Treating any context of master slave as being discriminatory or "disrespectful", is discriminatory to consensual BDSM and continues the trend of suppressing and attacking that minority group.
I'd say that doesn't really apply though because not only is consensual BDSM invisible as a minority classification, it actively tries to remain hidden in public. It is inappropriate to display such things to people who haven't consented to being shown them. That's why you don't wear a gimp suit to go grocery shopping, the other patrons haven't consented to being part of that scene. So if anything someone who engages in BDSM would be very much offended see master/slave used casually in a public setting.
~My point is when you take entire words, regardless of their context and outlaw them you're inherently suppressing that words representation of groups that use it in different contexts. There is no reason to wholey remove the terms master and slave unless the words are wholey wrong to use, which would then mean that BDSM surely is as well. Either you take all of it as being wrong or accept that words have context.
>> It is inappropriate to display such things [...]
Heh, "inappropriate" is such a slippery word.
It's only when used in the separate sense specifically opposite "slave".
There's no need to caricature or misrepresent the POV that you obviously disagree with here.
you clearly missed https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312
So thanks. ;)
Countering slavery is hard. Let's go renaming!
Which means Monzo, Apple, Starling, N26 and Revolut are all 'complicit' with working with Mastercard to continue to oppress the offended. Time for a rename. /s