3 ms·

> You are moving the goal posts. A reasonable statement, however I don't consider one paper to be enough evidence for restructuring the entire English language

> You are moving the goal posts. A reasonable statement, however I don't consider one paper to be enough evidence for restructuring the entire English language to avoid white/black, light/dark concepts. Not to mention academia is a massive political bubble which is clearly influencing the social sciences right now. We're clearly not going to see eye to eye here - but I wish you a good day.

tchaffee 6y ago
> restructuring the entire English language That's a strawman. No one is restructuring the entire English language. There is a small list of words used in technology that companies are changing to more accurate words. "denylist" and "allowlist" are clearer in purpose and intent than "blacklist".
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    Why does replacing a handful of offensive terms with more accurate words require "restructuring the entire English language"? Unless you can make a case for that, the logical conclusion is that those handful of words will go out of favor and the impact to the "entire English language" will be negligible.
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      [deleted]
      - DanBC 6y ago
        > just because America has a racism problem. > I, and my country, do not share these problems. Your country definitely has a racism problem. Where do you live? We'll give you a fucking enormous list of both the historic racism and current day racism for that country.
        cameronbrown 6y ago
        Cops aren't gunning people down in my country, so no, I think things are fine here.
    - orthecreedence 6y ago
      > Why does replacing a handful of offensive terms You want to rewrite parts the language because a few people are offended? Do you realize how often people are offended at the most miniscule and obnoxious things? I think the slippery slope argument applies here. Secondly, from looking at the history of the term whitelist/blacklist, they are not rooted racially. Why does there need to be any more discussion here? This isn't PoC crying for change. This is a bunch of privileged white people sitting around wondering what words they should replace while PoC are getting gunned down by the powers that be.
      - tchaffee 6y ago
        > You want to rewrite parts the language because a few people are offended? No I don't. I want to use the word denylist instead of blacklist. So do other people and companies. Other words have gone in and out of fashion without rewriting parts of the language. Yes, the slippery slope logical fallacy definitely applies here. You are greatly exaggerating what's happening or what could happen as the result of using a word with a clearer meaning, in professional settings. > the history of the term whitelist/blacklist, they are not rooted racially. The continued use of the word black to mean "evil" in the workplace and white to mean "good" while those terms both also apply to people's race is the history of the past few decades. In a society where people are being systemically oppressed on the basis of race. And it just so happens "coincidentally" that it is the oppressed minority that gets to hear that the same name for their race means "evil" on a regular basis at work. No thanks. > Do you realize how often people are offended at the most miniscule and obnoxious things? > This isn't PoC crying for change. Choose one? PoC are asking for change about these specific terms, and it came up as early as the 1970s. This has been an ongoing conversation that you have not been a part of. A simple search will help you educate yourself about the specific PoC who have complained in various formats including scholarly articles, presentations at public meetings, as well as editorials, and blogs. In addition to these specific terms, the larger subject under which this falls is microagressions, and you will find countless sources from PoC talking about that issue and why it is important to fix.
        cameronbrown 6y ago

tchaffee 6y ago

> restructuring the entire English language That's a strawman. No one is restructuring the entire English language. There is a small list of words used in technology that companies are changing to more accurate words. "denylist" and "allowlist" are clearer in purpose and intent than "blacklist".

cameronbrown 6y ago
[deleted]
- tchaffee 6y ago
  Why does replacing a handful of offensive terms with more accurate words require "restructuring the entire English language"? Unless you can make a case for that, the logical conclusion is that those handful of words will go out of favor and the impact to the "entire English language" will be negligible.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > just because America has a racism problem. > I, and my country, do not share these problems. Your country definitely has a racism problem. Where do you live? We'll give you a fucking enormous list of both the historic racism and current day racism for that country.
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        Cops aren't gunning people down in my country, so no, I think things are fine here.
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    > Why does replacing a handful of offensive terms You want to rewrite parts the language because a few people are offended? Do you realize how often people are offended at the most miniscule and obnoxious things? I think the slippery slope argument applies here. Secondly, from looking at the history of the term whitelist/blacklist, they are not rooted racially. Why does there need to be any more discussion here? This isn't PoC crying for change. This is a bunch of privileged white people sitting around wondering what words they should replace while PoC are getting gunned down by the powers that be.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      > You want to rewrite parts the language because a few people are offended? No I don't. I want to use the word denylist instead of blacklist. So do other people and companies. Other words have gone in and out of fashion without rewriting parts of the language. Yes, the slippery slope logical fallacy definitely applies here. You are greatly exaggerating what's happening or what could happen as the result of using a word with a clearer meaning, in professional settings. > the history of the term whitelist/blacklist, they are not rooted racially. The continued use of the word black to mean "evil" in the workplace and white to mean "good" while those terms both also apply to people's race is the history of the past few decades. In a society where people are being systemically oppressed on the basis of race. And it just so happens "coincidentally" that it is the oppressed minority that gets to hear that the same name for their race means "evil" on a regular basis at work. No thanks. > Do you realize how often people are offended at the most miniscule and obnoxious things? > This isn't PoC crying for change. Choose one? PoC are asking for change about these specific terms, and it came up as early as the 1970s. This has been an ongoing conversation that you have not been a part of. A simple search will help you educate yourself about the specific PoC who have complained in various formats including scholarly articles, presentations at public meetings, as well as editorials, and blogs. In addition to these specific terms, the larger subject under which this falls is microagressions, and you will find countless sources from PoC talking about that issue and why it is important to fix.
      - cameronbrown 6y ago