The word “Master Race” is clearly equivalent to terms which were used by Nazis and so are today’s far right wing and alt-rights.
There are other communities which created similar narratives, especially from the 4chan side, and I think the origin of “PC Master Race” comes from there.
To give a bit of context: there have been similar discussions in the computer science community in recent years. Two examples are the master-slave paradigm in networking and the default git branch which used to be the “master” branch.
I see similar arguments here than in the aforementioned discussions, ranging from “non-issue”, over “language forms reality”, to “respect marginalized groups”.
Thank you for bringing up the other terminology issues, it really shows this is a bigger question than just one concerned person on the internet. I think it’s good to question these terms so that the language may develop with greater intention and awareness. I noticed there is a knee jerk reaction to saying this is no big deal, but I think it would do us good to ask why we’re so quick to excuse language that originates from racist ideals. Things likes discrimination and genocide all start with language, so why do we avoid the responsibility of moving away from these ideas? Just some food for thought.
I agree with your statements. Based on my knowledge of German history as well as Kahnrmann’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow” I too think that language forms reality and is strongly related to tractable actions.
However, regarding PCMR, one could certainly argue that the title is more meant like a meme. This might make it acceptable. Further, the meme-like character is in contrast to my aforementioned examples, which came from science and software engineering.
So my point is, while one should treat language seriously, the notion of what is acceptable and what not strongly depends on context. In the case of PCMR, the presence of many younger kids should make us wary of our language, because they might not understand what is meant as a joke and what not.
I understand people mean it as a meme or a joke, I guess I question whether or not it excuses the use. Saying “It’s just a joke” is a common response to things like this, but if the outcome is still the same does it matter if it’s a joke? While context matters to understand intent, does that intent address the consequence of normalizing this language? Or does it just excuse normalizing the language? I appreciate jokes just as much as the next person, but there’s still a matter of responsibility when joking. To me it’s the same as pranking someone, you have to be considerate for a prank to go well, and saying “it’s just a prank” doesn’t excuse the outcome. I understand other people don’t want to take language seriously when their joking, but that doesn’t make their joking harmless.
Hold on I’m a fool, the more I think about your point of context the more I realize I missed the point. There’s no indication this is normalizing the language, but rather a mockery or a parody of the language and by extension the ideology of a “master race” in general. Which is honestly a great way to combat racist ideology, apply them to some inconsequential to display its absurdity.
The only real challenge, and what I think needs to be considered, is the same thing you mentioned in your second comment; failure to recognize the joke is on ideology not in support. So, the responsibility comes in recognizing when the context shifts to support for these values and shutting that down or separating yourself accordingly. If the community is able to uphold it’s parody without lending support it may be beneficial to continue using these terms only to turn the language itself into a joke. Thanks @[email protected] I wouldn’t have gotten here without your solid points. I’m leaving my above responses so people can see how I walk through this reasoning, but I wanted to be sure you saw that your points reached me and made a difference. Thanks again.