It's become a well-known catch phrase now. It's only a distraction if you find yourself offended by it, which frankly with everything that's going on right now, is pretty thin-skinned.
As it currently stands, 15 out of 24 comments in this thread are about the phrasing in the title. It has demonstrably become a distraction, at least in this post.
It's not just a title, it's what the article is about, making llvm fast again is the whole point of author's effort. He presents reason for regression in this area throughout the time (regressions on compile time are not captured vs ie. regressions on produced binary performance are). This is a problem ie. julia is heavily dependant on llvm compile times and julia authors mention that every time they're bumping llvm version they're scared about how much performance will degrade.
Once again: if you are writing an article about LLVM performance, and you have the choice between the title "Make LLVM fast again" and something else, you will likely have more success with your article if you pick something else.
I'm advising writers that some people reading their content may make this association, so they should avoid the phrase unless that is their deliberate intent.
I personally don't disagree (and don't like that you're being downvoted for making a point), I just think the delta between the two is so small that it's not even worth discussing, let alone self-censoring for.
You read it despite this sensitivity. What audience are you describing that won't read this based on the title? What is the net loss to the author and to them of them missing out on the content because of their decision? What is the long term implication of developing a social contract that requires you avoid any speech that is similar to any speech of political platforms that some portion, potentially a majority, of your audience opposes?
It sounds like a linguistic death spiral to me. Good luck.
