The case that could be made is that the energy, time, and attention of a movement are finite, and those resources can be allocated in a way that makes us /feel/ like change is happening while, in fact, no substantive change is occurring.

It can function like a pressure relief valve. An immediate example that comes to mind is the firing of 6 APD officers that discharged tasers at protestors. Subsequently, nothing structural in the police department changed, but protests dissipated because of the 'victory' and then an even worse botched arrest occured because nothing fundamental had changed.

Merely firing officers for wrongdoing is itself a huge departure from the norm and starts to set a precedent. Of course, it must continue even when riots aren't gathered outside the precinct.

It's exhausting watching companies that have enough capital and resources to educate, train, and employ disadvantaged Americans and give them a better life resort to pandering of the lowest level during a crisis to promote their brand. I don't wish to participate or support their ruse.

But Peter Kirn, the author, is not a company, he's a musician. He's not selling music software so he can't (as per the sibling comment) racewash it.

The main legitimate reason I can see to objecting is not wanting to encourage "obnoxious bad actors". Renaming master/slave to something clearer and less likely to have awkward misunderstandings akin to "forking a child and killing widows and orphans" is a good goal in itself if it improves communication clarity. Toxic drama vectors get cut out for a reason - because nobody wants to deal with them.

Ironically it is possible both that someone is "right" on an issue and someone who is better off not encouraged. Contrary to what some believe there are bad tactics regardless of target.