There's nothing wrong with it. I find the term offensive as well. But it's worth noting because decisions like this are somewhat arbitrary, and we invest in th

There's nothing wrong with it. I find the term offensive as well. But it's worth noting because decisions like this are somewhat arbitrary, and we invest in this platform (the visibility/monoculture of github and your "stars" are what make it sticky). So what happens when your repo doesn't conform to their interpretation of social norms? It's a relatively obscure repo (and I'm sure we all have a few of those ;)), that adds to the whole "arbitrary" narrative. Another reason it's worth noting: it runs against what Github has made headlines for in the past couple of years: fighting pressures to censor content. What happens if/when leadership changes at the company (it already has over its lifetime): will the policy won't be relaxed even further? Thought exercises like this help us appreciate how invested we are in the monoculture that is Github