I didn't take the Inca Dove example as being about racism but can't speak to what the people deciding were thinking. For that one, if the "official" name is straight up wrong...I think it should be changed. More-literal names are always good in science, I think.

The only similar example that comes to mind IS a bit racist (Indians->Native Americans) but I was on board with that push because they aren't Indian.

Then again, I grew up in the Midwest where tons of city names reference non-existent geographical feature. Including "Heights" to the names of extremely flat cities is dumb but it doesn't really bug me.

I guess I just don't know exactly where I stand on it but I'd take the more accurate naming any day.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Haha oh yeah, I wasn't talking about you. Just I've noticed that certain viewpoints tend to attract a lot of downvotes here. I suspect that a lot of people like to do performative antiracism more than they do genuine antiracism, because it's a lot less work, and that extends to giving out vigorous downvotes to the "wrong" point of view.

But yeah, I can see the argument too. Everyone's going to draw the line of what's okay and not okay to say in different places, and at the end of the day I do think there's something to be said for trying to make the world a better place even in some kind of trivial way.