You may very well may be right that terms "allowlist" and "blocklist" are objectively clearer. I'm in favor of the idea of changing language to make things clea

You may very well may be right that terms "allowlist" and "blocklist" are objectively clearer. I'm in favor of the idea of changing language to make things clearer and more effective. But the contention I have is that these changes aren't motivated for the pursuit of clarity. They are motivated by a need for cleansing. "whitelist" and "blacklist" are innocuous terms. They have been around for ages. Used and understood with no controversy by our most prestigious institutions from around the world. Then suddenly, within a matter of two years, the term is high-jacked by upper echelon members of our society. The words are re-defined to take on a new meaning and a new interpretation. Virtually every one of us who used this term are now deemed bad. Oppressors. On the wrong side of history. Racists. Now deemed a fireable offense. No room for debate and discussion. It is for these reasons that I push back. The motivation behind this change is wrong and has the potential to be all consuming of our language and culture, deeming innocuous terms as oppressive when they are not.