>I don't know if you're bring purposefully obtuse, I hope not, but obviously I meant "master" came from slavery before audio, and audio took that terminology because it was already a popular word.
I don't know if you're bring purposefully delusional, I hope not, but obviously I meant "master" came from master piece before audio, and audio took that terminology because it was already a popular word. Because of, you know, mastering something?
>Yes audio mastering came before git, and slavery came before both. I don't even know why someone would even bother to argue otherwise.
Luckily "master" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, so your comment is an immaterial non sequitur.
The use of "master" in git has no historical or etymological ties to slavery whatsoever as outlined above. QED.
> The use of "master" in git has no historical or etymological ties to slavery whatsoever as outlined above. QED.
Not the argument I, or anyone else, is making
The use of "master" in Git may remind someone of slavery, which we don't want to do. For their sake. That's the argument actually being made and I think you'll notice it's much harder, if not impossible, to refute. That's the argument you need to target, not whatever high school debate class strawman you can come up with. Anyone can win an argument against an easy, made up argument.
