You mean other than the decades of connotation lost by switching terminology and the innevitable miscommunication that will ensue?

There's nothing wrong with switching the term "red" for the term "carmine", "scarlet" or "ruby" either. They are synonymous on paper, but the latter simply doesn't evoke the same recall in people's heads.

You are welcome to run the experiment yourself. Go and ask people if they normally stop at (carmine|scarlet|ruby) traffic lights and observe the ensuing confusion at your question.

Then there is the emergent discrepancy in terminology between legacy systems and current RFCs.

I don't find this at all convincing. The terms in question here don't need to evoke connotation, they are labels in a technical system. It is very straight-forward to re-label things. Documentation can easily cover the change.

And I don't find it convincing that you don't find it convincing.

All terms evoke connotation. That's how and why language works. Which is why I proposed the social experiment for you.

Go ahead and replace the word "red" with the word "scarlet" in your day-to-day vocabulary and see if communication with other humans breaks down.

Update the documentation as necessary.

You're generalising far too much. Of course replacing "red" with "scarlet" generally would make a difference in understanding, not least because "scarlet" is more specific than "red". But that doesn't at all speak to what is going on in this RFC, which is already technical documentation and very specific. If you want to talk about connotation, the entire point here is to get rid of terms that connote horrific crimes. Maybe not to you, but clearly to enough people that this change has been made.

What, like the word leader (führer) connotes horrific crimes?

I'm not a fluent German speaker, so I don't know. But I expect not: in this context it is contrasted with "follower" rather than anything more historically evocative. The relationship between a "leader" and a "follower" generally connotes something voluntary and more-or-less mutually beneficial. I am surprised I'm having to spell this out!

Somebody quite recently said... "You are generalizing too much"

The relationship between slave and master is connotationally identical (to me, of course!) to the relationship between leader (Hitler) and follower (Nazis). Historicaly speaking those relationships had horrific social impact.

I am surprised I am having to spell this out.

I mean, we are talking about connotation here. Why are you trying to tell me how I should feel about words?

Okay, well, you clearly have an unusual interpretation. Enough people agree that leader/follower is more agreeable than master/slave, and even if you don't agree surely you can see where they are coming from. That's part of my disbelief. But you started by trying to argue some general point about using different terms causing some gulf of misunderstanding. Anyway, not much more to say here.

This is some serious cognitive dissonance to force specific language in the name of inclusion, only to them say “you have an unusual interpretation, enough people feel differently”.

“You’re being inclusive wrong!”

Sucks being in the minority, doesn't it.

First of all, check the usernames, I’m not the person you originally replied to, I’m just somebody pointing out the insanity of your comments.

Second, once again, your cognitive dissonance is showing badly. You’re applying very US-centric culture and forcing it on Europeans. This isn’t about being “in the minority”. It’s pointing out that any non-American can see right through “just how inclusive” you really are.

I'm from the UK, I just happen to agree with the RFC, as (I'm certain) would the vast majority of my peers and co-workers. I'm happy to let any readers of this thread judge my comments as they stand.

Is your schadenfreude meant to make a point, and if so what exactly?

Minorities affected by slavery matter, but minorities affected by the holocaust don’t?