3 ms·

I think they're trying to change language to disassociate "black" with negative meaning. Which is going to be very hard, because the reason for the association

I think they're trying to change language to disassociate "black" with negative meaning. Which is going to be very hard, because the reason for the association is from black being the unknown. It's the night that hides the predators. It's the shadow where the enemy hides. It's where you don't want to put your foot in case there are spiders or a sharp rock. Humans are afraid of the dark. I've not even heard of being afraid of the light. Death and darkness. I'd like a historian to confirm, but I'd be very surprised if this type of language didn't exist in most places, including before ever seeing a darker skinned person. But this effort is doomed to fail. You can be afraid of the dark at night and that is not a predictor at all of racism. Indeed, do people with darker skin not get afraid of the dark?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quenix 5y ago
This makes sense to me. Why is it downvoted?
- lxgr 5y ago
  Probably because that's not the only possible interpretation of the issue. I agree that in some instances, white seems to be primarily used as a synonym for bright/light, and black as one for darkness, shadow etc., such as in the case of white and black box testing. However, other cases, such as "whitelist" and "blacklist", seem more nefarious at least in some cultures: A list of names, one of people to grant access to some service or facility, the other to be denied... And as somebody else has already noted, for somebody without that cultural background, it might not even make any sense, unlike the much more self-describing alternatives "allowlist" and "denylist". If there is an alternative available that is both more straightforward and that has less negative connotations – why not advocate for its use, and assume that those that do so do it out of good intentions (while at the same time not assuming that people using the other terms do so out of a desire to cause harm)? The main problem seems to be that, as in many such cases, a nuanced discussion of the topic does not fit into a tweet or news headline, nor a Slackbot autoresponse, and least of all into a grammar checker.
bloak 5y ago
Yes, I think that's right: black is logically linked with darkness, and human beings, like other diurnal lifeforms, don't like the dark. The association is found throughout literature, from the biblical outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the Black/Dark Riders in The Lord of the Rings, via traditional fairy tales in which a beautiful but evil sister is described as fair/white of face but black of heart.
ask_b123 5y ago
On the mention of being afraid of the light I thought that something like that was probably mentioned in the Bible, and sure enough: https://biblehub.com/john/3-19.htm https://biblehub.com/john/3-19.htm > The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed… Another thing; even though this effort might be doomed to fail, do you think there are good reasons to attempt to change language in such a way? In general, I tend to be against changing language, but I'm open to being convinced that a certain effort might be worthwhile. I'm also somewhat pessimistic due to thinking that some other changes I've seen might be inevitable in the long run (seeing how these changes are being used by people my age, I hope it is just fashion - oh and I'm not talking here about changes to the English language).
- knorker 5y ago
  > Another thing; even though this effort might be doomed to fail, do you think there are good reasons to attempt to change language in such a way? I'm not categorically against it. I'm not in the right country to properly judge "master/slave". Those words have no association with people to me. But I don't care about "master/slave". Though I can't find it now, I remember encountering cases where actually "blocklist" was a less descriptive term, even misleading. I think it's great even though "crewed" is a terrible word, I can't think of a better one, and it's good to change away from "manned". I'm perfectly willing to surrender the word "niggardly". So it depends. Banning words like "ninja", "dojo", "white glove treatment", "blind"... like... really? What I think is doomed to fail is banning any language that involves color. I'd say some words are in a "grey area", but I've seen people wanting to ban that term. Mandating language like this is double plus ungood.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quenix 5y ago

This makes sense to me. Why is it downvoted?

lxgr 5y ago
Probably because that's not the only possible interpretation of the issue. I agree that in some instances, white seems to be primarily used as a synonym for bright/light, and black as one for darkness, shadow etc., such as in the case of white and black box testing. However, other cases, such as "whitelist" and "blacklist", seem more nefarious at least in some cultures: A list of names, one of people to grant access to some service or facility, the other to be denied... And as somebody else has already noted, for somebody without that cultural background, it might not even make any sense, unlike the much more self-describing alternatives "allowlist" and "denylist". If there is an alternative available that is both more straightforward and that has less negative connotations – why not advocate for its use, and assume that those that do so do it out of good intentions (while at the same time not assuming that people using the other terms do so out of a desire to cause harm)? The main problem seems to be that, as in many such cases, a nuanced discussion of the topic does not fit into a tweet or news headline, nor a Slackbot autoresponse, and least of all into a grammar checker.

bloak 5y ago

Yes, I think that's right: black is logically linked with darkness, and human beings, like other diurnal lifeforms, don't like the dark. The association is found throughout literature, from the biblical outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the Black/Dark Riders in The Lord of the Rings, via traditional fairy tales in which a beautiful but evil sister is described as fair/white of face but black of heart.

ask_b123 5y ago

On the mention of being afraid of the light I thought that something like that was probably mentioned in the Bible, and sure enough: https://biblehub.com/john/3-19.htm https://biblehub.com/john/3-19.htm > The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed… Another thing; even though this effort might be doomed to fail, do you think there are good reasons to attempt to change language in such a way? In general, I tend to be against changing language, but I'm open to being convinced that a certain effort might be worthwhile. I'm also somewhat pessimistic due to thinking that some other changes I've seen might be inevitable in the long run (seeing how these changes are being used by people my age, I hope it is just fashion - oh and I'm not talking here about changes to the English language).

knorker 5y ago
> Another thing; even though this effort might be doomed to fail, do you think there are good reasons to attempt to change language in such a way? I'm not categorically against it. I'm not in the right country to properly judge "master/slave". Those words have no association with people to me. But I don't care about "master/slave". Though I can't find it now, I remember encountering cases where actually "blocklist" was a less descriptive term, even misleading. I think it's great even though "crewed" is a terrible word, I can't think of a better one, and it's good to change away from "manned". I'm perfectly willing to surrender the word "niggardly". So it depends. Banning words like "ninja", "dojo", "white glove treatment", "blind"... like... really? What I think is doomed to fail is banning any language that involves color. I'd say some words are in a "grey area", but I've seen people wanting to ban that term. Mandating language like this is double plus ungood.