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):
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.
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'.
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.
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.