I think lots of people are uncomfortable with language being changed in a top-down way by people who aren't particularly democratically accountable more than anything.

To be honest I'm not sure where I stand on prescriptivism as a concept. If there's a genuine organic demand (as opposed to corporate PR people playing tokenism) for it in the context of tackling racism then fair enough I can get behind that, but I don't really like the idea of language itself being used as a political cudgel to beat your opponents with. The word Orwellian is relentlessly misused these days but I think if we are going to forcefully change language it needs to be something done with great consideration and democratic oversight to avoid this tool being wielded abusively. For example, I'd love to abolish all Americanisms from British English which is exactly why I'd be grossly unfit for such a language-defining duty!

yes words have meaning and the present change is wrong because it fails to understand the actual meaning of master.

Different people can interpret words differently. Replacing 'master' is a very low cost change which, IMO, can improve understanding of what is described. (Like main or root branch or vault password.)

So why cling to a word that has so much cultural baggage when it doesn't even work that well in Thunderbird?

But the word "master" means a lot in tech. This is like someone changing the word "save" to "store", after many years of use in tech, and everyone knowing the implied meaning, but some minority of users are complaining that "jesus saves, data is stored".

  > So why cling to a word that has so much cultural baggage
  > when it doesn't even work that well in Thunderbird?

What cultural baggage does the word "master" have? And before you throw around the word "slavery" my grandfather, who passed only 14 years ago, was a slave. I have no qualms with the word "master".

> ...why cling to a word that has so much cultural baggage...

Clinging? We're all just talking here and we don't have any authority over this software. Are we allowed to have differing opinions about what already took place? I think so.

Personally, my opinion is that I laugh at these people for their empty virtue signaling that really doesn't help understanding here in this case. We don't have to be clinging in order to discuss how idiotic we think things are.

Yes. They do. But meaning and power sits on a foundation of context and intent. Even emojis rely on this.

The idea that we're going to use words but ignore context and intent is self-defeating. It weakens the powers of human communication. It's as if to say: "Words speak louder than action."

That's sounds like a quote for 1984.

>> your participation in this discussion...

Which is also just a lot of empty words that make you feel good about the fundamental change you're helping sweep over the world.

"Words have meaning and power"

Except when they don't.

That's the point.

This change is completely meaningless in practical terms, which means the only value derived is in the heads of those wanting to see the change.

This is why we view it cynically.

Someone commenting cynically on the action does not 'prove' that those words have some kind of influence.

> Words have meaning and power.

.. for you. I hope nobody ever insults you.

> How they are used literally changes the discourse.

No. People come up with ideas and thoughts, and wanting to express themselves, they seek out looking for words. Peoples ideas and thoughts make up how words are meant.