Ah, but is there a line? Where does it get drawn?

Without explicitly naming them, once you get into the realm of Stalinism or the holocaust, surely it wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with a few names too unsavoury even for you?

I don't see a line. Though if there's an element of humor I see an orthogonal anti-line that will annihilate any attempts at line-drawing.

I'm sure you could find a name that if not met with indifference or a laugh would elicit from me an eyeroll or a statement like "come on, that's dumb" or maybe "that's just asking to derail conversations" but I don't think you could 'trigger' me into a fit. (Of course you're welcome to try via email.) It's just a name.

Point taken, but the original point was being associated with the name, not throwing a fit. Having it on your CV/resume, for example. Potentially alienating clients because of words that stand out from the page in the wrong context. I can see a problem.

The point I responded to was maybe we should be above politics in names, to at least be capable of treating names with a professional indifference. To that end there's a simple test to see if someone you're considering working with believes that too. (Of course it's fully reversible, maybe the future will require passionate condemnation of names that might give offense in order to get hired.) For your point of unsavory associations, sure, but it depends on your expectations for audiences. What's the cost of association if no one throws a fit? What is alienation over a word if not a fit?

I can see a problem if you expect to pay that cost frequently when you bring up the word, and thus avoiding it, but if that's really the case it's worth wondering what other sorts of issues will come up that you don't expect when deciding to take the chance of alienation cost. If I made something as awesome as Stalin I'd put it on my resume, even if it resulted in periodic emails/comments about how insensitive a name it is. Even if some tech readers won't want to work with me because of it, I wouldn't want to work with them, so we're both happy, and we find that out before we actually try working together. I wouldn't put a 'I made Stalin' bumper sticker on my vehicle though. For a name like Kotlin, I really doubt Ukrainian programmers would be upset over it, it seems so absurd, but I can see the possible issue of the general public being sensitive about it in which case it's wise to only have the association in tech contexts.

> Of course it's fully reversible, maybe the future will require passionate condemnation of names that might give offense in order to get hired.

Pretty sure we're already at that point, for some industries/professions. Anything in tertiary education, certainly.

There is no line. Expression is turing complete. That you might not like something I say does not have any effect on my right to say it as a human being.

Obviously the names are tongue in cheek jabs. There's no language called Auschwitz, afaik, and even if there was, it would have as much right to exist as Java or Python or whatever.

You don't get to tell people what to name things just because you're offended. You get to be offended, that's it.

> You don't get to tell people what to name things just because you're offended.

Sure you do, and you get to say your reasons too, refuse to adopt something based on those reasons and try to persuade other people and organizations to accept your reasons. You even get to apply mild sanctions - like not buying things from them or discouraging others from interacting with the person who did the thing that offended you.

You just don't get to forcibly compel anyone. If they disagree with your reasons and don't care about upsetting you, you can't make them change.

It seems that a lot of people want not just freedom to offend with their speech, but also freedom from the reasonable consequences of offending (including responding speech), which is even less coherent than wanting freedom from offensive speech.

This, thank you. So many people seem to think that freedom of speech == freedom from consequences. The reality is that freedom of speech == freedom from government consequences.

Kind of. That's the law of course. But freedom of speech, in America at least, is also a principle of our Republic. We should all strive to encourage this freedom. To attempt to quash someone from speaking their mind is morally wrong, and is actually un-American.

Did someone tell people what to name things? All I saw was a person speaking their mind about the choice for a name.

At the same time, while you have the right to name something whatever you want, others do also have the right to tell you it's a terrible idea.

Your freedom to say what you want doesn't come with freedom from the consequences of saying it.

I genuinely struggle to think of a name that I would object to. I mean you could "name" your language a manifesto that I wouldn't want to be associated with, sure, but a name that's clearly (from context) acting as a name is just a name.

There are living people whose relatives were brutally killed by Stalin. He was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, if you ignore Hitler's role in initiating the wars.

It's reasonable to distance yourself from a bad name, just as many people have chosen to rename things that were named Isis.