It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

i suppose that's true, but i think that's unfair as the term master/slave itself wouldn't constitute more than the literal power dynamic between A and B as is the intended point of the terminology. It's not meant to be broadly applicable in a generic sense. Though if we were to argue that it would be equally as easy to argue that architecture designs constitute far more than a master/slave style, such that it would remove the significance of the term in a similar manner.

  • source
  • parent