Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110575 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82170 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2020 10:47:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2020 10:47:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFC31804E1 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:33:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS8468 78.32.0.0/15 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mint.phcomp.co.uk (freshmint.phcomp.co.uk [78.32.209.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from addw by mint.phcomp.co.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7xg-0001bx-Lw for internals@lists.php.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:32:56 +0100 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:32:56 +0100 To: PHP Internals Message-ID: <20200616093256.GC14030@phcomp.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: PHP Internals References: <32138a76-ef68-6273-3b37-0c3bf23639e7@lear.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <32138a76-ef68-6273-3b37-0c3bf23639e7@lear.ch> Organization: Parliament Hill Computers Ltd User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About the use of the terms master/slave and blacklist, proposal to replace. From: addw@phcomp.co.uk (Alain D D Williams) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:06:17AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi the peanut gallery... > > I can't say that blacklist/whitelist -> something else is a meaningless > change.  The challenge we as technologists (nevermind our color) have is > that we don't really have good guidance from psychologists and > sociologists (I know, I tried chasing down those links last year when > this came up in the IETF).  The best I could find argues *against* > change, that context matters.[1]  What I can say is that there's a lot > of code to change if there is no appreciable social value.  My > suggestion is that any PR/RFC include some research results showing that > this is likely to improve something for someone. > > Eliot > > [1] Jay, T., "DO OFFENSIVE WORDS HARM PEOPLE?", Psychology, Public > Policy, and Law, Vol. 15. No. 2, 81-101, 2009, DOI: 10.1037/a0015646. I thought that I would chase that down. Unfortunately anything except the abstract is paywalled ($15), but here is the link: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0015646 IMHO the two most interesting sentences in the absract are: "Meanwhile, efforts to restrict speech in media and instructional settings continue, despite the lack of a convincing need to do so. Harm from offensive speech is contextually determined; therefore attempts to restrict speech on a universal basis are misguided." -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include