My reaction was "If you want to write some documentation with bias-free language, just write the documentation with bias-free language." Why the need for a long paragraph explaining "Look how great and sensitive we are!"
I understand, and agree with, the desire to use inclusive language, but so much of this has just devolved into performative nonsense.
Edit: Thought I'd leave my original statement above up, but after reading some of the other comments below I at least understand now the purpose of this notice. Basically, when it comes to Cisco's products, they previously used "master/slave" and "whitelist/blacklist" in their terminology, but no longer do. However, of course some older networking products still use that terminology in UI software, for example. So this notice is essentially saying "We got the memo about updated language, but if you see the terms master/slave or whitelist/blacklist in our docs, it's because it's essentially referencing something out of our control to fix, so don't yell at us."
Not sure exactly what point you're trying to make, but if it's "the risk of saying anything even remotely critical of DEI tactics is a huge, gargantuan, giant career risk these days", then I wholeheartedly agree.
It's a warning that the documentation may refer to master/slave or something like that because Cisco cares enough about DEI to update documentation but not enough to actually update out-of-support firmware.
Having a statement like that shows people that they are open to suggestions on improvements. Since a lot of people are not so open to suggestions, it makes sense to me to include this language. They added a little X button so you can close it easily.
If someone thinks inclusive language is a sign of hostility, then I think they have misunderstood the situation. I’m happy to have open source contributions from anyone, but I do share my pronouns in posts and on videos and I can tell you that the very small number of people who have gotten upset by that were angry unhelpful people who were more interested in complaining about language than contributing to the community.
It’s a space that is inclusive of queer folks. If someone can’t handle that, then yeah, they probably aren’t mature enough to safely interact with those people. Every space needs to have some rules in the event that someone gets nasty. Someone who gets upset when they encounter a non-binary person is probably going to make those people feel unwelcome. So you can either protect the vulnerable people or you can allow the bully to push other people out. But whoever is organizing that space can consciously decide, or they can let the bully decide for them.
By the way, you seem to have this really charged, negative view of queer spaces. Which I respectfully want to suggest is a misunderstanding of those spaces. I mean, if you go in all angry and complaining about other people, then sure, they’re gonna (rightfully) kick you out. But that’s true of most places if you show up and act like a jerk. The truth about these places, and being queer in general, is that this is a beautiful space of happiness for so many people. Being able to express gender openly without judgment is a positive, empowering experience for so many people. All you have to do to fit in is accept that. You don’t have to like it, though that is encouraged. But if you get so upset by someone existing as their true self that you have to argue with others, you’re probably not a good fit for that space.
I want to suggest you listen to the YouTube channel Beau of the Fifth Column. He’s got a lot of great takes he explains in a way I think you’d understand. And sometimes he talks about stuff like this.
Anyway I’m non-binary. I’m taking hormones and expressing my gender in ways I never knew I could (wearing clothes I “wasn’t supposed” to wear). It feels great. All I really ask for is that you accept me for who I am. And I hope you see that I’m able to be kind to you even though I know you think I’m a “pronoun person”.
Edit: Here’s a couple videos from Beau of the Fifth column talking about gender. He’s a white guy from the south who explains things in a non judgmental way and I think he has a good perspective, but I’ll let you decide:
Thanks for recognizing it. I have enough privilege that I am insulated from this kind of thing, so I have the energy to be patient. And it helps me develop my rhetorical skills. Cheers.
Barry I appreciate that you recognize my good faith efforts. But I want to highlight that queer and gender nonconforming people are regularly marginalized and othered in this country and around the world. It is genuinely tiring to them to be dismissed regularly in their daily life and then to encounter people online who want to play this up as some culture war with two legitimate sides. I personally would not label you an "unbeliever". As I have said, these people just want to exist and have people like you deal with that without getting upset.
Some people like me have a little extra energy to sit down and explain it, but you cannot regularly expect marginalized people who have to deal with so much day to day to then spend energy educating you on the facts of the lives of queer and gender nonconforming people. They are far, far too tired from everything else to spend that energy educating you.
But I have given you a choice. A couple of videos from a respectful white southern man who I wholeheartedly endorse for his explanations. I watch his videos every day and to be honest I so far think he always has great takes.
So I have given you an opportunity to learn another perspective, and I encourage you to check it out. But if you don't, and you continue to act as the victim of a culture war that does not actually harm you in any way, then I promise you you will continue to be downvoted and kicked out of any space with open minded people.
I genuinely wish you the best. But I do not endorse this notion of dogma and unbelievers. This is about common decency and respect. This is about the lives of real people I respectfully think you haven't yet had the opportunity to understand. But consider checking out those video links. It would be an act of good faith to help your fellow people who just want to exist in peace.
Barry I’m just being honest. If you don’t change your behavior you can expect more of the same. Whether it’s being downvoted or being accused of being a jerk, I can see there is something about this that bothers you.
But let’s stay focused. Would you be willing to watch one or both videos I posted? Or no? There’s a lot of people out there that could benefit from your understanding, and all it would take is a few minutes of your time. Please consider it. I’d appreciate it too. Thanks.
The docs may include "master/slave", and they don't want to get sued or bad PR, so this generic notice says "we don't like bad words but sometimes the industry uses bad words and that's unfortunate". If you click the Learn More link in the paragraph, you'll learn more.
It is possible to believe that and act to defuse this power anyway. I believe password authentication is crap and people should use WebAuthn, but I don't say to myself, "Since I believe password authentication is crap I don't need a password manager".
You've chosen a good analogy to back up the point I'm making. Passwords aren't rhetorical devices, they're functional ones. Not only that, but they're imperative. If you present the proper password, the computer has no choice but to accept it and grant access, consequences be damned. Technical writers have appropriated the term 'privilege' in this context -- should that be submitted for revision as well?
Verbal offense, on the other hand, cannot be given, only taken. The choice to be hurt by words like "master" and "slave" is entirely up to the listener. Any other position literally disempowers that listener. There is, or should be, no obligation on a writer's part to avoid such terminology. To borrow from another comment that probably got its poster banned, we are bordering on indulging mental illness here.
Anyway, it's OT for the article at hand. This whole debate just seems like a goofy distraction from real injustice, is all.
All symbols are also concrete things. Did you notice that we have words for the letters that we use to spell words ?
Super Mario Maker troll design does a good job of showing this off. Mario Maker doesn't have distinct signifiers, so the way you tell a player, "You will need a POW block to pass this" would be to actually put a real POW block, just like the one they need, inside some solid blocks nearby. Likewise for Mario's powerup mushroom for example. But because the signifier is the signified troll makers will build puzzles where e.g. the correct solution is to use Yoshi's tongue to grab the signifying POW out of the sign and then you can blow that one up. With the powerup mushroom, if we're already Big Mario, a progressive powerup becomes Fire Mario's powerup - when we saw this sign before it told us to be Big Mario, so we got ourselves Big Mario but now since we are Big Mario the same sign says Fire Mario and sure enough, Big Mario doesn't help after all.
[[ Ordinary Mario courses shouldn't do this, because it's annoying, but Troll Mario is supposed to be annoying, it's a delicate art form, like Stand Up comedy ]]
> There is, or should be, no obligation on a writer's part to avoid such terminology.
That is not how language actually works, the clear distinction you're relying on is instead blurred because symbols are not just symbols. Because language is a co-operative activity, choosing to do things you know will offend others is your fault. Now, if you're a comedian, too bad, some of the audience didn't like the joke. But if you write technical documentation this is a failure, your goal was to inform, not to make some people angry as the price to make other people laugh.
Because language is a co-operative activity, choosing to do things you know will offend others is your fault
Sorry, no. It's absurd to expect me to take responsibility for someone else's offense at my use of "master" and "slave" in a technical document. This isn't a question of semiotics. At this point it's more like a Monty Python sketch. I'm not familiar enough with the Mario franchise to grasp your analogy, unfortunately.
The way I think of it is in terms of power: if you demand the right to control and revise the language we share, you're claiming an incredible privilege, and you're doing so without consulting many who have no voice to object. (By 'demanding' I mean claiming an unearned right to the moral high ground, as was done by the people who added that paragraph to the Cisco documentation. That degree of sanctimony normally requires religious backing.)
That doesn't mean you're wrong -- there are hurtful words that have few or no benign uses, after all, and it's easy to make the case that we're better off without them. But the burden of proof is a heavy one in the general case, due to the power required to shame the rest of society into compliance. It isn't met here.
what ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones..." ? perhaps its time to reconsider whether society has lost/is losing a very very important thing here.
If younger generations grow up thinking that a simple word is violence like we see some do, that it is akin to breaking out a knife and stabbing someone, how are they properly clothed to function in a world that isnt absolute perfect?
you know what generally happens to snowflakes? they melt. seriously, sticks and stones.
