Sometimes people tell me to do absurd things, not because it's absurd but because I don't understand that I'm doing the wrong thing.
I grew up thinking it's okay to wear outdoor shoes inside the house. Since then I've visited places doing that is not just impolite, but rude.
If I visit a Japanese restaurant and people start telling me to take my shoes off, and imply that it's wrong to wear shoes with zashiki style seating - even when I have no bad intentions - should I double-down and insist that I wear my shoes?
No, of course not. What would you do in that case?
> If we really follow this logic, we should ban all negative words
... No? I mean, the example I gave describes how the metaphor is almost completely inverted. That's not a negative, but a flipping of the meaning. I don't see how you concluded that as my logic.
> reconsider all metaphors
"Awe" used to mean something more like fear, and "awesome" meant "profoundly reverential" or "inspiring dread". Since the 1960s it has taken on a meaning more like "impressive, very good". (Quotes from etymonline.) When the Bible says something like "great and awesome God", it doesn't mean to read it the same way that Bill and Ted would use it.
Similarly, the Christmas song says to "don our gay apparel", which has a rather different meaning now than from when it was written.
In both cases, if you want to emphasize the original intent, then yes, I do suggest changing what words you use.
You'll note that neither case refers to a negative.
> We should never run any daemons
Unlike for master/slave, where the terminology comes from actual slavery, the term 'daemons' as used in computing does not come from the (Biblical) devil but from Greek mythology. That meaning has been used in English since the 1500s.
> this could upset adherents
You'll note that my argument isn't based on upsetting people. It's based on using a metaphor where the underlying understanding or interpretation has changed.
You comment 'your explanations of daemon etymology shouldn't matter then'.
There can certainly be an argument for using a different term even if there is no etymological descent. As Christopher Hitchens commented, after using the word "niggardly" - which has no etymological connection to the vile slur - "Nobody said anything, but I privately resolved -- having felt the word hanging in the air a bit -- to say "parsimonious" from then on."
However, very few are making it that argument about daemons, while the push for a change in the master/slave term is at least 20 years old, that I'm aware of. Since some people will object to anything, no matter what, the idea that there may be an objection doesn't sway me much.
> We shouldn't use the name Apache because of the sad history of American natives
I lived in New Mexico, and know that people from the Jicarilla Apache Nation and from the Mescalero Apache Tribe are not opposed to general use of term "Apache". (I verified just now that they use 'Apache' on their web site.) I think you are just making this up to make a point.
My argument, however, was not based on hypothetical situations that someone might be offended or that there might be negative interpretation.
If you are making it up, then I suggest that you should not use the suffering of American Natives to score an internet point.
> We shouldn't use terms such as "bug squashing" as they would imply animal cruelty.
I believe you are right. Also, "bug hunt." I have wondered why it always felt a bit odd to me. Along with that would be phrases like "ddt" as a name for a debugger. FWIW, I prefer "fixing bugs" rather than "killing bugs.
If there is a general cultural shift towards Jainism or some other belief which avoids the killing of bugs, then yes, we should reconsider that metaphor.
Don't you agree?