
Change `master` branch into `primary` - chippy
https://github.com/django/django/pull/2718
======
lysium
The title should mention that this is done in the Django database.

I've never thought at the history of the words `master` and `slave` when
reading DB docs. I think primary/replica is as good as a choice.

------
adamwong246
If this PR were made by a party which is NOT a confirmed troll, it might be a
valid concern. Don't feed the trolls. And besides, you can name your local
branch whatever you like.

------
joesmo
Also one that got accepted:
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692](https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692)

------
_cipher_
Am I the only one who sees this as an extremely stupid move? I begin to think
all this "pollitical correct" crap got into the heads of most english speaking
people.

I hope all this crap will not become the norm.

~~~
beerbajay
This is "satire" by a group that thinks feminism is bad.

For future reference, the term "political correctness" is used exclusively in
a derogatory way. The main idea is that some people are somehow controlling
political discourse by objecting to certain terms and thereby requiring
politicians (or whoever) to speak in a certain way even if they don't actually
agree with the reasons to use the term.

This is, however, mostly wrong.

What is actually occurring is that some people (politicians and others) use
language which degrades or marginalizes certain groups (think ethnic slurs,
the word "faggot" etc). These groups then speak up and say "hey, that sucks,
we're people too". People who are actually racist/homophobic/whatever then
object because they're "not allowed" to say what they think. This isn't true;
they are still (obviously) allowed to say what they think, people are just
going to be pointing out that they are assholes. Which is as it should be.

Summary: nobody actually advocates for anything called political correctness.
Some people are being assholes, others are telling them not to be assholes.

Why did I put "satire" in quotes? The thing which is being satirized is a
tendency in the 1960s (50 years ago!) of feminist groups to remove the letters
"man" from certain words as a symbolic gesture against an oppressive and
patriarchal society. This is pretty much dead in modern feminism, even as
symbolism. That is; it is a non-issue; nobody seriously wants to alter
existing words, most people never actually wanted to alter existing words. The
only people for whom it is still an issue are anti-feminists (read:
misogynists) who want to create a straw-man of feminist ideas in order to
further marginalize the concerns of women. Which is to say, this is pretty
terrible satire.

So, what does feminism actually want? Equality for all people, even men.

Why is it called "feminism" then? Modern feminism grew out of the suffrage
(voting-rights) movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when women were
not allowed to vote because they were seen as being too uneducated, too
emotional, inferior, etc. That's 51% of the human population that wasn't
allowed to participate in politics.

A famous suffragist, Rebecca West, famously said: "Feminism is the radical
notion that women are people." Most people today would take this for granted,
but still be suspicious of feminism. This suspicion is often fed by the
strawman arguments of anti-feminists.

Why should men be feminists? Maybe you have a mother or a sister or a wife or
a daughter; are they people? Should they have an equal chance in society?
Should they be able to choose their own path in society or should they be
confined by tradition or the whims of their male relatives? Maybe _you_ don't
feel like you can fulfill the social roles for men; that is also a feminist
issue. Basically: if you want a society where people are allowed to be who
they want to be, you should be a feminist.

------
beerbajay
Surely this... will make female developers understand their male counterparts
take their concerns seriously.

------
matt__rose
I think they missed an opportunity. They should have changed "master" to
"mistress"...

~~~
kolev
It's like the world doesn't have enough problems for people to bring some
obsolete meaning to words completely out of context. I think "mistress" is a
very sound way to teach a lesson. Just recently somebody reminded me some
obsolete meaning of "gal" and that it could be offensive to some. I think
there are too many people trying to justify their existence with pseudo rights
and freedoms. At the end of the day, all these small "victories" are used to
take our attention away from the indisputable crimes that NSA and the likes
are doing to us! Let's focus on solving real rights and freedoms problems!

~~~
iterationx
Let's focus on reducing the acceptable words in the English language! Take
false moral high ground! Then tell everyone they are oppressive moral
reprobates! If everyone feels bad about being male or white (or both!) then
surely no one will notice that the true oppressor is centralized power
structures! IngSoc Double Plus Good! Choco-Rations are Up Today AND I'm
FEELING FINE.

~~~
kolev
Yeah. Simpler English will help with dumbification of the populace. People
can't spell already anyway. Idiocracy in the making!

Anyway, it's really pathetic that people get offended by words. Spoken
language is one of the most effective tools of manipulation. If you feel bad,
just because you heard the "N" word or "master" or whatever, you know what,
you're weak and well-suited for one of the most ancient tools for
exploitation. Men who go in jail or kill somebody, just because somebody used
the right word to trigger their irrational and destructive behavior - those
are weak, not manly.

Anyway, ignore the words, focus on the meaning, but, I guess, it's too hard
for some! And those don't even get when you're truly offending them with
phrases their simple minds cannot process - sarcasm is not for everyone!

