The notion that the terms "master" and "slave" have no historical context is false. Otherwise they would be "snoffl" and "barble".https://twitter.com/xobb/status/933446064929087488 …
It's not so much that you are not expected to separate them. For example, if you're white and otherwise unaffected negatively by historical or modern slavery I can see how and why you have them separated. What is expected from you is to understand that is not the case for others.
-
-
Also another thing to bear in mind that just because you have them consciously separated doesn't mean you have them fully separated. You might for example, have a bias outside your conscious control towards associating master with male/white and slave with female/black.
-
You also might not, but either way, the point stands that is expected of you is not to separate them or not, but to think about how they may affect people other than yourself.
-
I acknowledge that you may hold such an expectation, yet you fail to recognize that I don't. And so your expectation isn't any of my concern unless I give my consent to be held accountable to your (but not my) standard. We call them contracts, promises etc.
-
I can't believe you don't care given you replied.

-
What I mostly care bout is having to learn (yet another) nomenclature/language to express the same concept. It goes against the principles of consistency/simplicity. There comes a point one recognizes it's an impossible optimization problem when scaled to 7.2 billion people.
-
Cool story.
-
See! It's that easy to not give a fuck ;)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.