3 ms·

I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect. Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain abou

I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect. Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop? I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor

zipliner 1y ago
> would eventually That's an empirical premise in a slippery slope style argument. Any evidence to back it up? Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? I don't see it. > no need to self-censor The terms allow/deny are more directly descriptive and less contested which I see as a clear win-win change, so I've shifted to use those terms. No biggie and I don't feel self-censored by doing so.
- anonfordays 1y ago
  >Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? I am. As a BIPOC, we've been denied rights since the founding of the US. When I read "denylist," I can see my ancestors there, on a list to be denied the right to vote. It's not inclusive to use words like "deny" in the capacity of denying access to things.