Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been a move recently away from the "master/slave" analogy in a lot of projects for a number of reasons including that one, which personally I think is a sensible choice. Of course, you get plenty of people saying that we should all not care about the origin or other meanings of words in programming, and yet they tend to care deeply about maintaining the status-quo.
>and yet they tend to care deeply about maintaining the status-quo. Because changing is more work than not. It shouldn’t be a surprise when people get upset because you want to change fundamental terminology in some software’s architecture because a group is triggered by the originally chosen words. E.g. Somehow master and slave are more offensive than killing parents and leaving orphans?
Now, assuming that you are just using the term as a trite implication that people bothered by these terms are just easily upset, I would question that. The transatlantic slave trade was a tragedy and its effects still haunt a huge number of people to this day.
Would you be OK with using holocaust analogies in your code? I would hope you would say no, and I imagine most people would agree. So we have established that there are references that are not suitable to make, and it is a question of degrees.
Changing these things is some work, yes, but it makes working with those systems nicer for a large number of people, for whom those analogies are a negative thing.
I'm definitely not advocating that every other term in computer science is defensible either. If you have an issue with certain ones, I would suggest bringing them up.
No one is suggesting that it should be illegal or anything, just some projects make those changes to improve the quality of those projects. And yes, how nice it is for people to work with a thing is absolutely a part of its quality.