3 ms·
Serious answer: this is still very much in flux. We're not at the point where you'd get audible gasps from using these terms, but in certain audiences you'll ge
by alexwebb2 6y ago
Serious answer: this is still very much in flux. We're not at the point where you'd get audible gasps from using these terms, but in certain audiences you'll get some raised eyebrows.
If you believe that having "black=bad, white=good" connotations built into our jargon is harmful in some way, then yes, you should strive to use alternate terms.
If you don't think that's harmful, and you're forceful in defending "black=bad, white=good" as being too established and too inconvenient to change, that's when you're likely to get pushback.
Personally I've been trying to use "deny-list" and "allow-list" (with partial success – changing your jargon is hard). They feel a bit clunky, but I suspect that clunkiness will fade with time.
- DavidHilbert 6y agoits not blacklist and whitelist because "black=bad, white=good", black is the abscense of light, hence the light is blocked, white would obviously be the opposite. So its black because you are blocking things, and white because you aren't.
- ta3eea8bd 6y agoIt was never about this. The meta-game is to mess with people and teach them compliance and self-censorship and hyper-attention to anything even remotely related to race. Race must be always the 1st thing you think of. Don't forget race.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago“Blacklist” and “whitelist” are confusing terms. Why does “black” mean “no”? There are plenty of reasons to use better terms in new projects other than “they upset people” – though that should be a good enough reason on its own.