I'm not saying that those who use these terms are racist. I'm saying that language evolves. If there are equivalent technical alternatives that don't carry a history of oppression, why not use them? It costs nothing and can make the environment more inclusive. This doesn't replace concrete actions, but it also doesn't prevent them from happening.

If changing a word is "purely performative," then keeping it is also purely performative. The difference is that one choice preserves a metaphor of domination and the other does not. Technology is made of choices. This is one too.

> I'm saying that language evolves.

That means I won't bother fighting changes that became established before I was born. I most definitely doesn't mean I have to go along with every change I see proposed now.

> If there are equivalent technical alternatives that don't carry a history of oppression

Words are not oppression.