Epic Games' woke coding standards

[Shadow Wolf]

Talk about overpolicing of language. They should get trolled.

They should get harassed for having rules? Good god, I can think of many examples with far worse (controlling underwear color, non competitive agreements, paying for customer thefts, illegal policies) and a company deserves to be harassed for a policy that makes language inclusive?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They should get harassed for having rules? Good god, I can think of many examples with far worse (controlling underwear color, non competitive agreements, paying for customer thefts, illegal policies) and a company deserves to be harassed for a policy that makes language inclusive?

No, they deserve to be made fun of for overly policing language. Who would want to work at such a Stalinist dump where you can't even say the words blacklist or whitelist? Or execute, as in execute a program??? What a joke.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, they deserve to be made fun of for overly policing language.

That's harassment.

Who would want to work at such a Stalinist dump where you can't even say the words blacklist or whitelist? Or execute, as in execute a program??? What a joke.

Yet they have a crew and a solid history behind them, especially when it comes to showing offering games for free (Epic Pinball was thier first) can be profitable, even long lived with a huge player base.
Facts are, who wants to work at a job? They all suck and all make you follow dumb rules about things that don't matter. I worked at a gas station where facial hair below the upper lip wasn't allowed. I recently read an article from some real diseased wanker who thinks its good to make employees work through their lunch. Who wants to work social media censorship where PTSD has been observed due to the disturbing things moderators are exposed to.
Who wants to work it? Apparently not many, if anyone, given the "Great Quit" and restrucking how people obtain income. Jobs suck and working one is the antithesis of living your own life in a world where you end up spending most if your life living as someone else wants and expects of you.
Epic has rules like everyone else. While it launch thier turnover rate to 50% (possibly higher now) like where I am? Will they see less usage of the Unreal engine? Money talks and with massive titles like Fort Night I doubt it (afterall, even if you haven't played it you have heard of it). Other may try to make immitations, but it turns out we're creatures of habit and like to stick with what we know.
Also add in gaming isn't the hobby of boys, teens and young men like it was. There are more people playing than ever before, meaning new markets. That includes inclusive gaming. Will they be hurt by establishing themselves as separate and different from developers that cater to herds of douchebags like Call of Duty? I doubt it. Not everyone likes those games or the nasty environments that helped launch the new extremist action called swatting. Not everyone is like the Gamergate misogynists who's masculinity is so insecure they felt offended their macho "world" of sitting on their asses and pushing buttons isn't hyper focused on them anymore, so, yeah, there's definitely gonna be--and is--a market for games that have a broader audience in mind.

 

[excreationist]

That's harassment.

Yet they have a crew and a solid history behind them, especially when it comes to showing offering games for free (Epic Pinball was thier first)

Actually Epic MegaGames' first game was ZZT from 1992 or so:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually Epic MegaGames' first game was ZZT from 1992 or so:

Ah, yes, I was mistaken. Epic Pinball was the first of developer Digital Extremes, published by Epic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's amazing how little it takes to offend some people these days.

Indeed.

I mean, just look at this thread to see how many people are offended at the idea that they should put a bit more thought into their work.

(Or, I expect for most of them, they're getting offended at the idea that some other person might have to put a bit more thought into their work)

 

[Heyo]

That's harassment.

Rare event, but I'm with @Saint Frankenstein on this one. It's not harassment, it's just playful banter - and they deserve it. It's just like PC Unix. In thirty years there will still be "man" pages, "history" and child process will still be told to be "nice".

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think a lot of that is excessive language policing, like the parts about "blacklist" and "execute," but the parts about using gender-neutral language seem to me overall reasonable. I see this mostly as part of a broader effort from corporations to sanitize their PR and image; whether they're sincere or merely trying to gain PR points is something that I think will vary from one company to another and can sometimes only be speculated on.

Millions of people refer to "executing" computer code and "blacklists"/"whitelists" every day, and I have seen no evidence that doing so causes any harm. If anything, most people probably don't even know whether those terms have a baggage-laden etymology or not; they just use them in the programming contexts that have nothing to do with execution, as in killing, or slavery and its history.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Talk about overpolicing of language. They should get trolled.

I agree that a lot of that list goes into overpolicing territory, but I don't think trolling the guidelines' authors would help anyone or change anything for the better. I could see it merely adding further fuel to the toxic fire of "culture wars."

 

[LuisDantas]

Few things harm my opinion of people as much as complaints about "woke".

Franklin, it is pathetic at best.

 

[Alien826]

Indeed.

I mean, just look at this thread to see how many people are offended at the idea that they should put a bit more thought into their work.

(Or, I expect for most of them, they're getting offended at the idea that some other person might have to put a bit more thought into their work)

Broadening this to all PC "rules", my problem is not with genuinely new things that need a new word, or rules applied in a technical area to enforce uniformity, but the arbitrary changing of familiar words that have been used with generally non-offensive meanings and being told I can't use them any more. The words "master" and "slave" are perfectly good words that have a well defined meaning. Slavery is of course a bad thing, but it happened and sometimes we need to talk about it, which is difficult if all the words that refer to it have been erased from the language. And their use in engineering and programming is justified because they are in fact the perfect words to describe the relationship between two systems or routines. Note that the suggested alternatives don't fit the situation anything like as well.

And they don't like "black" and "white"? Give me a break, those are colors (or not, whatever). How do I describe a white or black thing now?

More than that, how do I keep up with the latest "bad" words and their acceptable replacements? Who or what is the authority that determines it? And they change for time to time also. This is a true story. In the early 1980's I came to the USA on a contract. At the time in England the PC word for black people was "colored" (actually "coloured") and I dutifully used it. Apparently black people were offended by being called black, as black is associated with "bad' things. The first time I used "colored" in the USA .... shock horror! No, it should be "black"!

It seems to me that if I avoid using any language in a deliberately offensive way I should be allowed to use the words of my native language according to their traditional meanings.

Something else I wonder. Are the supposedly offended people the ones who are making all this fuss? Or are others deciding what does or does not offend them? Maybe some people here that fit that description could tell me. Example: if you are a black person, are you offended by the word "blacklist"? I'm open to correction.

 

[Heyo]

I guess it's time to put this in, again:

and:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Broadening this to all PC "rules", my problem is not with genuinely new things that need a new word, or rules applied in a technical area to enforce uniformity, but the arbitrary changing of familiar words that have been used with generally non-offensive meanings and being told I can't use them any more. The words "master" and "slave" are perfectly good words that have a well defined meaning.

Do you still use the term "Girl Friday" in your office? When someone does you a favour, do you thank them by saying "that's mighty white of you"?

You can communicate the concepts expressed by "master" and "slave" in other ways (e.g. "primary" and "secondary").

Slavery is of course a bad thing, but it happened and sometimes we need to talk about it, which is difficult if all the words that refer to it have been erased from the language.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously suggesting that if we don't use the word "master" in object names, the world will forget that slavery happened?

How many times have you had a deep conversation about racism or slavery because someone used terms like "blacklist" or "master" in a business setting?

And their use in engineering and programming is justified because they are in fact the perfect words to describe the relationship between two systems or routines. Note that the suggested alternatives don't fit the situation anything like as well.

I find that hard to believe.

In a lot of programming contexts, "secondary" or "dependent" would communicate the same meaning. And you can use other terms depending on the specific situation (e.g. in a car, a clutch slave cylinder is also called a clutch release cylinder).

And they don't like "black" and "white"? Give me a break, those are colors (or not, whatever). How do I describe a white or black thing now?

The issue isn't with just any use of words for colour. The issue is when the words are used to denote quality or goodness (e.g. "white list", "black spot").

More than that, how do I keep up with the latest "bad" words and their acceptable replacements? Who or what is the authority that determines it?

You understand that this thread is about a computer game company implementing its own rules in its own coding standards, right?

And they change for time to time also.

Yes. Acceptable language changes from time to time. This is okay.

This is a true story. In the early 1980's I came to the USA on a contract. At the time in England the PC word for black people was "colored" (actually "coloured") and I dutifully used it. Apparently black people were offended by being called black, as black is associated with "bad' things. The first time I used "colored" in the USA .... shock horror! No, it should be "black"!

Offensiveness is a function of culture?! What?!

/sarcasm

It seems to me that if I avoid using any language in a deliberately offensive way I should be allowed to use the words of my native language according to their traditional meanings.

You think you never need to take into account the understandings of others or the changing nature of language and culture?

Does this sound like a reasonable expectation?

Something else I wonder. Are the supposedly offended people the ones who are making all this fuss? Or are others deciding what does or does not offend them? Maybe some people here that fit that description could tell me. Example: if you are a black person, are you offended by the word "blacklist"? I'm open to correction.

It's a spectrum. Some people care; some people don't.

How many people are comfortable with excluding from your workplace or profession needlessly?

 

[Argentbear]

And they don't like "black" and "white"? Give me a break, those are colors (or not, whatever). How do I describe a white or black thing now?

you do realize that blacklists aren't actually black right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rare event, but I'm with @Saint Frankenstein on this one. It's not harassment, it's just playful banter - and they deserve it. It's just like PC Unix. In thirty years there will still be "man" pages, "history" and child process will still be told to be "nice".

The last part is true, but making fun isn't playful banter. It's bullying and harassment. It's more likely criticizing the thing about execute and using a dictionary is more likely to bring about reasonableness than harassing them.

 

[Alien826]

Do you still use the term "Girl Friday" in your office? When someone does you a favour, do you thank them by saying "that's mighty white of you"?

You can communicate the concepts expressed by "master" and "slave" in other ways (e.g. "primary" and "secondary").

I'm retired, I have no idea what the latest thing is in offices. But I don't recall either one of those expressions being used in my presence. But not to evade, yes language changes. And as said these alternatives to master/slave don't convey the concept of absolute control.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously suggesting that if we don't use the word "master" in object names, the world will forget that slavery happened?

How many times have you had a deep conversation about racism or slavery because someone used terms like "blacklist" or "master" in a business setting?

That's my point! It seems to be the PC belief that if we change the language people's attitudes will magically change. Let me turn the question back at you. Does "blacklist" spoken in the presence of a black person trigger some kind of discomfort? In general I doubt it. So why ban the word?

I find that hard to believe.

In a lot of programming contexts, "secondary" or "dependent" would communicate the same meaning. And you can use other terms depending on the specific situation (e.g. in a car, a clutch slave cylinder is also called a clutch release cylinder).

See above.

The issue isn't with just any use of words for colour. The issue is when the words are used to denote quality or goodness (e.g. "white list", "black spot").

Again, do you think that when a black person hears that someone is on a "blacklist" he immediately thinks "Oh no, that's me!" You know, all this coddling of people and suggesting that they can't handle the idea that a word has a traditional meaning that doesn't apply to them and differentiating between deliberate racism and a form of words is really insulting to them. It suggests that they need protection from all these horrible words. Black people handled the "N" word perfectly by using it among themselves and making it a badge of honor. Good for them!

You understand that this thread is about a computer game company implementing its own rules in its own coding standards, right?

Yes. And I started by saying I was broadening the discussion.

Yes. Acceptable language changes from time to time. This is okay.

Agreed.

Offensiveness is a function of culture?! What?!

/sarcasm

Just an example of how confusing it can be. And not really different cultures. It's two different groups of non-black people deciding what's offensive to black people and coming to different conclusions. Did they ask the black people?

You think you never need to take into account the understandings of others or the changing nature of language and culture?

Does this sound like a reasonable expectation?

No. Just when it's people overreacting to a perceived problem that may not exist.

It's a spectrum. Some people care; some people don't.

And do those that care have some responsibility to be less sensitive? I don't know the answer which is why I asked for input from actual minorities.

How many people are comfortable with excluding from your workplace or profession needlessly?

Not sure what you mean. There's a missing word there and I don't want to guess.

 

[Heyo]

The last part is true, but making fun isn't playful banter. It's bullying and harassment. It's more likely criticizing the thing about execute and using a dictionary is more likely to bring about reasonableness than harassing them.

I don't see it that way, but I could argue that they started it. They brought up rules that are so ridiculous that you have to ask yourself if they are Poes when you compare their rules to PC UNIX - which was clearly meant to be sarcastic. And if they really meant it serious, they are seriously insulting my intelligence. Making fun of them - or, as you call it, harassing them - is just self-defence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see it that way, but I could argue that they started it. They brought up rules that are so ridiculous that you have to ask yourself if they are Poes when you compare their rules to PC UNIX - which was clearly meant to be sarcastic. And if they really meant it serious, they are seriously insulting my intelligence. Making fun of them - or, as you call it, harassing them - is just self-defence.

I suspect they are serious. At least for now it won't surprise me if that's what they stick to. It's a corporation who has sniffed out a fresh market and is trying to appeal to it. I don't think that market is large enough to carry it long into the future (every game I have that would appeal to this market I got from deeply discounted mystery bundles, and haven't really seen it outside of that).
Personally I just accept it as a part of society changing as new things come and old things go, and just change the channel and move on because I'm clearly just not the target audience or demograph for these things. Most people probably won't, but many things I like are not liked by the masses, a great deal of it meeting opposition, censorship attempts and worse.
However, with that said I do agree with coding anything that resembles Newspeak just isn't pragmatic, especially as this probably will steer many developers elsewhere to where they can stick with what they know and don't have to learn a variation of a language. And we also know harassing and making fun of people is a good way to make them double down, and in this case especially I see it being met with pointing out lots of new things that catch on were first mocked and laughed at.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm retired, I have no idea what the latest thing is in offices. But I don't recall either one of those expressions being used in my presence.

Right: because language changes. When we realize that what was a commonplace expression is problematic, we stop using it.

But not to evade, yes language changes. And as said these alternatives to master/slave don't convey the concept of absolute control.

"Master/slave" also doesn't convey the concept of absolute control.

That's my point!

I can't see how that could have been your point.

It seems to be the PC belief that if we change the language people's attitudes will magically change.

I was talking about your argument that if we don't use terms like "master" and "slave" in programming, that we'll forget about slavery.

You're sucking and blowing: on the one hand, you argue that these expressions are inocuous and no big deal, but on the other hand, you argue that using them evokes important issues. These positions can't both be true.

Let me turn the question back at you. Does "blacklist" spoken in the presence of a black person trigger some kind of discomfort? In general I doubt it. So why ban the word?

To some, yes.

And it's not just an issue of discomfort for black people. Having white people equate "black" with "bad" is problematic in its own way, even if the white people involved don't mind.

See above.

If you think that using terms that are more precise than "master/slave" hurts communication, please explain how.

Again, do you think that when a black person hears that someone is on a "blacklist" he immediately thinks "Oh no, that's me!"

Sometimes, sure.

You know, all this coddling of people and suggesting that they can't handle the idea that a word has a traditional meaning that doesn't apply to them and differentiating between deliberate racism and a form of words is really insulting to them.

I find a certain hypocrisy in the way you would invent fictitious people who are "insulted" by not using problematic terms in a workplace when a minute ago, you suggested that getting rid of terms like "slave" and "blacklist" isn't about offense felt by actual people.

I also find it hypocritical for you to complain about "coddling" while suggesting that we overly concern ourselves with the feeling who say mildly racist things out of ignorance.

It suggests that they need protection from all these horrible words. Black people handled the "N" word perfectly by using it among themselves and making it a badge of honor. Good for them!

No, it just suggests that professional communication doesn't include insults.

Yes. And I started by saying I was broadening the discussion.

If there isn't a slippery slope in the subject at hand, gotta go travelling a bit to find one, eh?

Agreed.

If you agree, why are you disagreeing?

Just an example of how confusing it can be. And not really different cultures. It's two different groups of non-black people deciding what's offensive to black people and coming to different conclusions. Did they ask the black people?

Why would you assume that there are no black people in leadership positions at Epic Games?

You might have some relevant biases that could use some reflection.

No. Just when it's people overreacting to a perceived problem that may not exist.

I invite you to consider your reaction to this issue in light of what you just said.

And do those that care have some responsibility to be less sensitive? I don't know the answer which is why I asked for input from actual minorities.

That depends on what sort of company environment one wants to have. Should programming skill come first, or should skill be secondary to being willing to put up with small insults all the time?

Not sure what you mean. There's a missing word there and I don't want to guess.

Sorry - that should have been "How many people are you comfortable with excluding from your workplace or profession needlessly?"

 

[Alien826]

I was talking about your argument that if we don't use terms like "master" and "slave" in programming, that we'll forget about slavery.

That's not my argument. It's seems to be the argument of the PC crowd. That they can somehow change people's thinking by banning words. I thought I had made that clear.

You're sucking and blowing: on the one hand, you argue that these expressions are inocuous and no big deal, but on the other hand, you argue that using them evokes important issues. These positions can't both be true.

It varies. Some words are directly intended to be offensive and others are only so if we make them so. And, to pick an example that was in the programming standards, "black" and "white" are not inherently offensive. Incidentally are you suggesting that it's possible to eliminate those words from the language? If so, maybe we can go on to the other colors? "Red" was used to denigrate communists. "Blue" was used to describe porn. "Green" suggests someone is inexperienced. "Yellow" means cowardly. Let's get rid of them all!

And it's not just an issue of discomfort for black people. Having white people equate "black" with "bad" is problematic in its own way, even if the white people involved don't mind.

Seriously? Where will this stop? If we're going to start changing the associations that go with some words we might as well invent a whole new language. And I'll bet that 10 minutes after we did so the new words would be used in ways that some people didn't like.

I'm going to stop here, as it's all getting too complicated. I'll sum up my position, then, if you wish you can do the same.

I agree that some people are offended by some words. I suggest though that the problem is not the words but the underlying feelings of those that use them. And those we won't change by trying to ban words. In any case the people that obey these "rules" are not the problem. Those who really want to offend will ignore it, or attach significance to other words, which will now need banning and so on.