Eh, that's some interesting historical trivia, but I don't see how that matters tbh. If everybody is fine with the word because they (quite reasonably) assume it was inspired by master record or something similar, and you bring up some 25 year old history (20 years when the debate got started) about not even git but a precursor, does that really help with anything? I am sure there are other innocuous seeming words that have a dark etymology, should we go search for them so we can update the language?

You're implying that those who are throwing hissy fits about "master" are aware of bitkeeper documentation and their (wildly unchecked) emotional response to this matter is nuanced enough to take "provenance" of technical terms into account.

Do you even realize how ridiculous these nonsensical "arguments" sound?