> It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly I'm not "in favor

> It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly I'm not "in favor of racist names", that's a disgraceful shortcut. I do think that: - there are way more important issues; - "racist names" are not so trivial to identify ([0] is an amusing example) - even if we could identify and remove all racist names, it probably won't solve the actual issue (racial "hate" of various degrees). > an apparently unpopular position on this website It's important to understand that there are legitimate arguments against the removal of "racist names". The intentions behind removing them may be quite good, it doesn't mean that (1) it's a good thing ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions"); (2) and even if it's a truly good thing, it doesn't mean not doing it is necessarily bad either. Note that its work the other way as well: it's not because it's a bad thing that it's necessarily a bad thing for it to happen. And that's why, despite the fact that I think that it's an unwise choice, I still do not care about it happening: it may have a very positive role in the long-run, and I can't see that far. > It's just not a compelling technical argument. Note that it's not the argument I was making at all, as I'm not well-placed enough to have an opinion on this particular matter. It seems that we had a botanist in the thread making this argument thought. [0]: https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html https://www.digmandarin.com/confusing-chinese-n-word.html