Should the illegal “master/slave” dyad be used as teaching paradigm to explain the relationship between electronic circuits?
The “master/slave” dyad has been outlawed for centuries, e.g. Slave Trade Act 1807 (UK), Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK), and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery 1865. This stance was bolstered in the aftermath of World War 2 with the creation of the United Nations and the International Convention on Human Rights where initially many nations signed up to them. Currently, most nations are signed up and, as a corollary, have implemented binding laws within their respective jurisdictions to declare the "master/slave" dyad to be illegal.
Yet in recent decades, with the invention of electronic circuits, this illegal dyad has been used as a teaching paradigm by a vanishingly small minority of people to explain the relationship between circuits.
In recent months, MIPI and NXP updated their communications protocols to replace the illegal “master/slave” dyad with “controller/target.”
Should electronics.stackexchange.com wait for “consensus on Meta” before complying with international law?