3 ms·
1. By this logic, we should abandon most words in the English language, because non-native speakers might otherwise need to learn them. Somehow though, you've a
by ogogmad 5y ago
1. By this logic, we should abandon most words in the English language, because non-native speakers might otherwise need to learn them. Somehow though, you've applied this logic only to the word "blacklist". And why should a language with its own literature and history abandon its own vocabulary?
2. The usual reason given for not saying "blacklist" is because of supposed racism. Your argument is a new one, and seems to have been produced post-facto. Your comment is sophistry.
[edit] Removed some scathing remarks.
- rbanffy 5y agoEven if the readability argument was created after the fact, it still stands. It’s immediately clear what an “allow-list” means.
- ogogmad 5y agoBy that logic, we'll have to give up most words in English. This is entitled to the extreme. You have been arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
- rbanffy 5y agoNot really. English remains the most spoken language in our circles and it's immensely helpful because of that. What we can all do is to look for better names. Master/slave can be replaced by primary/replica, publisher/subscriber and a lot of others that offer narrower meanings and, therefore, are better names.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- major--neither 5y agodo you seriously not understand what you're doing?
- HumanReadable 5y agoThe comment asked for things wrong with the word blacklist. I replied with a reason. I'm not arguing for the removal of the word, I don't know why you think I am.
- major--neither 5y ago> [edit] Removed some scathing remarks. you mean you white-washed some remarks? aha! ;)