It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

    • KillingTimeItself
      link
      fedilink
      English
      53 months ago

      this is actually a terminology that i would be interested on seeing the historical context for actually. My assumption has always been light based “whitelist referring to a well lit room, where as blacklist refers to a completely dark room” making things easy/hard to find as a a result.

      It could also literally just be a coincidence and it simply sounded better for the allow list to be whitelisted, and the deny list to be blacklisted, humans have weird connections to words like that.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          03 months ago

          ironically, this is the same reason that black people are uh, black, at least i think.

          Human biology and evolution is racist.

      • @Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        For most people it’s a lot more simple and subconscious than that. White=positive, black=negative. Most people do not consciously apply this to race, but they don’t have to for the subconscious association to take root.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          i would assume it’s more accurately interpreted as “white=allowed, and black=denied” but in order for that to transmit to your subconscious racism i feel like you probably need to be racist already.

      • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        If I had to guess, it’s just the general “white=good black=bad” which itself is likely related to day/night.

        But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

          that seems like an oddly specific origination for that specific term, but it’s certainly a possibility. But as with words being alive and taking on unintended meanings, it’s also equally likely that it became skin color agnostic at some point, and the term stuck because it was already being used.

            • KillingTimeItself
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 months ago

              yeah no i understand, i’m just saying that’s a potential point where i could’ve originated and then morphed over time. Even if it was founded on race originally, it’s not super likely it would matter today in any broader contexts.

              • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Idk if that’s for white folks like me (and you?) to decide, and there is no harm on erring on the side of caution.

                It’s like the deal with micro-aggressions. Alone they’re not much, but a constant buildup of these little things can leave someone feeling raw and very sensitive to it.

                I don’t think the etymology started with race, I think it started with day/night. But I’m not an expert on etymology, and while I’m very curious, it probably doesn’t really matter here.

                • KillingTimeItself
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  Idk if that’s for white folks like me (and you?) to decide, and there is no harm on erring on the side of caution.

                  yeah, probably not, and that’s why i tend to err on the side of these discussions not being very productive. As for erring on the side of caution, idk. I’m not really sure theres that much caution even present to begin with. It might even be sufficient enough to just not use the terms around specific people per their request, or not at all, who knows.

                  It’s like the deal with micro-aggressions. Alone they’re not much, but a constant buildup of these little things can leave someone feeling raw and very sensitive to it.

                  i think my problem, is that people have a very analytical and sterile approach to these things. In terms of classifying and denoting things micro aggressions as a term makes sense. But from a broader societal perspective, i think it’s useless, if not negatively impactful.

                  It’s better to identity specific facets of society that are problematic, for example treatment and behavior of certain people differently from others, as opposed to “treating the symptom” so to speak.

                  I don’t think the etymology started with race, I think it started with day/night. But I’m not an expert on etymology, and while I’m very curious, it probably doesn’t really matter here.

                  it really could’ve been from anything, but at the end of the day whatever it started from is irrelevant to it’s use case today, and anybody using it to be offensive is offensive for other reasons at that point.

                  • @PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    13 months ago

                    It’s better to identity specific facets of society that are problematic […] as opposed to “treating the symptom” so to speak.

                    I think it’s difficult to separate the two, they form a feedback loop. It’s like the broken window theory.
                    People see these little ambiguously exclusionary acts, and if they see enough of them then they get the subconscious message that exclusionary acts are ok, and the (possibly accidental) targets of the acts get the subconscious message that they’re not welcome which makes the subject raw and sensitive and primes them to look at acts through that lens.

                    In college I took a class on how humans and computers interact, and one of the things my professor was passionate about was how the terminology of programming languages tended to be exclusionary to women. Not explicitly so, but just using violent language that women were raised to find uncomfortable (eg killing a process), and it was pushing women out of computer science.
                    This was like 15 years ago, and he was already passionate about it at the time, so this isn’t really a new thing, its just getting broader attention.

                    I don’t know if that’s happening here, but it costs nothing to change so even a potential minor improvement is worth it.

    • @ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      33 months ago

      Bro I fucking said “whitelist” in a meeting and got so many glares, fuck all of these fucking uneducated pieces of shit that can only punch down because they know nothing except “DATS RACIST”