Replace oppressive terms with inclusive terms.

Imre Kaloz kaloz at
Mon Jun 28 04:57:34 PDT 2021

On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 17:47 +0200, David Woodhouse wrote:

> But there are a number of reasons why I've changed my viewpoint on
> that. Firstly, I cam to realise that it's just massively inconsistent
> with how we deal with communication in other ways. We should be *proud*
> of communicating in a way that everyone can understand without having
> to overthink it.

Well, the average U.S. adult reads at 7th- to 8th-grade level, so even
most newspaper articles are way too difficult to process for most. Do you
really believe the solution is to dumb them down even more?

IT might be elitist for sure, but going to the other extreme won't deliver
benefits. Sure, way more people use computers these days compared to '95,
but not a lot more people know computers, if at all. Lowering the bar that
much *will* destroy the values that bring talented people into this world.

We can make part of Gen Z happier handling out participation trophies
(eg. commits that change the wording) so they can feel the second of
accomplishment while craving some kind of greater contribution to
mankind. These handouts won't take care of their appetite for too long.
It *will* lower ultimately the value of the work what others are
putting into development.

> So while I used to argue against changes like the ones which Daniel is
> proposing, now I'm generally supportive. Because it doesn't really hurt
> us one iota, and it's actually *consistent* with how any competent
> developer should be tailoring their communication anyway.

Any political agenda imported into the industry *will* hurt us, and this
self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship from all. This is what
I've described as the "real world", the ancient regime.

There's no one-to-one correspondence between how one communicates and
the value brought to the table as a developer. IMHO exporting one's moral
values and trying to force the world that way contributes zero from
development perspective.

> I wouldn't want to get to 2025 and for OpenWRT to be publicly known as
> one of *THOSE* projects that refused to change.
> And like it or not, that's just a matter of time. The world — and the
> language — is moving on.

This whole SJW and cancel culture game came from a very vocal minority of
Gen Z. Social media creates a perfect echo-chamber to believe this is
something "super important". Like how changing your profile picture, liking
a post or sharing a meme makes a difference. It will be long gone by 2025.

> But it's happening, and we do nobody any favors — least of all our own
> reputation — by being snowflakes and trying to fight it.

I have a hard time understanding why would anyone refusing (this time
leftist) new political trends be considered a snowflake, when even the
strongest arguments are weird to say at least. Daniel wrote "It'd just be
nice to not scare or annoy potential users, reviewers or contributors away
by making them feel odd, unheard or inferior" - are we really looking for
contributors who can feel like that because of the name of a branch?!

Sorry, but people who make decisions that way should either grow up and/or
look for professional help because life is far from riding unicorns through
the rainbow bridge into the new golden age.


More information about the openwrt-adm mailing list