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
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.