If we're going to play this game, I think dissuading people from using "mother" in the example of "motherboard" is offensive. Mothers are the source of human life on earth, and in that capacity are revered and honored. When we say motherboard, we're making an analogy that suggests the board's significance and universal connection to everything.
To discourage the term as an analogy for things that are a universal source is to demote women and their role as mothers.
I'd like to know who at Google puts these lists together and what judge decreed their viewpoint on this more valid than mine or anyone else's, since apparently Google feels that from this judgement they have the right to shape speech for millions of people and therefore, by extension, our culture.
It's the natural outcome of far leftist ideologies. People need to wake up and start rejecting this destructive ideology where a person is evaluated only based on their identity. I think MLK had something to say about that.
It is more of a natural outcome of silly corporatists not really understanding why leftists and progressives object to things, and so just reflexively avoiding anything that could be, however tenuously, linked to gender. They are concern trolling themselves.
MLK was a leftist - and arguably a "far leftist" for his time. If you're going to use him as an example, you may have to concede that this is not a "natural outcome" of leftist ideologies in general, but rather the outcome of some other selection pressure that rewards diversion from initiatives that actually affect peoples' material conditions.
As a first comment here, I'd point out that defining women independently from solely their role as mothers is judging them on character rather than identity, so you should support such a thing if that's your rallying cry.
But also, on MLK and postmodernism: postmodernism dates back to the 1940s, To Kill a Mockingbird is postmodern. MLK's Letter From a Birmingham Jail is very clearly postmodern (e.g. when he says "But I am sorry that your statement did not express
a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being.", he's alluding to a failure to consider the viewpoint of the oppressed in the situation).
That letter is also very modern-leftist. Kimberle Crenshaw coined the term "intersectionality" in 1989 and elaborated on it in 1991, saying "When feminism does not explicitly oppose racism, and when anti-racism does not incorporate oppposition to patriarchy race and gender politics often end up being antagonistic to each other, and both interests lose". The letter from a Birmingham jail includes another famous line from MLK: " Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly". To me, those express similar sentiments: that oppression exists in many forms in many places, and it is unwise to pretend that oppression that fails to inconvenience me is therefore unworthy of my attention.
And of course he says later on "there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism
to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. " which to me describes the people often criticized as "modern far leftists", those people who create the tension and discomfort in society are, in MLK's view, doing us, collectively, a great service.
I'd recommend you read the whole letter[0]. If you're so willing to lionize MLK, but disagree with so much of what he preached, I implore you to consider why exactly that is.
I only used MLK because he's a Western figure that stood up to racism. For us as Muslims, Islam set the guidelines on these issues a long long time ago. All people are equal under God, skin color does not matter. The only thing that matters at the end when we stand in front of Him is who comes with the most piety and good deeds, as those will determine where you end up.
This doesn't conflict with CRT or modern leftism though. If God's accounting of our deeds is perfect (or if God doesn't exist) should have no impact on our actions. It would be sinful to let injustice persist solely because God will even things out in the end. God doesn't give us an excuse to abdicate our responsibility.
This doesn't contradict what I wrote. Islam explicitly rejects racism, and makes it sinful. Because we're equal in front of God, this means that anyone treating someone else differently because of their skin color, race, etc. is going to be accountable in front of God for this sin.
It seems you're engaging in a straw man fallacy saying that we don't need to do anything because we're all eventually accountable in front of God. Islam never said that. Several texts and accounts explicitly call out racism as a sin.
CRT is a fringe offshoot that swings the pendulum so far out, it goes back to being racist, ironically enough. It is not the beacon of equality that its supporters claim it is.
I agree, I never claimed Islam said that. I claim you said that, which misrepresents Islam!
> CRT is a fringe offshoot that swings the pendulum so far out, it goes back to being racist, ironically enough.
What about CRT does this? The core idea of CRT (as you use it) is, I think the recognition that inequality exists, that some people mistreat others and that we should recognize that when it happens. What about that is racist?
> I claim you said that, which misrepresents Islam!
Where did I say that?
> What about that is racist?
CRT, and many other far leftist ideologies conform to what we say in Arabic: "A word (claim) of truth by which falsehood is intended"[1]. We see the same with movements like BLM (with self proclaimed Marxist founders), etc. They're crafted in such a way that if you argue against their actual behavior or criticize their actual behavior, they are able to retort with their canned response: ah so you're against justice/equality/are racist/etc.
These approaches are trite and people are waking up to them. We've known for millenia that inequality exists or the people are prone to mistreating others. CRT/latest fad of the day is not telling us anything new with that regard, but behind the scenes they're power grab movements.
I'll note that you didn't actually describe the particular things that CRT is that are problematic, only that it is in some vague way false. You haven't provided an argument, only a claim that they are in some way bad. Give the argument!
> CRT/latest fad of the day is not telling us anything new
I disagree. The CRT (again, insofar as it is a cultural thing that people argue against) functionally says that people who have power should account for the mistreatment and inequality when making decisions. This is problematic to some people.
CRT paints whites as inherently evil, and coins such ridiculous terms as "white adjacent". Everything is painted in terms of "white supremacy", and it's honestly getting tiring and trite, even for non whites. Everyone is starting to see through the drama and the bullying.
Apparently, this is what's being taught now: https://i.redd.it/vwuw7529iws81.jpg. Just an oversimplification, and dumbing down of any conversation. It's no wonder those people have built a reputation for being impulsive and not being able to take any criticism, retorting to crying and making fusses when they can't defend their positions.
> Everything is painted in terms of "white supremacy", and it's honestly getting tiring and trite
Ah, so it's getting tiring to see people discuss race and its impact? That's exactly the kind of reaction MLK was criticizing ;)
> Just an oversimplification, and dumbing down of any conversation.
Well yes, it's a children's book. Do you think it's a problem that discussions of the solar system or geology are oversimplified when explained to children? You're not even claiming it's wrong (perhaps because, fundamentally, it isn't).
MLK explicitly supported affirmative action and other programs designed explicitly to benefit black people in order to make up for past discrimination. I suspect he would be tired of being used as a justification for absolute colorblindness.
What he stood for changed over time, but at one point he said he hoped the decisions people made about his children would be made based on his children's character and not the color of their skin.
Yes he did say that one line in one speech. But if you review the totality of his writing, it is very clear that total colorblindness in the face of inequality was not his goal. The "I Have A Dream" does not represent some shift away from an earlier opinion. It simply doesn't represent the opinion that a lot of reactionaries think it does.
But that's implying that only mothers give birth, and erases those who don't identify as mothers who give birth.
That's how I understand their thinking, at least.
I agree with you and think anyone who is offended by motherboard is silly. I'm sure it was never even anyone that was actually offended, but a group of people sitting down and looking at any and every word that has any type of gender connotation and saying that's a bad thing.
I think this completely falls apart because most of the women who give birth identify as mothers, and would be very offended if you told them they couldn't.
I wish there was more pushback against this insanity. I've also seen people want to erase the word "blindspot" from the dictionary... Even though I'm sure no blind person was ever offended by it, because that word typically is used to refer to the limits of people who aren't blind.
English has such a rich array of word choices for many parental situations, with many subtle variations conveying tone and meaning. MW has roughly 83 synonyms including both noun and verb forms, just for mother. I don't see how choosing any one of them for my particular situation will detract from anyone else's identity or journey: they are free to chose as well. Unless your tool bans 82 of them.
That can't possibly be true. If nothing else, it's erasure of adoptive parents, or mothers who didn't give birth, among which gay married couples are overrepresented. I realize there is infighting and factionalism even within minority communities, but come on, this stuff doesn't ring true. I've never heard someone called a birthing person outside of a joke.
For what it's worth, in support of the original comment's claim, I just dug around the Pixelbook documentation all over the place and I can't find any mention of the motherboard. But it doesn't seem they renamed it to "mainboard" or "birthing person board." They just dropped it from the specification completely and don't tell you anything about what kind of motherboard you're getting.
In French we say "carte mere" which is the literal translation of motherboard (carte = board and mere = mother).
The thing is, all nouns in French are gendered, and carte (board) happens to be female. So it can only be a mother, and not a father board. And the reason is that it carries smaller boards, like a mom would carry her babies (in most mammal species, as far as I know, the mom is carrying babies even after birth).
A disque (disk) is male. But a floppy disk translate to "disquette" (small disk) which is female : le disque, la disquette. Don't ask me why, but that's who the language works.
This would drive Silicon Valley wokes completely nuts. The table is female, the cloud is male (note that, in Italian, clouds are female). The TV is female, the glass is male, the door is female, the handle is female, the window is female, the roof is male, the wall is male.
Sure. The OED even lists them as contemporary coinages:
[1965 Wireless World July 49/2 (advt.) Contact tail variations..include..tails for direct mounting to a ‘mother’ printed circuit board.]
1965 Electronics 6 Sept. 36/1 Nine daughterboards, each carrying 30 circuit packages, go on each side of a motherboard.
However, that's just an analogy: it doesn't actually tell you anything about what the motherboard does or why. In that sense, I think mainboard is actually a bit more descriptive: it's the principal interconnect between all of the device's parts.
Why not just… the “board”? It’s the only board. There are no other boards, as the things they used to call daughterboards are now “cards”. You plug cards into the board. Board goes into case.
Their role as breeders and birthing people, you mean. Time for a trip to HR for you.
> they have the right to shape speech for millions of people and therefore,
Google', "Do the right thing" could be understood as "if you have the power to do something, you have the obligation to do so". I'd say someone forgot that most evil in the world is done by people convinced that they're doing the right thing, but if that were forgotten the old motto wouldn't have been an impediment.
You could ask what idiot gave google this power, but the answer-- to the extent that they have it-- is each and every one of us. Fortunately, it lasts only as long as we keep giving it to them.
I know we all see this as a slippery slope, but let's remember what's at the other end of the slope.
Anyhow, you might find it awkward, but the general assumption that "parent" is synonymous with "mother" to the exclusion of all other kinds of parents does real damage to inclusiveness, and the term "motherboard" flows from that.
I know your tongue is in cheek, but the mainboard may be considered a parent of the components, but it is not giving birth to them. "Parent" fits better than "mother". So your absurdist counter-argument doesn't really fit here.
We're programmers. We refactor mercilessly. Why shouldn't language be refactored mercilessly too? The term "mainboard" is available, widely understood, and well-adopted, so why not use that?
Because we don't want to keep handing out stupid prizes to the weenies that constantly force us to play these stupid games. Every time they win they're further emboldened, and that's not a good thing, since there are actual problems to solve.
You can refactor a piece of software you wrote, or a piece of your employer's software with his permission. But language doesn't belong to anyone, it's a collective consensus on how to say things. If you believe you have authority to ignore this consensus and force your opinion on others, you must have an incredibly inflated ego.
To discourage the term as an analogy for things that are a universal source is to demote women and their role as mothers.
I'd like to know who at Google puts these lists together and what judge decreed their viewpoint on this more valid than mine or anyone else's, since apparently Google feels that from this judgement they have the right to shape speech for millions of people and therefore, by extension, our culture.