TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
There's a tendency to lump "political correctness" as a monolithic entity,
where all of its practitioners think the same way and want the same things.
Accordingly, there's also a tendency to dehumanize the people behind the
sentiments. Let me add a personal element to this discussion.
Every time I open a manual and I see a reference to a master/slave
relationship, I feel a strange little twinge. I can't explain it, but it's
there. The thing is, I'm not one of those people who's easily set off by
"offensive" terms. I'm not even offended by it (or at least not in the
sense that many people think of when they discuss sensitive terminology). I
preach observing context and intent all the time. But something about that
term just makes me feel funny. When I'm writing, I use an alternate term if
it's possible to do so and remain clear. When it's not possible, I stick
with "master/slave." It's not that hard.
What people see as political correctness is really just a matter of thinking
about your audience. If you can avoid making people feel that discomfort
_and_ get your meaning across clearly, then why not?
