Idiocy would be an anecdote my father told me in the mid-90s about his workplace trying to implement the same spirit with a naïve global search-and-replace, leading very quickly to a company-wide invitation to an “African-American tie dinner”.
Its a decision I tend to respect (would actually never though of this myself). I don't think it patronizes the users in contrast to the decision like mentioned in the OP. Awareness of language is not all bad as it will influence us subconsciously. We seemingly did not need the term much in the 80s with the ending of the cold war, so IMHO it is not a huge loss: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=whitelist&year...
Without mentioning other connotations, IMHO the rise of computers have in places supported discriminating (ie. 0 vs 1) culture, because that is simply what computers can do best. If just renaming terms changes changes this can in fact be doubted.
I am actually not so happy about the consequences of hiding URLs to people. This will also change how we will perceive the Internet but IMHO not for the good. And here the motivations are not as clearly communicated here. It might actually hide some of the beautiful heterogenity and complexity of the Internet to the average user also with unforeseeable consequences.
I'm not against the effort just because "block-list" and "allow-list" are more speaking and self-evident in their meaning. Insinuating that "black-list" and "white-list" are somehow racially charged terms is the idiotic part.
Changing from blacklist and whitelist to blocklist and allowlist is one of the many small things we can do that makes our black colleagues feel seen, heard, and welcome in our workplaces. I support it. No one thinks changing language is enough to eliminate the systemic racism oppressing black people in the US. Eliminating that will require work and personal change. If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead. I personally refuse to work for any company that is not committing to that work.
Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?
Would they be also offended by the color black? Or maybe dark mode, that is getting popular?
Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme?
This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently - people create problems where there are none.
What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
There is a qualitative difference between your examples and “blacklist”. Dark mode is about color. The color black is a color. Light mode is a color’s brightness. A widely used white background is a color. I don’t think any reasonable person objects to using terms about color to refer to colors. Black objects are black, red objects are red, etc.
But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.
None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.
Black is also not a color, but the light not being reflected or emitted or let through. Hence the blacklist, it doesn't need to have judgement or historically loaded meaning.
I think there is an insidiousness to our language that can help to stabilise social discrimination, and most of us (white/black, male/female) are unaware of it.
Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.
Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:
n.
also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]
"It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas."
> Or maybe dark mode
Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.
> Why would anyone be offended
You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.
> This is getting ridiculous
I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.
> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.
It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history, having to do political assassination and conspiracy. Amongst a bunch of very Caucasian parties.
The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.
There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.
In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.
> It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history,
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics.
Both of these are an oversimplification that leaves out other context and other history.
The first recorded use of the term "blacklist" occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.
> To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive.
That is a strawman. No one is suggesting to eliminate all historical uses of darkness meaning bad. What we are talking about is very specific: words that are very commonly used in a modern work setting, and that have clearer alternatives.
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental.
It far too convenient that "black" continued to mean evil in the midst of widespread dehumanization and slavery for it to be purely accidental.
Consider also that the Latin word "niger" had many of the same figurative senses ("gloomy; unlucky; bad, wicked, malicious"). Another accident?
But if it were accidental - and I think that would be near impossible to prove - many microagressions are accidental.
> we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere
That's another strawman. Where was that assumption made? Besides the fact that much of modern Western history is racist.
Racism against black people in the US has survived for well over 200 years. Thanks much in part to lack of intention. Clearly, it's not enough to have absence of bad intentions. We tried that, and it is not working.
I would appreciate citations for your claims about racial origins for the term. Wikipedia does not mention any such thing in either the article for blacklisting nor in the disambiguation for the word blacklist.
There is also this quora answer from an apparent Yale linguist specifically saying blacklist does not have racial origins, mentioning other phrases like "black sheep" that are only racial in inference, not especially in implication.
I also disagree that microaggression can be accidental, though I do think reflexive actions can betray racial attitudes. But that lies typically in instinctive actions like purse-clutching, not in formation of artistic or other creative devices like Stevenson's black spot, Tolkein's Black Gate, or the various incarnations of "black swan".
To reiterate, I am actually fine getting rid of the term blacklist given it's very negative history, but it's a stretch, and counterproductive, to racialize the term. That sort of overreach plays into the hands of people like Trump, who are not afraid of portraying these movements as unhinged.
“In the black” is a positive business term signifying profitability, as opposed to “in the red.” Is this just words, or words to hurt Native Americans? Side note, if we all change from blacklist to blocklist and such, I don’t mind and it likely is a better term. I just want to point out that black != bad.
If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead.
I'll also add the problem is not imaginary. Microagressions are a well documented and well studied category of racism. You can find many studies with supporting evidence. While you might choose to critique the scientific rigour of existing studies, you would have to do that with your own counter evidence, and not with a dismissive "it's imaginary". You could start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161982749...
The white:black :: good:evil dichotomy has been open to criticism since one group of people labeled themselves white and another group of people black. That was when the colors became politicized.
You’ll have to think and decide for yourself whether this is idiocy. I, for one, do not. The master/slave thing is stupid. The master branch in git is idiotic. Whitelist and blacklist, I can do without.
Yeah I think the master for git comes from mastering/master-image/master-tape which comes from the master = main/leading definition which doesn't necessarily imply a connection to master/slave. The black/white list seems to be more out of a day/light/dawn = good/pure/safe and night/dark/dusk = bad/corrupt/dangerous theme common to many cultures.
Either way though, can't really go wrong with more descriptive/functional names.
Idiocy would be an anecdote my father told me in the mid-90s about his workplace trying to implement the same spirit with a naïve global search-and-replace, leading very quickly to a company-wide invitation to an “African-American tie dinner”.
But even that isn’t anti-accessibility.