I think the "shock" at an old man page is pretty silly to begin with, but I think a better phrasing for #9 would be to ignore the trolls.
The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad, but that viewed with today's (American) social context, the phrase would likely be taken to be distasteful. Therefore, I think the issue with the commenters isn't that they "challenge" the viewpoint. At a minimum these commenters have failed to grasp the concept and more likely they are simply not responding in good faith.
I do think there's a separate discussion to be had about the role of political correctness/word policing in modern discourse, but in the author's version of events, the blocked commenters aren't trying to make that argument.
"The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad"
That's because many people in tech used to think that tech bro culture wasn't bad. Tech also used to be much very excluding. Back then, if you were not part of the tech bro culture, you already knew it was distasteful, and that you were being excluded.
Nah. In this case it genuinely wasn't intended to be bad (almost certainly). We can tell because the sexual meaning of grope makes absolutely no sense in the context of `dig`, while the non-sexual meaning does. We can exonerate the original authors. It's still good that it's been changed since.
The problem with the dig acronym isn't that it was intended to be bad, but that viewed with today's (American) social context, the phrase would likely be taken to be distasteful. Therefore, I think the issue with the commenters isn't that they "challenge" the viewpoint. At a minimum these commenters have failed to grasp the concept and more likely they are simply not responding in good faith.
I do think there's a separate discussion to be had about the role of political correctness/word policing in modern discourse, but in the author's version of events, the blocked commenters aren't trying to make that argument.