4 ms·

I have never argued that we have used the term whiteliste or blacklist for a long time. What I am arguing against is that the author of the comment suggests in

I have never argued that we have used the term whiteliste or blacklist for a long time. What I am arguing against is that the author of the comment suggests in a passive aggressive way that the above commenter using the term whitelist is somewhat backwoodish while the majority of society ('we') has progressed to a preferable wording. This is simply not true and it is offensive. Completely independant from the discourse whether the proposed change of wording makes sense or is of any benefit I refuse to stand by when self-righteous people try to over generalise and try to force their point of view onto 'us'. Language does not change by dictating the change or by forcing it onto others by derogating them, as has happened in this example ('we use the better word, you are so backwards'). Language is a convention that gradually changes through a process called speaking. If you prefer the terms banlist and allowlist, then by all means use it. It might also be ok to simply state in a polite and unoffensive manner that oneself would prefer these terms. If I hear these terms often enough there is a good chance I'll pick it up. I have zero stake in keeping the terms whitelist or blacklist over the proposed terms banlist and allowlist. All the same to me. It is simply not ok to offend someone with the intention of enforcing non offensive language to them.

cthalupa 6y ago
I'm not a huge fan of the way it was stated - my response shows how I tend to frame the discussion - but at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language. While I would not say someone using blacklist or whitelist today is the same as someone using a racial slur, it took people actively admonishing others for using racial slurs to push them further and further out of common use. I think it is totally fair to say that using them is backwards, and that we should progress to using terms that don't place negative connotations around words that are the color of peoples' skin. I wouldn't say that someone doing something that is backwards makes them as an individual backwards, however - I've got plenty of habits that are backwards. I try to rectify them - sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I don't feel personally attacked by someone commenting on those things when they happen, however, and instead take it as further reinforcement that there's always room for personal growth.
- jsilence 6y ago
  Quickly looking up the origin of the term blacklist on wikipedia reveals that there is no historic connotation to race or color of skin in this word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te...). Black and white are just colors. These words in themselves have no implicit judgemental meaning. So by publicly arguing that the term blacklist carries a racial negative connotation one would impose this view onto the one who is using the word blcklist. This is similar to using the term 'the n-word': By saying this one is making me thinking the word 'nigger' in my head. So while the other one is not saying it, it is projected into my head, making me the bad guy. This is nefarious. I am totally with you with the intention of becoming a better person. Same here. I am ok with people stating that they are personally offended by something I have said. I'll think about it and probably apologize and reconsider my language. I am not ok for someone from an outside group correcting my language and taking the offense for someone else. This person has no say in this. On top of this I think that there is no right not to be offended. That we as societies should not strive for a language that is totally non-offensive to anyone. a) It i not possible because there is no end to it. It is easy to construct yet another sub division of a group that can take offense in lmost anything. b) because beeing offended is the starting point for societal discourse and negotiations. The discourse itself should be performed respectfully, and this is essential: While my opinion might be offensive to you, we should both have enough mutual respect and interest in each other to sort it out and come to terms.
- exolymph 6y ago
  > at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language. Well, part of that game is people getting pissed off that you want to police their word choices. Don't be surprised that some of us will become more offensive in response to attempts at sanitizing control. You'd have to be a retard to disregard that factor ;P
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  > at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language You don't! That's the key insight of multiculturalism - it's totally okay that others don't think or act or speak the same way you do, and there's no need for you to impose your own cultural norms on them. The only alternative to multiculturalism is monoculturalism, where everyone struggles to make their culture dominant and we have to meekly follow whoever wins the struggle.

cthalupa 6y ago

I'm not a huge fan of the way it was stated - my response shows how I tend to frame the discussion - but at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language. While I would not say someone using blacklist or whitelist today is the same as someone using a racial slur, it took people actively admonishing others for using racial slurs to push them further and further out of common use. I think it is totally fair to say that using them is backwards, and that we should progress to using terms that don't place negative connotations around words that are the color of peoples' skin. I wouldn't say that someone doing something that is backwards makes them as an individual backwards, however - I've got plenty of habits that are backwards. I try to rectify them - sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I don't feel personally attacked by someone commenting on those things when they happen, however, and instead take it as further reinforcement that there's always room for personal growth.

jsilence 6y ago
Quickly looking up the origin of the term blacklist on wikipedia reveals that there is no historic connotation to race or color of skin in this word (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te...). Black and white are just colors. These words in themselves have no implicit judgemental meaning. So by publicly arguing that the term blacklist carries a racial negative connotation one would impose this view onto the one who is using the word blcklist. This is similar to using the term 'the n-word': By saying this one is making me thinking the word 'nigger' in my head. So while the other one is not saying it, it is projected into my head, making me the bad guy. This is nefarious. I am totally with you with the intention of becoming a better person. Same here. I am ok with people stating that they are personally offended by something I have said. I'll think about it and probably apologize and reconsider my language. I am not ok for someone from an outside group correcting my language and taking the offense for someone else. This person has no say in this. On top of this I think that there is no right not to be offended. That we as societies should not strive for a language that is totally non-offensive to anyone. a) It i not possible because there is no end to it. It is easy to construct yet another sub division of a group that can take offense in lmost anything. b) because beeing offended is the starting point for societal discourse and negotiations. The discourse itself should be performed respectfully, and this is essential: While my opinion might be offensive to you, we should both have enough mutual respect and interest in each other to sort it out and come to terms.
exolymph 6y ago
> at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language. Well, part of that game is people getting pissed off that you want to police their word choices. Don't be surprised that some of us will become more offensive in response to attempts at sanitizing control. You'd have to be a retard to disregard that factor ;P
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
> at a certain point you do have to be an activist about other people's usage of language You don't! That's the key insight of multiculturalism - it's totally okay that others don't think or act or speak the same way you do, and there's no need for you to impose your own cultural norms on them. The only alternative to multiculturalism is monoculturalism, where everyone struggles to make their culture dominant and we have to meekly follow whoever wins the struggle.