[jldugger]

"The black community hasn't told us it's a problem" isn't a very convincing argument when the intersection of your community and theirs is empty.

> If a word, a technical word, was not a problem one day, and is a problem the next, you have now artificially widened the gap a certain minority needs to cross in order to be part of the programming community.

This is a stretch. Substituting careless technical writing for equally clear and meaningful terminology doesn't harm anyone's ability to stand up continuous integration.

[scrollaway]

> Substituting careless technical writing for equally clear and meaningful terminology doesn't harm anyone's ability to stand up continuous integration

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Substituting one word for another is not harmful in and of itself. The context around it makes it harmful.

For the sake of the argument, let's go to a parallel universe in which a group (any group) decides that the word "lambda" is offensive to them. Like very offensive, heavily politicized etc. It's not a very common word overall in English, but used quite a bit in specific domains.

Now let's say some small parts of the programming community gets together and agrees that "lambda" is offensive and changes it to a less-offensive equivalent. Is the programming community now more or less welcoming overall?

If there was a real problem with the word, the outcome is slightly positive. But if there wasn't, the outcome is extremely negative: Something which didn't use to be a problem, is now a problem. The community appears less inclusive.

Back to our universe now. Do you still think it's wise to carelessly change words whenever someone claims they're offended without actually verifying those claims? Is it still wise to bundle up to an issue you're not affected by when it's more than likely created by people who aren't affected by it either?

I do hope at least some people realize that this is widely open to abuse, as well.

[hackuser]

> if there wasn't [a real problem with the word], the outcome is extremely negative: Something which didn't use to be a problem, is now a problem. The community appears less inclusive.

Here's where I lose you. I don't see how it's more than very slightly negative. To whom is the community less inclusive? People who like to use the word "slave"? People who think this issue is a waste of time? You can find people like that for every issue; if that minor detail turns them away, they weren't going to stay long. People who ideologically object to the attention paid to prejudice or actually are prejudicial? The latter are an easy case; the former - anyone working on a team must learn to respect others' views and accept being outvoted, with regularity.

[scrollaway]

Fabricated issues add up. You're no longer just a minority, you're a minority that wants to change which words others use, that wants others to adapt to them, etc. Even when you're just someone who happens to be black/female/whatever and would really like others to shut the hell up about sex or color.

The majority of people don't have a problem - you're creating a problem for them.

[hackuser]

> The majority of people don't have a problem - you're creating a problem for them.

You keep implying or asserting this, but you don't back it up. I don't believe it (unless taken literally, under the premise that only the interests of people in the majority matter). I believe you don't think it's a problem, but I've read many things over many years that disagree.

[PuercoPop]

Yes, the problem of _empathy_.

Also as pointed above, the issue is not a word _offends you_