[bitwise-bouncer]

The move to more neutral language isn't about policing speech. It's about being aware of potential unintentional biases our words may carry and promoting a comfortable, inclusive environment. It's a dialogue, not a mandate

[AmericanChopper]

> My attempt to police your speech wasn’t about policing speech. It was about about creating a dialogue, and making sure you know that you are racist if you don’t agree with me, not mandating that you agree with me.

Haha, ok buddy.

If you want to be more inclusive, perhaps you could go to the effort of understanding the vocabulary of my trade and the meaning of those words, rather than try to prevent me from using them. Because I’m feeling very excluded by you right now. Do you care about the lived experience I’m having right now? If not, why?

[bitwise-bouncer]

This isn't about policing or labeling anyone. It's about opening a dialogue for potentially more inclusive terms in our field. No intention to make you feel excluded, only to make room for discussion.

[AmericanChopper]

This comment is really the height of gaslighting. These D&I topics have never been an open dialogue, and it’s never been the intention for them to be. Nobody who objects to a D&I project feels as though their input is welcome, and those who are fool enough to voice their objections invariably suffer the consequences for it. These “open dialogues” are about proposing a change, with the implication (or by just explicitly stating) that any objection to the change is racist/sexist/whatever… and would victimise minorities.

The term whitelist is a legitimate piece of technical jargon, and has no racist origin. That is the end of any reasonable discussion on this topic. If you wish to litigate that point any further, that only direction that could possibly take is into wildly unreasonable territory. Renaming anything that people may feel is associated with other problematic concepts has no finish line. There’s an infinite quantity of problems you could invent using this approach, and all of them would be completely equal in their unreasonableness. The only way you could potentially limit this scope is to elevate the unreasonable feelings of one group over the unreasonable feelings of all other groups. Which is an exclusionary practice, and goes to show how subversive the use of language like “inclusion” is here.

[bitwise-bouncer]

Ultimately, the immediate material impact of using term A or term B within a corporate environment is a piddling

While the direct impact of changing a term might seem insignificant, it's about mutual respect and understanding. This isn't language policing, but sparking awareness. Your feelings are valid, your input is welcome. Let's keep talking, even amidst disagreements. Progress lives in dialogue, not silence.