Implying perfectly reasonable inquiry (namely, if 'master' is to be removed, why aren't other 'problematic' terms?) is a "jerk" for asking seems off to me.

This is a nitpick, dismissing others' questions and directing them to let it go, is overreach. That's not for you to determine. It's fine as a suggestion (especially if accompanied with your perception of why they ought to), but as a directive it comes across as though you assume you know what's better for someone else without evidence to support the assumption, or without it occurring to you that your assumption would be questioned.

The "just asking questions!" defense now? OP was curious about Linux's roadmap? C'mon now. The man page comment was clearly non-serious and mocking.

I agree the case for changing words like man, kill, and abort is weak (so weak that you perceived it as a joke), but the case for changing those words isn’t significantly weaker than was the case for changing master, and master was indeed changed. OP is right to question why the weak arguments in favour of changing master won, and if this shall continue unchecked.