I have to be honest, I think this kind of conversation is a difficult one to have because it can be far too easy to start arguing against what you <i>think</i> the other person is saying, not what they actually <i>are</i> saying. There's a lot of nuance that isn't done justice to (perhaps ironically so), especially as these conversations kick off from github issues, or on social media, and almost instantly devolve from there.<p>I often find myself getting a headache while reading some of these 'conversations' as I try to get my head around the various perspectives at play. Some of it is truly exhausting, particularly the 'what about the slippery slope' argument that often comes up (in this comment section we have 'what about black hole', 'what about blackout'; in others it's 'what about maestro', etc.). Similarly, it's tiring to repeatedly hear the defence of censoring or erasing history. At the same time, the same is true of those in a hurry to brand others as racists, fascists, or otherwise phobic of something. These all feel like blunt instruments that do more to shut down the conversation rather than encourage it.<p>There are way more than two sides to this story, it really isn't as black and white as the conversation can make it out to be (on so many levels). And as far as I'm concerned it's a conversation that requires one to take a step back for several moments and seriously consider the things that are currently at stake, and to start healthily unpacking this before jumping to an instinctual response.<p>For me, the way we discuss this is just as much about compassion and genuine empathy, and adapting to change, as it is anything else. And also for me, if the terms 'master' and 'slave' have served their purpose and need to be changed, so be it. That doesn't upset me at all, but the toxic and hateful drama that often spews from such a decision really does.