It's fine that you believe this, but other people don't agree. Other people believe that the historically racist connotation of "master" in the context of establishing a hierarchical relationship is real, acute, and powerful, especially in the zeitgeist. Other people experience the term "master" in this context as a reminder of that historical (and sometimes not so historical!) racism, which can be painful. Or they experience it as an example of how systemic, institutional racism can persist in extremely small and subtle ways. Or both!
I don't think that people who believe these things are believing them in bad faith, or that they're claiming these things for ulterior motives. I think they're being honest when they say they're pained, and I find the arguments about perpetuating systemic racism plausible. So I think it's completely reasonable to use a different word where we can. I think it reduces suffering in the world, and I think that's the best goal that there is.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/master
> In the broadest sense, "one who has power to control, use, or dispose (of something or some quality) at will," from mid-14c. Also from mid-14c. as "one who employs another or others in his service" (in which sense the correlative word was servant, man, or apprentice); also "owner of a living creature" (dog, horse), also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
This bit feels like it has a strong connection to racism.
> also in ancient contexts of slaves; paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
> since it has nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - to do with race, racism, insensitivity or otherwise abusive behaviour. Both words appear in the dictionary as they are, normal words without any racial connotation
"Nothing, absolutely nothing". "normal words without any racial connotation". That's untrue, isn't it? Perhaps you just need a better dictionary.
https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=master&title=21st
> master noun 1 someone especially a man, who commands or controls. 2 the owner, especially a male owner, of a dog, slave, etc.
Now take the word 'port'. What does it mean?
- when you're on a ship it means the place where the ship goes to load and offload goods and people...
- ...except for when you're on the bridge in the middle of the ocean and the captain tells you to turn to port in which case it means 'turn to the left'...
- ...unless you're in the engine room talking to an engineer who says the cooling water port seems to be clogged for in that case it means the hole in the side of the ship through which water is taken in for cooling the engine...
- ...or you're in the radio room where the operator just plugged a network cable into the ethernet port on the satellite comms transceiver...
- Then again, when you're in the liquor store it indicates a fortified type of wine...
- ...however, when you're at an alcoholics anonymous meating people might take offence at you bandying this word around since their port wine habit nearly cost them their lives.
Does the offence taken by alcoholics mean the captain, helmsman, engineer and network technician need to find different words for their ship-haven, left-side-when-facing-forward, water-entry-hole and network-socket?
Of course not, don't you agree?
Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past [2].
Who controls the narrative, controls the present.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/narrative-control-power/
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-who-controls-the-past-...