> I think being inclusive means removing obstacles you might not see yourself. Agreed, yet I'm kind of concerned about those context-free word readings and abs

> I think being inclusive means removing obstacles you might not see yourself. Agreed, yet I'm kind of concerned about those context-free word readings and absolutisms, which can deviate into a form of thought policing, censorship, and sometimes, bigotry. While it is important to take care of the weight words carry and be humane and respectful, words do not make sense without a context thus I have no problem with a process being "slave", because it has a very precise meaning in CS/IT nowadays entirely remote to the origin and history of the word, and not entirely encapsulated by "secondary" which is somehow more fuzzy. By that metric we should probably soon stop killing processes (oh, my! parents killing their own children!) and having daemons and so on. Trivia: for maximum shock value about how context shapes word meaning and your perception of it, in French the n-word means both "a person of African ascendance" and "ghostwriter", and for the latter synonyms fail to capture the essence of what a ghostwriter is. So, yes, "nègre" is definitely used without offense when the context of literature is made absolutely clear, although it is tentatively replaced by "prête-plume" or "écrivain fantôme".