Fighting for people's rights does not put an unnecessary burden on other people. Rosa Parks wanted to allow black people to ride anywhere on the bus, not make white people stand up and give them their places instead.
I think we're in agreement? I'm saying that regardless, fights for equity are still a fight and therefore forced.
I'd also argue they do put a burden on people, though not an unnecessary one, to reevaluate their thinking and world view. Rosa Parks didn't force a white person to give up their seat for her. But she, and others, did force white people to rethink what they took for granted as the status quo.
For the people who were always able to sit in the front of the bus, having black people sitting there was a new burden, and meant they had to stand more often.
Certainly, but it was a burden in that it took away an unnecessary privilege. The point of the boycotts was ultimately not to put an extra burden on others to remind them of their privilege.
The point of the original comment was that renaming master to main served as a reminder for people. But movements in the past that you were referencing never served a goal of solely putting burdens on other people.
This is a matter of perspective. Creating awareness is usually the first step to changing things. Your take here only really works of you believe that burdening people with awareness is the end goal.
To use the standing example, it's like saying that Parks's goal was just to get arrested to burden people with the knowledge of inequality.
If you accept that racial privilege exists, and that it's causes are correctable, even in part, then raising awareness of those helps. This is doubly true if you think that stone of the causes are social cognitive biases, where awareness and mindfulness directly address the causes.
