5 ms·
This topic has been beaten to death, and most people already know where they stand on this topic, but I'd just like to add one thing: I think it's becoming cle
by prohobo 6y ago
This topic has been beaten to death, and most people already know where they stand on this topic, but I'd just like to add one thing:
I think it's becoming clear that the people pushing for these kinds of changes are likely racist. Weird, but hear me out...
Trauma can taint anything to be seen as dangerous or bad (an example would be people who are triggered by clowns), but victims of trauma usually also understand that their phobic reactions aren't necessarily representative of the real world. They don't expect others to reconfigure reality to keep them from being triggered, except maybe on an individual level, with the understanding that one party willingly deceives or hides things from the other to help them cope.
This is not that, because the people implementing the changes don't harbor the related trauma (by their own admission), nor do they acknowledge the deceit. They are instead motivated by prejudice.
There may be an innocuous question like "how do we become more inclusive?" and they see a term like "blacklist", knowing its basic negative connotation, then mistakenly correlate that to black people. This is a racist mental connection, and it's similar to how someone might see the word "dyke" and think lesbian, even when it's being used in the context of its true meaning: a sea embankment. This is fine though, most people can simply remind themselves of this fact and move on. Furthermore, most people also understand the general origin of their misconception, and can tell when it's something they personally believe, or something that has been drilled into their heads through repetitive exposure.
These people, however, are unable to separate the reality from their own prejudices, and so believe that their interpretation is real. "The term 'blacklist' must be problematic for black people, because we all know that deep down it's saying we want to ban black people, right?"
A non-racist without exposure to the supposed problem with saying 'blacklist' won't make the racist connection.
A racist without exposure to the supposed problem with saying 'blacklist' will assume it has racial subtext.
A non-racist who has been exposed to the supposed problem with saying 'blacklist' will correctly separate their misconception with the truth, and reject the supposed racial subtext.
- qppo 6y agoYou betray your point a bit by using a misspelled word (the earthworks are spelled "dike," it's a homophone of the slur). Part of the reason that there is a backlash against usage of language that comes off as bigoted is because the people that use it don't realize that. Like for example, failure to realize that a slur and some earthworks are not the same word.
- prohobo 6y agoIt's spelled dyke as well as dike in modern english. In any case, it's an example, not the main point. There are other words which trigger interesting misconceptions due to how parts of them are commonly used culturally. Like 'homosapien', 'Uranus', 'retard' (move backwards, sometimes seen on buses and trucks), 'period', etc.
- jhardy54 6y agoNo. The term 'blacklist' deprecated because it contains the color 'black', it's deprecated because it uses 'black' to mean 'not allowed'. This really shouldn't be so controversial, just use words that accurately describe what you mean.
- prohobo 6y agoThat's a very disingenuous claim, since this is obviously political, not about clarity. Or, do you mean it's being changed because of the use of "black" specifically? In which case that's not being questioned here, we're talking about why they see "black" as a specifically racial color.
- jhardy54 6y ago> In which case that's not being questioned here, we're talking about why they see "black" as a specifically racial color. You can't think of why that might be?