6 ms·

> "Allow list" is frankly a much more descriptive and easy to understand term than "white list". Only if you're pretending we were all learned English yesterda

> "Allow list" is frankly a much more descriptive and easy to understand term than "white list". Only if you're pretending we were all learned English yesterday. "White list" is an older more established term, and that familiarity makes it easier to understand. Self-describing terms don't aid communication if they're replacing old terms that everybody already understood anyway. An example, "submarine" and "undersea boat". The latter is self-describing, while the former is vague. A submarine.. what? 'Submarine' alone seems to be an adjective that means 'under the ocean'. But what is under the ocean? A submarine cable? A submarine crab? "Undersea boat" is self-describing; what is underwater? A boat. So is "undersea boat" a better term? It self-describes well enough that English speakers with no knowledge of German should be able to figure out what it means easily. But does that mean it's actually a better term? No, in the context of English it isn't a better term, because everybody already knows what a 'submarine' is so this term's failure to self-describe is irrelevant. Already knowing what a word means is always easier than being able to puzzle out what a word means by seeing that it describes itself. Most words don't self-describe anyway, and even when they do, the words they self-describe with aren't self-describing themselves. What is a 'list' anyway? That doesn't self-describe. Should we replace it with "ordered-collection-of-things"? None of those words self-describe either! The adoption of this word isn't really about self-description, self-describing words just isn't something we [english speakers] prioritize. It's political activism based on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

regularfry 4y ago
> Only if you're pretending we were all learned English yesterday. "White" here is metaphorical. "Allow" is literal. That makes "allow" the easier-to-understand term for those who are learning. Because, yes, English is something that needs to be learned. Not "everybody" already understands everything, unless your definition of "everybody" discounts a whole lot of humans for some reason. > "White list" is an older more established term, and that familiarity makes it easier to understand. Only if you already understand it, which is entirely self-referential. > self-describing words just isn't something we [english speakers] prioritize I'm going to assume here you mean the difference between metaphors and literals, because otherwise nothing makes sense. And it depends on the audience. If it's technical docs, I sure hope whoever's writing them takes a suitably informed view as to the comprehension level of their readers, because that's the damn job. > political activism "We should not make things easier for non-native speakers who don't already have all the implied context of the English language down pat" sounds a lot like a political position to me.
- robonerd 4y ago
  The term "allowlist" isn't motivated by some apolitical desire for literal self-describing terminology. It's political activism; you want to effect change in society by changing language. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it. Pretending otherwise is tantamount to gaslighting. Nobody is agitating for 'string' to be replaced with 'character sequence'. It would be more descriptive, more literal, easier to understand than 'string' which usually means something completely different and not obviously related to character sequences at all. But nobody submitting passive aggressive drive-by PRs to public repos demanding that the word 'string' be stricken because isn't literal or self describing. Because nobody really cares about words being literal and self describing, that's a transparent post-hoc justification for what is fundamentally political activism.
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
    Ok, I'll try again with a less cynical and more engaged response. > Nobody cares about words being literal and self describing I care about literal and self describing language, and I believe you are falling prey to the fundamental attribution error -- you believe there is a group of folks driving some agenda. I look at the suggestion no matter where it comes from and say, "oh hey, yeah, I think that is a good suggestion". It's not some grand conspiracy to "post hoc justify political activism". Someone just suggested a thing and many of us said, "oh yeah, that makes sense and is easy to change."
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      Why cherry-pick whitelist and not re-invent English? Do you agree underwater-boat should replace "submarine"?
      - carbadtraingood 4y ago
notahacker 4y ago
Is opposing it political activism based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Yes. But then, political activism is about the only reason against replacing "whitelist", which unlike "submarine" is neither a technical term, nor common parlance, with the more explicit "allowlist". It's an obscure, relatively modern coinage as an antonym to the word "blacklist" which for most of its existence referred almost exclusively to people and was considered a judgement on their character. I've had to explain to native English speakers what a "whitelist" is intended to do before, never mind the majority of people using internet services who don't speak English as a first language. I suspect they'd have got "allowlist"... I suspect that in a world where there actually was an issue with people getting upset by casual use of the word "submarine" we probably wouldn't have that much issue getting our heads around "undersea boat" (and that's despite "submarine" being a more universal word and the English language concept of a "boat" being pretty strongly wedded to the idea of small, probably open-topped vessels which sit on top of the water). Of course blacklist/whitelist has no etymological connection with race, but it also has no etymological connection or near-universally understood association with infosec or user preferences
- robonerd 4y ago
  If carbadtraingood was upfront about wanting the change as political activism, I wouldn't have responded to him. I don't think it will ever be an effective way at combating racism, but at least such a position is honest, upfront and respectful to others in the conversation. I have a lot more respect for people who admit they want to ban 'blacklist/whitelist' to effect social change than I do for the people who pretend they want the words stricken for for wholly apolitical reasons; that's simply cowardly and insulting.
  - carbadtraingood 4y ago
    I don't know what to tell you, you seem convinced I'm lying on an anonymous web forum. My responses have netted me like 3 karma, so clearly it earns me no clout to hold this opinion. There's no incentive for me to lie here. Me: My opinion is A You: No, your opinion is B, and you are cowardly and insulting. Me: Genuinely, my opinion is A You: You are pretending. No one believes opinion A. I'm not sure what's so challenging here. Either I'm not aware of my own opinions or your worldview needs to be updated. I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like to understand the curious specimen I am better. Just, maybe can we do that with fewer insults?

regularfry 4y ago

> Only if you're pretending we were all learned English yesterday. "White" here is metaphorical. "Allow" is literal. That makes "allow" the easier-to-understand term for those who are learning. Because, yes, English is something that needs to be learned. Not "everybody" already understands everything, unless your definition of "everybody" discounts a whole lot of humans for some reason. > "White list" is an older more established term, and that familiarity makes it easier to understand. Only if you already understand it, which is entirely self-referential. > self-describing words just isn't something we [english speakers] prioritize I'm going to assume here you mean the difference between metaphors and literals, because otherwise nothing makes sense. And it depends on the audience. If it's technical docs, I sure hope whoever's writing them takes a suitably informed view as to the comprehension level of their readers, because that's the damn job. > political activism "We should not make things easier for non-native speakers who don't already have all the implied context of the English language down pat" sounds a lot like a political position to me.

robonerd 4y ago
The term "allowlist" isn't motivated by some apolitical desire for literal self-describing terminology. It's political activism; you want to effect change in society by changing language. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it. Pretending otherwise is tantamount to gaslighting. Nobody is agitating for 'string' to be replaced with 'character sequence'. It would be more descriptive, more literal, easier to understand than 'string' which usually means something completely different and not obviously related to character sequences at all. But nobody submitting passive aggressive drive-by PRs to public repos demanding that the word 'string' be stricken because isn't literal or self describing. Because nobody really cares about words being literal and self describing, that's a transparent post-hoc justification for what is fundamentally political activism.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  Ok, I'll try again with a less cynical and more engaged response. > Nobody cares about words being literal and self describing I care about literal and self describing language, and I believe you are falling prey to the fundamental attribution error -- you believe there is a group of folks driving some agenda. I look at the suggestion no matter where it comes from and say, "oh hey, yeah, I think that is a good suggestion". It's not some grand conspiracy to "post hoc justify political activism". Someone just suggested a thing and many of us said, "oh yeah, that makes sense and is easy to change."
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    Why cherry-pick whitelist and not re-invent English? Do you agree underwater-boat should replace "submarine"?
    - carbadtraingood 4y ago

notahacker 4y ago

Is opposing it political activism based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Yes. But then, political activism is about the only reason against replacing "whitelist", which unlike "submarine" is neither a technical term, nor common parlance, with the more explicit "allowlist". It's an obscure, relatively modern coinage as an antonym to the word "blacklist" which for most of its existence referred almost exclusively to people and was considered a judgement on their character. I've had to explain to native English speakers what a "whitelist" is intended to do before, never mind the majority of people using internet services who don't speak English as a first language. I suspect they'd have got "allowlist"... I suspect that in a world where there actually was an issue with people getting upset by casual use of the word "submarine" we probably wouldn't have that much issue getting our heads around "undersea boat" (and that's despite "submarine" being a more universal word and the English language concept of a "boat" being pretty strongly wedded to the idea of small, probably open-topped vessels which sit on top of the water). Of course blacklist/whitelist has no etymological connection with race, but it also has no etymological connection or near-universally understood association with infosec or user preferences

robonerd 4y ago
If carbadtraingood was upfront about wanting the change as political activism, I wouldn't have responded to him. I don't think it will ever be an effective way at combating racism, but at least such a position is honest, upfront and respectful to others in the conversation. I have a lot more respect for people who admit they want to ban 'blacklist/whitelist' to effect social change than I do for the people who pretend they want the words stricken for for wholly apolitical reasons; that's simply cowardly and insulting.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  I don't know what to tell you, you seem convinced I'm lying on an anonymous web forum. My responses have netted me like 3 karma, so clearly it earns me no clout to hold this opinion. There's no incentive for me to lie here. Me: My opinion is A You: No, your opinion is B, and you are cowardly and insulting. Me: Genuinely, my opinion is A You: You are pretending. No one believes opinion A. I'm not sure what's so challenging here. Either I'm not aware of my own opinions or your worldview needs to be updated. I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like to understand the curious specimen I am better. Just, maybe can we do that with fewer insults?