To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.
To stir up controversy because one interpretation is "problematic" just emphasizes that interpretation and reminds everybody that they're not suffering from enough guilt about past events they had no personal involvement in.
Plus, it's not really stirring up controversy saying "hey, we should probably change the term to ~this~, which is equally or more descriptive, in a way that doesn't rely on historically problematic contexts". I think what you're focusing on is chiding people who still use the older terms; I've never seen that happen. I've seen people mix terminologies when discussing something, and oftentimes that has led to the person using the outdated instead using the updated, possibly with a conversation in between, but I've not seen someone call out "how DARE you use (technically-correct-but-outdated-term)!"
That said, I've also never seen anyone dispense with the word 'master' -except- in contexts where it is used to differentiate from 'slaves'. The parent post also only references in that context (though the great-grandparent calls both out separately, though one right after the other, which is likely what is muddling things).
Even Blacklist/Blackbook come not from anything to do with black people but Charles II and his list. If you are offended by it, it's because you chose to be.
Someone could come along and tell me my name means 'short people are possessed by demons' and I would still go on using my name, even if someone said that was mean of me. Why? Because it's a ridiculous accusation, and you are a ridiculous person if you make such an accusation, or entertain it.
Now if I started calling myself '4 foot tall demons' that would obviously be different. It is entirely implausible that the 'baggage' is coincidental.
The point is that the sort of historical baggage you are talking about isn't relevant to the word or it's usage in context.
There is nothing to excuse.
White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
I believe the movement to alter what words we’re allowed to say in our vocabulary is lead by educated mostly white “allies”. These people don’t speak for the underprivileged, they’re creating ways to feel better about themselves through self-policing because they don’t have any real idea about how to solve the issues that actually affect people.