So your gripe is that people loose the context when its obvious what is meant, yeah?
My hypothesis there (that most people bothered by this change WOULD be bothered by the spelling mistakes) doesn’t apply to you since you are applying a consistent approach to contextual interpretation. My guess could be quite wrong.
Here’s a question along similar lines: the word “niggardly” is a synonym of “stingy”, but through an etymological accident is almost a homophone of a very charged word. Do you also think that “niggardly” is a word worth keeping around? Would you use it while talking with or referring to a black person? It’s more archaic than “master”, so it’s not an equivalent situation, but the overtones strike me as being similar.
This is a genuine question in the spirit of curiosity. There’s both a logical and emotional/visceral component to many words we use, and the overlap is not usually a problem. I’m trying to better understand how people evaluate a charged word’s usefulness in communication. If “master” is charged—maybe not for you personally, but potentially for people you’re talking with—and “main” serves just as well, what’s the issue with swapping it out?
There are several comments by other white people who see this as a highly commendable act. Does anyone actually subject to racism see this move as a positive step that addresses a real problem?
I agree with your hypothesis with respect to master/slave, in fact. In this case the word master has nothing to do with slavery though.
An equivalent to removing "master" from git is removing Spanish names of colors from crayons to avoid having "black" and... "the n-word" written next to each other.