GitLab Will Now Default To "Main" For New Git Repositories

[torsionbar28]

Your hypocrisy and word-twisting is showing.

Your words, not mine.

It's not equality of opportunity if people won't employ you/assume you're a criminal because of your skin colour.

If you're a criminal, you should be barred from working in certain jobs and industries. Nobody should be forced to hire a bank robber to work the cash register. That's why we have employment criminal background checks that are almost universally used by industry to weed out the criminals from the hiring process.

Nobody mentioned equality of outcome. Until you did.

You may have some undiagnosed cognitive issues. Seriously. The two articles you provided as evidence both focused on equality of outcome. Or perhaps you didn't even read your own sources?

They're also likely to be among the poorest and least well-educated, which is conducive (if that's the right word) to criminality; remove the conditions where skin colour predicts income and education, and the crime statistic will follow suit.

Except that it doesn't. The poverty and low education of inner city blacks is mirrored by many rural and Appalachian whites, indigenous Indian Tribes, and immigrants of all colors and creeds. Yet 80% of those born below the poverty line in the US, are well above it by adulthood. Individual behavior matters. Removing accountability based on skin color is wrong. To suggest that violent criminals are "victims of their circumstances" is repugnant, disgusting, and objectively false. In the US, food, shelter, education, tutoring, sports, after school activities, day care, medical care, transportation, home internet, and a smart-phone with a data plan are all 100% government subsidized for every inner city black person in the US. To claim they don't have the tools or circumstances to achieve success - even tremendous success - is a plain lie.

Which isn't to say of course that there aren't successful Black people. What happened, though, when an African American became President? He was succeeded by a man whose history of racism (to say nothing of his racism or ableism) goes back at least to the seventies.

Funny, since Donald Trump identified as a Democrat for the first 70 years of his life, and was admired and respected by the film, music, and entertainment industry as well as in the media. He was a public figure for decades before running for office. But then at age 71, he's now a racist. Yeah.... Ok. Talk about revisionist history. Not to mention how he achieved the lowest levels of Black and Hispanic unemployment in US history.

Unlike his predecessor Obama, who cratered black outcomes for nearly a decade, and built chain-link cages to house the surge - that he created - of illegal alien children at the southern border. Who's the racist again??

Meanwhile we have a current president who is an actual racist, opposed black integration at the public schools, publicly claims he "loves Indians because he sees them every time he goes to 7-11". He tells a black audience "you're not black" if you don't vote for him. He tells a black audience they'll be "put back into chains" if they don't vote for him. Joe Biden is a racist KKK Nazi of the highest order. Never mind actual card-carrying members of the KKK that were Democratic Party members in good standing, like Senator Byrd.

but the fact that we can both point to articles that suggest what we believe rather suggests that at best, the evidence is mixed. You'll forgive me, though, for trusting Harvard more than the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.

False, you provided "equality of life outcomes" baloney. FYI many Harvard professors have ties to the CCP, and a number of them have been arrested for lying about it on federal paperwork. I'm not surprised to see them producing propaganda designed to destabilize. The CCP excels in this activity.

I provided studies of actual police and crime statistics. It seems you're unable to argue your position based on its merits, and have instead resorted to attacking the messenger. The WSJ article linked to a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies. Not that you bothered to read it.

Holy Shit. I see the good people on both sides are out in full force today.

Well I can't go to sleep yet, someone is wrong on the Internet, dammit.

[skeevy420]

Holy Shit. I see the good people on both sides are out in full force today.

[DKJones]

Instead of arguing with the alt-right (which is pointless), I suggest to go on Y*uT*be and spend some time going through "Innuendo Studios" playlist called "The Alt-Right Playbook". It will be more satisfying and interesting than arguing with these trolls. It might even be educational. Highly recommended.

Good point, well made.

[Brisse]

Instead of arguing with the alt-right (which is pointless), I suggest to go on Y*uT*be and spend some time going through "Innuendo Studios" playlist called "The Alt-Right Playbook". It will be more satisfying and interesting than arguing with these trolls. It might even be educational. Highly recommended.

[DKJones]

Followed immediately by quotations where the implication is that "religious people" said them. Lets try it on a different way:

Violent crime among Black people is part of what is turning people off. "Ooga booga, give me your money or I'll shoot you!"

FYI the second sentence is independent, I am not attributing it to any individual or group. See what I did there? Or rather, what you did there?

Your hypocrisy and word-twisting is showing. Besides, hypocrisy is a behaviour, and as such, like belief, can be changed. Skin colour can't.

Check the science. Both your sources make a false equivalence, equating outcomes with skin color, while ignoring everything in between. Equality is about opportunity, NOT outcome.

It's not equality of opportunity if people won't employ you/assume you're a criminal because of your skin colour.

Any system based on equality of *outcome* is inherently biased and racist.

Nobody mentioned equality of outcome. Until you did. Although I don't think you'll find it's racist to suggest that one should be as unlikely to be denied a job or considered a criminal because you're Black as one is if one is white.

Black males are 6% of the US population, but are responsible for 60% of the violent crime.

They're also likely to be among the poorest and least well-educated, which is conducive (if that's the right word) to criminality; remove the conditions where skin colour predicts income and education, and the crime statistic will follow suit.

Which isn't to say of course that there aren't successful Black people. What happened, though, when an African American became President? He was succeeded by a man whose history of racism (to say nothing of his sexism or ableism) goes back at least to the seventies.

Of course they are going to be jailed at a disproportionally higher rate than the general population - they are committing violent crimes at a disproportionately higher rate than the general population. This isn't rocket science.

See above. Though the idea that you would patronise me by suggesting that I'm more stupid than you is rather amusing. F***ing hilarious in fact.

Phoronix won't let me quote the remainder of your comment for some reason, but the fact that we can both point to articles that suggest what we believe rather suggests that at best, the evidence is mixed. You'll forgive me, though, for trusting Harvard rather more than the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.

[torsionbar28]

No, I didn't. I said bigotry and hypocrisy among religious people is part of what is turning people off.

Followed immediately by quotations where the implication is that "religious people" said them. Lets try it on a different way:

Violent crime among Black people is part of what is turning people off. "Ooga booga, give me your money or I'll shoot you!"

FYI the second sentence is independent, I am not attributing it to any individual or group. See what I did there? Or rather, what you did there?

I have never seen such science. Perhaps you made it up? In fact a cursory search suggests the exact opposite: https://qz.com/1724590/colorism-infl...w-study-finds/

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mo...ment_-_ers.pdf

Check the science. Both your sources make a false equivalence, equating outcomes with skin color, while ignoring everything in between. Equality is about opportunity, NOT outcome. Any system based on equality of *outcome* is inherently biased and racist.

Black males are 6% of the US population, but are responsible for 60% of the violent crime. Of course they are going to be jailed at a disproportionally higher rate than the general population - they are committing violent crimes at a disproportionately higher rate than the general population. This isn't rocket science. The real question is are they being jailed at a rate disproportionally higher than their crime rate, and the answer is a clear no, as numerous studies have shown (linked below).

Two off the top of my head, let me know if you'd like more. Both articles link to a number of scholarly papers and studies. These are specific to policing, let me know if you'd like employment related research instead.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myt...nding_now_pos1
• https://www.city-journal.org/police-...gs-racial-bias

Edit: one more, from the National Academy of the Sciences:

• https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

"We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

[DKJones]

False, go read your own words again. You make a blanket bigoted statement about "religious people". You specifically attributed that language. Again, that is no different than making blanket bigoted statements about "black people".

No, I didn't. I said bigotry and hypocrisy among religious people is part of what is turning people off.

What then would you call Ignoring the science that proves there is no statistically significant difference in the way black people are treated - whether in policing or in employment - at least here in the US (I cannot speak to other countries)? It seems you are making accusations of "ignoring science" while doing so yourself.

I have never seen such science. Perhaps you made it up? In fact a cursory search suggests the exact opposite: https://qz.com/1724590/colorism-infl...w-study-finds/

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/monk/files/monk_-_the_color_of_punishment_-_ers.pdf

[torsionbar28]

I have never seen such science. I suspect you made it up. (If not, you may quote your sources.)

Two off the top of my head, let me know if you'd like more. Both articles link to a number of scholarly papers and studies. These are specific to policing, let me know if you'd like employment related research instead.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myt...nding_now_pos1
• https://www.city-journal.org/police-...gs-racial-bias

Edit: one more, from the National Academy of the Sciences:

• https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

"We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers."

[torsionbar28]

I'm not accusing Black people (or white people) of saying anything. I'm accusing people who use the word "libtard" of using the word "libtard."

False, go read your own words again. You make a blanket bigoted statement about "religious people". You specifically attributed that language. Again, that is no different than making blanket bigoted statements about "black people".

The very idea that racism is a "conspiracy theory" is racism in itself, and not listening to Black people when they tell you that racism is a problem is the very essence of white supremacy.

What then would you call Ignoring the science that proves there is no statistically significant difference in the way black people are treated - whether in policing or in employment - at least here in the US (I cannot speak to other countries)? It seems you are making accusations of "ignoring science" while doing so yourself.

[kingu]

I have a pragmatic solution to this. Let's poll say 10k or more random PoC developers all around the world if they find term "master" in the code to be offensive. If 50+ % do, let's change it. That's all. I'm tired of these effing relentless rants.

BTW, although I do think that these term replacements won't fix any real world problems, IMHO 9 times out of the 10 "main" is in fact shorter and cleaner than "master", especially where is no "classical" inter-modular master-slave relationship.

So not fixing any problems, but somehow applying a "pragmatic" solution becomes what?
You are just as likely assuming main is the default branch, only now operating two incompatible schemes.
This introduces a problem, at the cost of the time of everyone actually involved.
It is in turn ever so slightly harder to give a coherent introduction to even the simplest tasks.

Consequently, why not ask Slavic developers what they think of the word "Slave"?
That is, if you will, the level of coherency implicated.

The derived logic does not support removal of "slavic" nomenclature anywhere any more than it supports
removing the Slavs from their heritage, of not only its truly correct use in terms of technology any more than the Slavs are removed from it.

…
Master/slave terminology obviously comes directly from slavery.

You are shoehorning a poor understanding of the word "master" into an understanding of its technology use.
At the root of this issue, slavery concerns every civilization in history. Some to this day. What this does is apply that inequality as it exists now, or counter-productively electing one or more groups one decides cannot escape it (at odds with historical evidence in every capacity).

Considering the etymology and history of the word "slave" problematic, not only purposely misconstrues its use not only for, but by the Slavics for how it is used in technology ever since.