I think the argument is that "this word makes some people uncomfortable by reminding them of something that may be emotionally charged for them", and therefore basic decency says maybe we should avoid those terms. Especially for groups that are under-represented in the field, which may well be validation of the "makes people uncomfortable" bit.
From unrelated Internet browsing the last few days I learned that someone (Wiesenthal institute maybe) successfully (I think) fronted a campaign against a company reusing the word Zyklon as a brand name.
Reading your excellent comment now brought up that again and what do I know: maybe the word master does bring up so strong emotional responses in people that we should avoid it. I'm actually serious here, and maybe I'm dumb for not connecting the dots before.
On the other hand, I'm really not sure if it would be a great idea to let anyone, including my 20 years younger self, decide what words should be allowed and not for everyone in the world?
I'm actually serious about this and if I change my mind it wouldn't be the first time here.
Its usage in git is inrelated to the master/slave metaphor. There are systems that use that metaphor and they should chane. Git isn’t one of them.
It seems that some people are projecting their own prejudice onto unrelated words and perhaps they should reflect on why they relate everything to race.
I'm not even necessarily a fan of that nomenclature, but I'm surprised that's not one of the replacements that are considered (in the Twitter poll in the article for example).
