3 ms·

This will be one of my argument about changing the current master-slave or blacklist-whitelist terminology in tech.

by ies7 6y ago

themacguffinman 6y ago
Not sure how you can argue that the purpose of master-slave or blacklist-whitelist terminology is to identify with a movement based on hate. Unlike the confederate flag, it was never a good bet that people using those words are racist.
dundarious 6y ago
The word "slave" has not become divorced from its original context. I don't think that argument passes the smell test there.
bastawhiz 6y ago
Is that the same argument? The country of Japan might not change its flag for whatever reason. That's their choice, and for them to sort out. Using inclusive language is different because I'm not forcing anyone to type Japan's flag. The origin of Japan's flag doesn't equate "things that are not okay" with skin tone. Your black coworkers today, if they descended from enslaved people brought to the US, have a very high probability of having a white ancestor who was a slave owner—it's part of their identity. Or maybe your coworker was one of the millions of Americans who were forced to work hard labor because of the exception to the thirteenth amendment [0]. It's truly personal. Imagine if "blacklists" were "irishlists": if it was just the origin that was racist, would we be having the same conversation that the origin and the intent can be separated? It's not necessarily hateful to use the "old" term—how could you have been educated on inclusivity when the word is common jargon? But is it racist or hateful to say "I'm actively choosing not to use an equivalent but inclusive term because I prefer the one that I have learned is discouraging or hateful to others"? Yes, probably, in the same way that confederate flag aficionados claim that it represents something different now, or it's the way things "always" have been. In fact, the term probably didn't exist in computing when your parents were kids. Inclusive language costs nothing [1] and most importantly, it's something that _you can control_. The difference is Microsoft regulating use of the Japanese flag, which they cannot change and which isn't celebrated as a racist symbol, and making the default branch on all new internal git repos "main," which they can easily change, costs ~nothing to do, and avoids terminology which isn't used to be hateful but which is derived from hate. [0] the old "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" [1] I wrote and landed a PR to change "whitelist" to "allowlist" in 20 minutes. Another team codemodded >1k instances of "blacklist" away in a day. Ymmv, but it's easy to simply stop using an old term and start using a new one, replacing the old one over time.

This will be one of my argument about changing the current master-slave or blacklist-whitelist terminology in tech.

by ies7 6y ago

This will be one of my argument about changing the current master-slave or blacklist-whitelist terminology in tech.

Not sure how you can argue that the purpose of master-slave or blacklist-whitelist terminology is to identify with a movement based on hate. Unlike the confederate flag, it was never a good bet that people using those words are racist.

dundarious 6y ago

The word "slave" has not become divorced from its original context. I don't think that argument passes the smell test there.

bastawhiz 6y ago

Is that the same argument? The country of Japan might not change its flag for whatever reason. That's their choice, and for them to sort out. Using inclusive language is different because I'm not forcing anyone to type Japan's flag. The origin of Japan's flag doesn't equate "things that are not okay" with skin tone. Your black coworkers today, if they descended from enslaved people brought to the US, have a very high probability of having a white ancestor who was a slave owner—it's part of their identity. Or maybe your coworker was one of the millions of Americans who were forced to work hard labor because of the exception to the thirteenth amendment [0]. It's truly personal. Imagine if "blacklists" were "irishlists": if it was just the origin that was racist, would we be having the same conversation that the origin and the intent can be separated? It's not necessarily hateful to use the "old" term—how could you have been educated on inclusivity when the word is common jargon? But is it racist or hateful to say "I'm actively choosing not to use an equivalent but inclusive term because I prefer the one that I have learned is discouraging or hateful to others"? Yes, probably, in the same way that confederate flag aficionados claim that it represents something different now, or it's the way things "always" have been. In fact, the term probably didn't exist in computing when your parents were kids. Inclusive language costs nothing [1] and most importantly, it's something that _you can control_. The difference is Microsoft regulating use of the Japanese flag, which they cannot change and which isn't celebrated as a racist symbol, and making the default branch on all new internal git repos "main," which they can easily change, costs ~nothing to do, and avoids terminology which isn't used to be hateful but which is derived from hate. [0] the old "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" [1] I wrote and landed a PR to change "whitelist" to "allowlist" in 20 minutes. Another team codemodded >1k instances of "blacklist" away in a day. Ymmv, but it's easy to simply stop using an old term and start using a new one, replacing the old one over time.