> I frankly cannot even guess what you thought that was adding to this conversation.
That what is a slur to some is absolutely benign to others (what else in this context).
> Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it
By that logic, we could as well have left the name untouched, as the new name wouldn't be unchangeable either. I really couldn't care less either way, but spending time and money on such petty things feels like a waste of resources to me.
It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly. I do care about not having racist names, an apparently unpopular position on this website.
But I think scientists overall are probably smart enough to handle whatever complication is added to their work by it. And again, they must already be able to account for changes for other reasons, so I trust they can make it through this one as well. It's just not a compelling technical argument.
> It's just a lot of time and resources you're putting in here today in favor of the racist names, for someone who doesn't care particularly
I'm not "in favor of racist names", that's a disgraceful shortcut. I do think that:
- there are way more important issues;
- "racist names" are not so trivial to identify ([0] is an amusing example)
- even if we could identify and remove all racist names, it probably won't solve the actual issue (racial "hate" of various degrees).
> an apparently unpopular position on this website
It's important to understand that there are legitimate arguments against the removal of "racist names". The intentions behind removing them may be quite good, it doesn't mean that
(1) it's a good thing ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions");
(2) and even if it's a truly good thing, it doesn't mean not doing it is necessarily bad either.
Note that its work the other way as well: it's not because it's a bad thing that it's necessarily a bad thing for it to happen. And that's why, despite the fact that I think that it's an unwise choice, I still do not care about it happening: it may have a very positive role in the long-run, and I can't see that far.
> It's just not a compelling technical argument.
Note that it's not the argument I was making at all, as I'm not well-placed enough to have an opinion on this particular matter. It seems that we had a botanist in the thread making this argument thought.
That what is a slur to some is absolutely benign to others (what else in this context).
> Everyone is imperfect, but there's nothing sacrosanct about this naming tradition, or any particular name emerging from it
By that logic, we could as well have left the name untouched, as the new name wouldn't be unchangeable either. I really couldn't care less either way, but spending time and money on such petty things feels like a waste of resources to me.