[a1369209993]

> > It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist.

> it is not just not intentionally racist -- there is no way any normal person would construe the term 'blacklist' as racist. it is as logically coherent as banning 'black pudding' for racism. it is purely an arbitrary exercise in power, making others submit to show them that they must.

Exactly this. Addressing one issue does not trivialise everything else. 'Addressing' something that isn't actually one of the issues at all[0] trivialises everything else.

0: And there are plenty of actual issues to pick from!

Edit: HN seems to be bugging out, so reattaching reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26219976 here. Edit again: Parent seems to be back at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26220021 - id change on edit? shrug.

[sago]

> 'blacklist'.. is as logically coherent ... 'black pudding'

Really? Regardless of what you think about racism, I don't want to be funny isn't it obvious that one is a metaphor and one isn't?

This is not a racism question, but would you think 'Concrete' in 'ConcreteList' is functionally the same as in 'Concrete road'?

I can't imagine how a blacklist is the colour black. Blood sausage is. Except the Irish version I know. Which is called white pudding.

[a1369209993]

They said banning one was "as logically coherent as" banning the other, not that one was functionally the same as the other. (But since we're on this tangent, the only black pudding I've encountered was (admittedly dark) red, not black. Also revolting, but supposedly that's normal?)