[r0naa]

Do you realize that your reasoning can be extended ad nauseam to everything, all the time? So much that you will find yourself spending more time on finding a name that actually building anything.

Should Coq - the proof assistant - be renamed to something else, because it is pronounced like "cock"?

Yes? Even though it is a project of the INRIA (One of France's Computer Science research institute) and means "rooster" in French.

This overly fixated attitude toward "respecting other people's boundaries" is very much begging for mockery. Perhaps as much as it is intellectually dishonest because it leaves so many questions, and unknowns unanswered.

How do you know what are the others' personal boundaries? Is there group whose boundaries does not matter> Does this rule extend to any creative work? Should existing projects be renamed? Are boundaries dynamics? Can someone be offended by this rule? Or are there rules about things that you can be offended about, or not?

There are so many issues with this paradigm of thinking.

Let me suggest an alternative: common sense.

[tenaciousDaniel]

And one comment even pointed out perfectly good reasons not to consider br - "'br' is already an abbreviation for Brazil and is the HTML tag for linebreak".

[strangecasts]

The same comment suggested "bti" as a sensible alternative, though.

[strangecasts]

Do you realize that your reasoning can be extended ad nauseam to everything, all the time?

I really wouldn't defend intellectual honesty with a slippery-slope argument.

[omginternets]

I don't think it was intended as a slippery-slope argument, but rather as a demonstration that the proposed method was inherently indiscriminate.

In other words, it amounts to "stop doing things I don't like", and doesn't take into account the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of the person taking offense.