Thanks for sharing your story. Let me start by saying that I completely agree that words can be used and are used to hurt people. It is also true that languages evolve and change constantly.
That being said, I don't think your rebuttal really works. Just because a word can be changed, it doesn't mean in should be changed.
The examples from your personal are very good examples of derogatory terms that we should stop using. But in essence they are different than the master branch issue. When one uses the term "retarded" in a derogatory manner, one does so meaning "mentally challenged". The problem is that there are people with real challenges who shouldn't be disrespected because of that.
On the other hand, when one talks about the "master branch", one does not mean "slave-owning branch" but rather "the branch from which production ready code will be created". So whereas "retarded" as a derogatory term is related to what the word means when it refers to people whose brain works differently, "master" as a branch is not related to racism. So the analogy doesn't really hold here.
One might ask, what then, are we to completely remove the word "master" from the English language? Which, granted, you could make that argument. I don't think anyone is making it (at least not yet). But the point here is: if master as a technical IT term bears no semantic relation to racism, why should we change this one and not other uses of the word that don't bear any semantic relation to racism? (such as "master of arts")
I think that this is a very weak point of the argument for the change and one of the reasons people are pushing back against it. It is inconsistent in how it regards the word "master".
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Thanks for sharing your story. Let me start by saying that I completely agree that words can be used and are used to hurt people. It is also true that languages evolve and change constantly.
That being said, I don't think your rebuttal really works. Just because a word can be changed, it doesn't mean in should be changed.
The examples from your personal are very good examples of derogatory terms that we should stop using. But in essence they are different than the master branch issue. When one uses the term "retarded" in a derogatory manner, one does so meaning "mentally challenged". The problem is that there are people with real challenges who shouldn't be disrespected because of that.
On the other hand, when one talks about the "master branch", one does not mean "slave-owning branch" but rather "the branch from which production ready code will be created". So whereas "retarded" as a derogatory term is related to what the word means when it refers to people whose brain works differently, "master" as a branch is not related to racism. So the analogy doesn't really hold here.
One might ask, what then, are we to completely remove the word "master" from the English language? Which, granted, you could make that argument. I don't think anyone is making it (at least not yet). But the point here is: if master as a technical IT term bears no semantic relation to racism, why should we change this one and not other uses of the word that don't bear any semantic relation to racism? (such as "master of arts")
I think that this is a very weak point of the argument for the change and one of the reasons people are pushing back against it. It is inconsistent in how it regards the word "master".