too friendly
- nicole_express 10mo ago
  See I'd say the definition of censorship is saying a word is bad and preventing you from saying it, even if you disagree. And git isn't preventing you from having a master branch. In fact, they're providing instructions for people who prefer that.
  - foobarkey 10mo ago
    Making you fee like less of a person for using the word is also censorship but in a more clever mean gaslighting way than a full order :)
    - oluwie 10mo ago
      you keep using that word but i don’t think it means what you think it means
    - pyth0 10mo ago
      This seems like a you problem. I have quite a few repos made before using "main" was the default in GitHub or Git. I have not changed them, and I have never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it, let alone worrying about being considered "less of a person" because of it.
    - collingreen 10mo ago
      Careful, you're almost arguing the points of "the other side" you seem to detest so much!
    - ash_091 10mo ago
      In the spirit of genuine curiosity, who is making you feel like less of a person wrt the choice of main/master, and how are they doing that? It sounds like you're saying that git maintainers are intending for you to feel like less of a person because you don't agree with their choice, but I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  > Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD No expressing an opinion, eve ln an unqualified unconditional one, about a word is not the fee definition of censorship. Forcing others not to publish what you don't like is censorship (even if that dislike is based in context and conditions, and not unconditional opposition to a word.) Presenting an opinion is just presenting an opinion. > it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle. Yeah, you not liking an opinion doesn’t convert that opinion into censorship, either.

conception 10mo ago

300 huh? That’s uhh that’s pretty inaccurate.