6 ms·

The more we avoid terms, the more negative their connotations become, and the more we forget about history. I would argue, without any evidence, that when term

The more we avoid terms, the more negative their connotations become, and the more we forget about history. 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.

zipliners 1y ago
Allow/deny list is more descriptive. That's one good reason for using those terms. Do you agree? 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'.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Allow/deny list is more descriptive 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.)
  - zipliner 1y ago
    > It really isn’t. 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > What do the lists do? They allow or deny access, right? 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.
      - ziplinerss 1y ago
        > different from conditionally having access, or having access for a pre-set period of time. 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.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the terms allowlist/denylist do not presuppose conditionallity or pre-set time limits 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_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te... [2] https://nabado.co.ke/2025/01/05/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-term-black-in-the-context-of-african-identity/ https://nabado.co.ke/2025/01/05/the-origins-and-evolution-of...
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Calling soup drink doesn't clarify anything. There's a lot of soup that is not drink. But "allow" vs "white",, "deny" vs "black", one is 100% more descriptive than the other 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
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > 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" 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.
      - throwaway290 1y ago
        It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class" 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.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > "allow-list" list is not jargon 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.)
- McDyver 1y ago
  I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect. 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
  - zipliner 1y ago
    > would eventually 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.
    - anonfordays 1y ago
      >Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? 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.

zipliners 1y ago

Allow/deny list is more descriptive. That's one good reason for using those terms. Do you agree? 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'.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Allow/deny list is more descriptive 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.)
- zipliner 1y ago
  > It really isn’t. 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.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > What do the lists do? They allow or deny access, right? 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.
    - ziplinerss 1y ago
      > different from conditionally having access, or having access for a pre-set period of time. 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the terms allowlist/denylist do not presuppose conditionallity or pre-set time limits 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_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting#Origins_of_the_te... [2] https://nabado.co.ke/2025/01/05/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-term-black-in-the-context-of-african-identity/ https://nabado.co.ke/2025/01/05/the-origins-and-evolution-of...
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Calling soup drink doesn't clarify anything. There's a lot of soup that is not drink. But "allow" vs "white",, "deny" vs "black", one is 100% more descriptive than the other 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
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > 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" 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.
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class" 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > "allow-list" list is not jargon 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.)
McDyver 1y ago
I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect. 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
- zipliner 1y ago
  > would eventually 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.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    >Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? 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.