Re: Re[2]: Master/Slave

[Chuck Martin <cmartin -at- SEEKERSOFT -dot- COM>]

At 09:04 PM 9/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Arlen wrote
>
><snip>
>People, the issue isn't "do we care if we offend someone?" no matter
>how much some of you hope it is. Nor is anyone asserting words don't
>have connotations, as some other black-and-white poster stated. Those
>are simply attempts to change the venue to another court.
>
>The issue *is* communications efficiency. Some people apparently think
>we have to throw away a word because a single individual is made
>uncomfortable by it. I  would encourage the person who responded to
>Mr. Orr to drop me a line -- off list if you like -- regarding the
>degree of "offense" he[?] felt. Enough to never use the product being
>discussed again? Enough to search through the drive documentation and
>return the hard drive if it used those terms? Enough to never use a
>computer which used "slave processes" or supported "slave terminals?"
>
><snip>
>
>I think ALL of us should print out this message, have it laminated to
>ensure its longevity, and consider the message before storming off on
>our high horses, tilting at windmills  whenever we have to use some
>words that may cause others discomfort.  If the usage is correct (as
>defined by a substantive dictionary of usage), the industry norm, or
>clearly describes what we are attempting to communicate, then use the
>word.  If people want to ascribe meanings never intended nor
>inferred, then let those petty minds do what they feel they must.
>
>Now, _let us put this thread to rest_, my computer is getting ticked
>off by all this lunacy.
>
>Ralph E.  Robinson
>
The behavioral norm in this country, as well as many other places, was
slavery. How fortunate that some enlightened individuals tilted--hard--at
that particular windmill.

Just because something is a "norm" doesn't mean that it's *right*. Just
because you can do something doesn't mean that you *should* do something.

Usage of "master/slave" seems to cause some of our audience discomfort; at
least one anecdote was related here on this list. How many people have to
be subject to that feeling before the line is crossed from
"oversensitivity" to compassion for all our audience? And who gets to draw
that line.

Personally, I believe that more discomfort is engendered in the people
responding with denial. I'd surmise one of several theories: that they
can't be empathetic toward that segment of their audience, that they simply
resist change in language, that they are simply too stubborn to accept that
what may have been taught as acceptable in the past is now no longer so.
There may be others.

Oh, to reach a conclusion that just one person is made uncomfortable
because the evidence is presented from just one person is fallacy.

In general, we do not lose communications efficiency because we aviod words
with negative connotations. Often, we gain efficiency because the words we
*do* choose are clear in their meaning, not muddied by to potential of
multiple contexts or emotional meanings.

It is not petty to be sensitive to your audience. Quite the opposite, it is
our primary purpose.
--
"You don't look American"
"Everyone looks American, because Americans are from everywhere"
                                            - Doonesbury
Chuck Martin
Technical Writer, Seeker Software, Inc      | Personal
cmartin -at- seekersoft -dot- com                      | writer -at- grin -dot- net
www.seekersoft.com                          | www.grin.net/~writer

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html