←back to thread

454 points positiveblue | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
IshKebab[dead post] ◴[] No.45067039[source]
[flagged]
thanatos_dem ◴[] No.45067089[source]
Allowlist is arguably fitting for a list of things which are allowed.
replies(2): >>45067786 #>>45068492 #
xdennis ◴[] No.45068492[source]
There are so many terms in software which are nonsensical (starting with "computer science") which could be fixed.

The problem with changing whitelist to "allowlist" is that it implies that people who use whitelist are racists. You're not just virtue signaling (and confusing my spellchecker) but causing discord.

It would be perfectly fine if people switched to "allowlist" because they think it's a better term, but that's not the reason. They do it because they want to virtue signal or they're afraid of their peers (because they'll be called racists).

Using "allowlist" is actually bad because it gives agitators power and they keep changing more words to get more power.

replies(3): >>45068674 #>>45070025 #>>45070136 #
1. bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45070136[source]
That is exactly why I hate "allowlist", "main" instead of "master", and so on. The reason they were proposed is because some people were trying to play dominance games with grievance politics. We should attempt to resist such bad faith tactics, not propagate them. And yes, unfortunately that means I have to take a stand on something that is otherwise inconsequential. But such is the price of pushing back on self-righteous prigs who are trying to police terms of art.