Well, who decides what is deemed "not inclusive" now? 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.