One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.
replies(9):
What's the bigoted history of those terms?
from here[0]:
"The English dramatist Philip Massinger used the phrase "black list" in his 1639 tragedy The Unnatural Combat.[2]
"After the restoration of the English monarchy brought Charles II of England to the throne in 1660, a list of regicides named those to be punished for the execution of his father.[3] 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".[4] In a 1676 history of the events leading up to the Restoration, James Heath (a supporter of Charles II) alleged that Parliament had passed an Act requiring the sale of estates, "And into this black list the Earl of Derby was now put, and other unfortunate Royalists".[5]"
Are you an enemy of Charles II? Is that what the problem is?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te...
Leaving aside any other reasons, they're just better names.
I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.
That's why I posted that. I'd also point out that in my lifetime, folks with darker skin called themselves black and proudly so. As Mr. Brown[0][1] will unambiguously tell you. Regardless, claiming that a term for the property of absorbing visible light is bigoted, to every use of such a term is ridiculous on its face.
By your logic, if I wear black socks, I'm a bigot? Or am only a bigot if I actually refer to those socks as "black." Should I use "socks of color" so as not to be a bigot?
If I like that little black dress, I'm a bigot as well? Or only if I say "I like that little black dress?"
Look. I get it. Melanin content is worthless as a determinant of the value of a human. And anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely and sadly mistaken.
It's important to let folks know that there's only one race of sentient primates on this planet -- Homo Sapiens. What's more, we are all, no matter where we come from, incredibly closely related from a genetic standpoint.
The history of bigotry, murder and enslavement by and to our fellow humans is long, brutal and disgusting.
But nitpicking terms (like black list) that never had anything to do with that bigotry seems performative at best. As I mentioned above, do you also make such complaints about black socks or shoes? Black dresses? Black foregrounds/backgrounds?
If not, why not? That's not a rhetorical question.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM1_tJ6a2Kw
[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jamesbrown/sayitloudimblacka...
In reply to your argument, the deny list (the actual list, apart from what term we use for it) is necessarily something negatively laden, since the items denied are denied due to the real risks/costs they otherwise impose. So using and embracing the less direct phrase 'black' rather than 'deny' in this case seems unlikely to reduce negative connotations from the phrase 'black'.
My cat has a black tail.
The top of my desk is black.
I have several pairs of black shoes.
Every single computer in my possession has a black case.
My phone and its case are both black.
Black Power![0][1][2]
I will put you on my personal blacklist.
Which I'm sure you won't mind since I'm a huge bigot, right?
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Power-Movement
It really isn’t. It’s a novel term, which implies a functional difference from the common term. Like, I can run around insisting on calling soup food drink because it’s technically more descriptive, that doesn’t mean I’m communicating better.
To the extent we have a bug in our language, it’s probably in describing dark brown skin tones as black. Not a problem with the word black per se. (But again, not a problem really meriting a linguistic overhaul.)
But they're not, so I didn't.
By all means, congratulate yourself for putting this bigoted "culture warrior" in their (obviously) well deserved corner of shame.
I'm not exactly sure how decrying bigotry while pointing out that demanding language unrelated to such bigotry be changed seems performative rather than useful or effective is a "childish culture war provocation."
Perhaps you might ask some folks who actually experience such bigotry how they feel about that. Are there any such folks in your social circle? I'm guessing not, as they'd likely be much more concerned with the actual violence, discrimination and hatred that's being heaped upon them, rather than inane calls for banning technical jargon completely unrelated to that violence and hatred.
It's completely performative and does exactly zero to address the violence and discrimination. Want to help? Demand that police stop assaulting and murdering people of color. Speak out about the completely unjustified hatred and discrimination our fellow humans are subjected to in housing, employment, education, full participation in political life, the criminal "justice" system and a raft of other issues.
But that's too much work for you, right? It's much easier to pay lip service and jump on anyone who doesn't toe the specific lines you set, despite those lines being performative, ineffective and broadly hypocritical.
Want to make a real difference? That's great! Whinging about blacklists vs. denylists in a network routing context isn't going to do that.
Rather it just points at you being a busybody trying to make yourself feel better at the expense of those actively being discriminated against.
And that's why I didn't engage on any reasonable level with you -- because you don't deserve it. For shame!
Or did I miss something important? I am, after all, quite simple minded.
Perhaps you could explain it to me?
Blacklist and whitelist come from black=bad and white=good which if you are black or have empathy is a red flag
Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop?
I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor
That's an empirical premise in a slippery slope style argument. Any evidence to back it up? Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? I don't see it.
> no need to self-censor
The terms allow/deny are more directly descriptive and less contested which I see as a clear win-win change, so I've shifted to use those terms. No biggie and I don't feel self-censored by doing so.
What do the lists do? They allow or deny access, right? Seems allow/deny are fitting descriptive terms for them then. White/black are much more ambiguous prefix terms and and also come with much more semantic baggage. All in all an easy, clarifying change.
In part. A whitelisted party is always allowed access. If you are whitelisted to enter my home, you always have access. This is different from conditionally having access, or having access for a pre-set period of time.
Same for a blacklist. An IP on a blacklist clearly communicates that it should not be casually overridden in a way a ‘deny-access list’ does not.
> White/black are much more ambiguous prefix terms and and also come with much more semantic baggage
That baggage includes the broadly-understood meaning of the word. When someone says to whitelist an IP address, it’s unambiguous. If someone says to add an IP address to an allow access list, that’s longer and less clear. Inventing a personal language can be an effective way to think through a problem. But it isn’t a way to communicate.
Black and white are colours. (Practically.) I am sympathetic to where folks arguing for this come from. But we aren’t going to solve racism by literally removing black and white from our language.
Arguing that allow/deny or allow/block is less descriptive is basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" (and those are the BEST two reasons of all other possibilities)
for those reasons, it's expected that using "black" instead of "deny" will have more support as programmers age and become more reactionary on average, but it doesn't make it any less stupid and racially insensitive
It’s everyone I need to communicate this to already understands what those terms mean.
Also, white and blacklisting isn’t technical jargon. It’s used across industries, by people day to day and in common media. Allow/deny listing would be jargon, because nobody outside a small circle uses it and thus unambiguously understands what it means.
For the same reason, "allow-list" list is not jargon, just like "component" or "extension"
To me there is one issue only: two syllables vs one (not a problem with block vs black for example but a problem with allow vs white) and that's about it.
Of course it is. If I tell someone to allow list a group of people for an event, that requires further explanation. It’s not self explanatory because it’s non-standard.
> just like "component" or "extension"
If you use them the way they are commonly used, yes. If you repurpose them into a neologism, no. (Most non-acronym jargon involves repurposing common words for a specific context. Glass cockpit. Repo. Server.)
Server, cockpit those are jargon. Allow and deny just aren't. Whatever.
Irrelevant since the terms allowlist/denylist do not presuppose conditionallity or pre-set time limits.
> If someone says to add an IP address to an allow access list, that’s longer
Allowlist/denylist (9 + 8 chars) is shorter than whitelist/blacklist (9 + 9 chars).
> Inventing a personal language
Sounds like you think the proposal was to invent a whole new language (or one per person)? I would be against that too. But it is really only about updating a technical industry term pair to a more descriptive and less semantically loaded pair. Win-win.
> we aren’t going to solve racism by literally removing black and white from our language.
Changing to allowlist/denylist would not remove the terms black/white from language. There is good reason for making the change that do not involve any claim that doing so would solve racism.
I've switched to using allowlist/denylist in computer contexts because more descriptive and less semantically loaded or contested. Easy win-win.
Using 'black' to refer to the color of objects is fine by me.
'Black power!' as a political slogan self-chosen by groups identifying as black is fine too, in contexts where it is used as a tool in work against existing inequalities (various caveats could be added).
As for 'white/black' as terms for entities that are colorless but inherently valenced (e.g. the items designated white are positive and the items designated black are negative, such as risks or costs), I support switching to other terms when not very costly and when newer terms are descriptive and clear. Such as switching to allowlist/denylist in the context of computers.
As for import, I don't think it is a super important change and I don't think the change would make a huge difference in terms of reducing existing racially disproportional negative outcomes in opportunity, wealth, wellbeing and health. It is only a small terminology change that there's some good reason to accept and no good reason to oppose, so I'm on board.
They don't pre-suppose anything. They're neologisms. So you have to provide the context when you use them versus being able to leverage what the other person already knows.
> Allowlist/denylist (9 + 8 chars) is shorter than whitelist/blacklist (9 + 9 chars)
The point is you can't just say allow list this block of IPs and walk away in the way saying whitelist these works.
> really only about updating a technical industry term pair to a more descriptive and less semantically loaded pair
Eh, it looks more like creating jargon to signal group membership.
> There is good reason for making the change that do not involve any claim that doing so would solve racism
I guess I'm not seeing it. Black = bad and white = good are deep cultural priors across the world.
Trying to bend a global language like English to accomodate the fact that we've turned those words into racial designations strikes me as silly. (The term blacklist predates [1] the term black as a racial designator, at least in English, I believe by around 100 years [2]. If we want to go pedantic in the opposite direction, no human actually has black or white skin in natural light.)
(For what it’s worth, I’ve genuinely enjoyed this discussion.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te...
[2] https://nabado.co.ke/2025/01/05/the-origins-and-evolution-of...
Oh I think they do presuppose a link to the main everyday meaning of the terms allow and deny. To their merit! But yes they do not presuppose conditionality or time-limits.
> versus being able to leverage what the other person already knows
I'd guess over a million people start learning software dev every year without any prior knowledge of these industry terms. In addition while dev terms often have english roots many, maybe even a majority, of new devs are not native english speakers, and for them the other meanings and etymology of whitelist/blacklist might be less familiar and maybe even confusing. In that regard allowlist/denylist have a descriptive advantage, since the main everyday meaning of allow/deny are mnemonic towards their precise technical meaning and when learning lots of new terms every little mnemonic helps to not get overwhelmed.
> you can't just say allow list this block of IPs and walk away in the way saying whitelist these works.
You can once the term is adopted in a context, like a dev team's style guide. More generally there can be a transition period for any industry terminology change to permeate, but after that there'd be no difference in the number of people who already know the exact industry term meaning vs the number who don't. Allowlist/denylist can be used as drop in replacement nouns and verbs. Thereafter the benefit of saving one character per written use of 'denylist' would accumulate forever, as a bonus. I don't know about you but I'm quite used to technical terms regularly getting updated or replaced in software dev and other technical work so this additional proposed change feels like just one more at a tiny transition cost.
> it looks more like creating jargon to signal group membership
I don't think any argument I've given have that as a premise. Cite me if you think otherwise.
> The term blacklist predates
Yep, but I think gains in descriptiveness and avoiding loaded language has higher priority than etymological preservation, in general and in this case.
> Trying to bend a global language like English
You make the proposed industry term pair change sound earthshaking and iconoclastic. To me it is just a small improvement.
Thanks for the discussion!
Pretty much.
The question you posed above, the question that piqued my interest that I responded to, was
> What's the bigoted history of those terms?
I barely hinted at the bigotry inherent in the creation of a black list by Charles II in response to the bigotry inherent in the execution of Charles I as I was curious as to where your interest lay.
Since then you've ignored the bigotry, ignored the black list in the time of Charles II, imagined and projected all manner of nonsense about my position, etc.
I suspect you're simply ignorant of the actual meaning of the word bigot in the time of Charles I & II, and it's hilarious seeing your overly performative accusations of others being performative.
> Want to help? Demand that police stop assaulting and murdering people of color.
I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the question of the bigotry aspect to the Charles II black list but if it makes you feel any better I was a witness against the police in a Black Deaths in Custody Royal Commission a good many years past.
For your interest:
1661 Cowley Cromwell Wks. II. 655 He was rather a well-meaning and deluding Bigot, than a crafty and malicious Impostor.
1741 Watts Improv. Mind i. Wks. (1813) 14 A dogmatist in religion is not a long way off from a bigot.
1844 Stanley Arnold II. viii. 13 [Dr. Arnold] was almost equally condemned, in London as a bigot, and in Oxford as a latitudinarian.
I am. As a BIPOC, we've been denied rights since the founding of the US. When I read "denylist," I can see my ancestors there, on a list to be denied the right to vote. It's not inclusive to use words like "deny" in the capacity of denying access to things.