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...
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...
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
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?
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.
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.