> I don't think you actually read that link. Or maybe you're hoping I don't.... The first part is just true - it's not up for debate.
You asked me to demonstrate that people make the argument, because you claimed that people don't make the argument. I showed you someone making the argument, and you have responded by reinforcing that argument.
The claim is that this "powerful implication[s] of racial supremacy" is harmful - we know this because the author is arguing that the change affirmatively should be made, and there is no reason to make the change without an appeal to such harm. But there is no attempt to explain how such harm would actually arise from simply using the terms as technical jargon. One might reasonably infer that the author is somehow claiming that such terminology justifies or advocates for racial supremacy; but there is no attempt to reason through that claim.
There is also no attempt to consider other potential implications of the term, nor the mindset which leads to this interpretation. Implication is only relevant in conjunction with inference, and these inferences are being drawn by clearly politically motivated people.
> Personally I think if you're a die-hard master-slave fan that's weird
Please stop coming back to this strawman. Again, a higher standard of discourse is expected here.
> Okay, and this bothers you why?
For reasons explicitly stated in my comment.
> Um, YOU do. Clearly you are
Again, a higher standard of discourse is expected here.
> YOU'RE an outsider asking python to change for YOU.
I did not ask for any change. I in fact criticized a change. Please stop trying to present change as non-change and vice-versa.
I am also not an outsider. I have been writing code in Python for about 20 years.
> "Doing nothing" IS NOT an apolitical stance.
Yes, it is. This, in your words, is "just true" and "not up for debate". But the fact that you would propose such a thing, perfectly betrays your agenda in posting here.
> the reason why master is used in the first place is inherently political
To be clear, are you asserting that the person who originally chose the term, had the explicit goal of expressing "powerful implications of racial supremacy and oppression" in version control software?
If you are not claiming that, then it is very obvious that "the reason why [the term] is used" is not political.
If you are, then you are, in fact, calling people monsters for sticking with it, and you are also making an inflammatory claim without evidence.