[tchaffee]

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.

[krzyk]

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.

[amluto]

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.

[krzyk]

But it wouldn't ever cross my mind that black list is in any way related to people with dark skin color.

I don't know how others feel about it, for me connecting blacklist to those is quite racist.

What would you say about Black Friday?

Or white Christmas?

[zzzcpan]

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.

[amluto]

I don’t see your point. Blue is not a color. It’s just a failure of red or green light to be let through.

[dm319]

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.

[tchaffee]

> Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?

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.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

[2] https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/2018%20Conference/APPIC%2020...

[humanrebar]

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.

[tchaffee]

> 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.

[humanrebar]

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.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-blacklist-racist

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.

[sethammons]

“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.

[nkrisc]

There are lots of real problems out there, but this is an imaginary one.

[tchaffee]

Already addressed in my original comment:

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...