[huffmsa]

Because the origins.of the term isn't racially based. You're seeing race and color where there isn't any.

> The state papers of Charles II say "If any innocent soul be found in this black list, let him not be offended at me, but consider whether some mistaken principle or interest may not have misled him to vote".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting

[sebazzz]

I think there really isn't a good answer. One "side" argues that the original intention doesn't matter, and the current intent of the word doesn't matter and therefore should be changed. The other "side" argues that it shouldn't be changed for exactly the same reason.

But it keeps us busy :-)

[acdha]

Yes, it’s an old usage just as niggardly or denigrate predate a word they’re often assumed to be derived from. The point is that people have to think about that in a context where they otherwise wouldn’t, and it costs so very little to avoid that.

Many projects have replaced these terms with more accurate ones in the past and it’s a very minor shift. It took very little time to do and years later, only aggrieved right-wing activists are still talking about it. Everyone else is just using software without the distraction of wondering about the origins of the terms they’re using.

[Dylan16807]

No, it's not like niggardly. Blacklist is a common word and 'black' does not resemble any offensive words.

[acdha]

We’re talking about black being used in a negative connotation, with no connection to color. I mentioned it only as another example where the origin of the term is harmless but there is still a good reason why you might want to avoid using a particular word.