Removing categories like "whitelist/blacklist" is trying to create a more inclusive environment where people don't internalize "white = good, black = bad".
Removing categories like "Children/Families affected by systematic discrimination/bias/exclusion" is pretending uncomfortable and unfair realities don't exist.
So sure, superficially both are cases of "some words are naughty", but one of those spreads love, the other denies some people's harsh lived experiences.
> Removing categories like "whitelist/blacklist" is trying to create a more inclusive environment where people don't internalize "white = good, black = bad".
This is preposterously pseudoscientific. Even the dumbest person has a basic a grasp of equivocity. The inability to do so suggests mental illness.
The same person who uses the word "blacklist" is very much capable of preferring the elegance of a black suit or the sleek beauty of a black sports cars or a dark pair of slacks, and dislike white suits and white sports cars or white jeans. He may prefer brunettes over blondes.
According to this reasoning, "Enlightenment" should also be renamed, as the association of "light" with good and "darkness" with evil "exclusives people" (I, too, would rename the Enlightenment, but for much more substantive reasons).
It is insane to think that the use of words like "whitelist" and "blacklist" somehow "excludes" anyone.
Suits, sports cars, women, and whatever other precious alpha status symbol you seem to judge your sense of self-worth by and make metaphors with come in all the colors of rainbow, so yeah, of course that's all taste. Whitelist and blacklist is pretty dual. Black-and-white you might say. Maybe there's a third default/unspecified/null/not-quite-binary state.
But seriously, we're a bunch of engineers here... why is this so threatening to your sense of masculinity when "allowlist/denylist" are unambiguously better for no simpler reason than they're declarative?
> Removing categories like "whitelist/blacklist" is trying to create a more inclusive environment where people don't internalize "white = good, black = bad".
Maybe that was the intention. The result was that it normalised language policing to such an extent that a backlash was inevitable.
Your intentions don't matter when you are banning words. Your actions do.
imho any decent person will say "Yeah, I see the trouble with blacklist/whitelist", and if they're a techie, they'd also say "Yeah, allowlist/denylist is more descriptive and fits in well."
I think any decent person will also stop short of officially recognizing The 29 Gender Pronouns from this week's trending tiktok and recognize there's a middle ground between wide cultural acceptance and letting people express themselves.
Discrediting any language evolution as calling it the road to hell is just as silly as the (caricature of) the person getting upset at the cashier they've never met before because cashier didn't magically know their preferred 24th Form gender pronoun.
A decent person understands some change is inevitable (especially if there's an uncomfortable historical context with the way things are now) while also moderating the amount of change. Basically, just be a decent, reasonable human who has some empathy for others.
I hope we're not too far off the deep end from being reasonable.
Is there even a correlation between removing white-related vocabulary and better performance of black people (removing other biases such as density)? Are you removing white terms by racism against whites, or is it a honest attempt at performing better?
Because honestly it doesn’t feel like the world has improved, seen from Europe, in the 15 last years. Like, not at all.
Can we just leave it at "allowlist/denylist is declarative terminology without any attached baggage, and declarative is always better"?
It's like the bathroom fearmongering... don't show your junk to people who don't want to see it, and wash your hands. Just be kind and be a decent human being.
Removing categories like "Children/Families affected by systematic discrimination/bias/exclusion" is pretending uncomfortable and unfair realities don't exist.
So sure, superficially both are cases of "some words are naughty", but one of those spreads love, the other denies some people's harsh lived experiences.
Which world do you want to be part of?