[ogogmad]

1. By this logic, we should abandon most words in the English language, because non-native speakers might otherwise need to learn them. Somehow though, you've applied this logic only to the word "blacklist". And why should a language with its own literature and history abandon its own vocabulary?

2. The usual reason given for not saying "blacklist" is because of supposed racism. Your argument is a new one, and seems to have been produced post-facto. Your comment is sophistry.

[edit] Removed some scathing remarks.

[rbanffy]

Even if the readability argument was created after the fact, it still stands. It’s immediately clear what an “allow-list” means.

[ogogmad]

By that logic, we'll have to give up most words in English. This is entitled to the extreme. You have been arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

[rbanffy]

Not really. English remains the most spoken language in our circles and it's immensely helpful because of that. What we can all do is to look for better names. Master/slave can be replaced by primary/replica, publisher/subscriber and a lot of others that offer narrower meanings and, therefore, are better names.

[major--neither]

do you seriously not understand what you're doing?

[HumanReadable]

The comment asked for things wrong with the word blacklist. I replied with a reason.

I'm not arguing for the removal of the word, I don't know why you think I am.

[major--neither]

> [edit] Removed some scathing remarks.

you mean you white-washed some remarks?

aha!

;)