We're changing instances of whitelist and blacklist to "allowlist" and "blocklist" similar to the conversion of master and slave to "primary" and "replica".
Edit: it's interesting that I'm being downvoted. What a weird world this is.
Edit: it's interesting that I'm being downvoted. What a weird world this is.
Are you going to change the whole dictionary as well? blackout? blackhole? dark energy? dark matter? dark side of the moon? and what not? Might as well deem the whole english language offensive since its the language of slavers?
Maybe you should focus on real problem instead of slacktivism Silicon Valley style? And I say that as an African descent: The great majority of us don't care about master/slave dichotomy in a source code. Stop being offended on our behalf, there are real problems in the real world that needs fixing and this is not one of them.
Language changes over time. These are just words. I don't understand why we have to hold onto them like they're our precious children. If we can be more inclusive with the labels we choose, that's a good thing.
You are claiming these words are "not inclusive" at first place, which is purely a matter of ideology, not semantics. Words have different meaning in different contexts. If you can't understand that, off course you will find everything "offensive".
Starting with the word "inclusive" itself which basically is newspeak at that point. You are right, language changes over time, and it's being manipulated by people like you to steer controversy and division, to deem this or that racist, sexist because you willfully ignore context for pure political goals. There is nothing confusing about "blacklist" or "whitelist". anybody can look up these words in a dictionary, if your "engineers" are incapable of doing that, maybe you should hire better ones. "allowlist" on the other hand is a useless neologism only driven by the need to effectively control the language to force your ideology on others, under threat of being deemed "not inclusive".
This is a political stunt, nothing more, you are asserting control over others, in the name of "inclusiveness" which is rather exclusive as a matter of fact...
But "blacklist" could be seen in a negative light in at least some circumstances whereas that's not possible for "blocklist" in any circumstance. So why not use it? What's the harm?
> There is nothing confusing about "blacklist" or "whitelist". anybody can look up these words in a dictionary, if your "engineers" are incapable of doing that, maybe you should hire better ones.
You're misunderstanding their point. They are not saying "whitelist" is too confusing, just that "allowlist" is equally as good and in some cases maybe even slightly better.
> you are asserting control over others
Just because someone is criticizing something you've done doesn't mean they are "asserting control" over you.
> So why not use it? What's the harm?
The harm is you likes with your intimidation and harassment tactics on social media trying to force your morals and political beliefs on everyone else in every possible circle and the insane finger pointing at those who refuse to fall in line because they don't agree with your ideology.
Antirez, author of redis has something to say about it, given the pressure he was victim of under the threat of being "casted out" of the open source community since the verbiage of his project was deemed "non inclusive". And he is not the only victim. You've gone too far.
> You're misunderstanding their point. They are not saying "whitelist" is too confusing, just that "allowlist" is equally as good and in some cases maybe even slightly better.
A word already exists for this, "whitelist" and it has nothing to do with race. You chose to make it about race, because you subscribe to a specific political framework, not out of "good intentions". You chose to deem it "problematic", because it's just another political battle for you and any victory is good to take. This is madness. Do you want me to list the groups across history that used the exact same dirty tactics? Although I'd rather not.
edit: there is an obvious sophistry in the act of complaining about racism yet furthering racist "idioms" by claiming a word that has "black" in it is automatically associated with race, or the idea of "slave" is automatically referring to European slave trade thus it hurts the feelings of people of African descent. This rejection of semantics and context itself is not "language evolution", it's straight out language hijacking. Now of course, you're free to believe in whatever you want, but we are passed that fact, we are now in an era where people who don't subscribe to that same ideology are harassed, intimidated and coerced into submission.
You are the one claiming "no harm done". I proved you wrong. Otherwise I would have absolutely no interest in that issue.
"sensitive"
sensitive according to whom? what morals? what ideology? I'm not hurting my own feeling as a black man every time I use "blacklist" or "slave" in a specific context that is even explained in a dictionary, why are you trying to force your political beliefs (because that's what it is) on me? why are you constantly patronizing me? that I indeed find it offensive. I'm not going to change the canonical definition of the words I use to please you.