Not the person you talked to but I'll join in if I may.
I've switched to using allowlist/denylist in computer contexts because more descriptive and less semantically loaded or contested. Easy win-win.
Using 'black' to refer to the color of objects is fine by me.
'Black power!' as a political slogan self-chosen by groups identifying as black is fine too, in contexts where it is used as a tool in work against existing inequalities (various caveats could be added).
As for 'white/black' as terms for entities that are colorless but inherently valenced (e.g. the items designated white are positive and the items designated black are negative, such as risks or costs), I support switching to other terms when not very costly and when newer terms are descriptive and clear. Such as switching to allowlist/denylist in the context of computers.
As for import, I don't think it is a super important change and I don't think the change would make a huge difference in terms of reducing existing racially disproportional negative outcomes in opportunity, wealth, wellbeing and health. It is only a small terminology change that there's some good reason to accept and no good reason to oppose, so I'm on board.
If your shallow (and dismissive) comments along these lines weren't so, well, shallow and dismissive, I might be inclined to put a little more effort into it.
But they're not, so I didn't.
By all means, congratulate yourself for putting this bigoted "culture warrior" in their (obviously) well deserved corner of shame.
I'm not exactly sure how decrying bigotry while pointing out that demanding language unrelated to such bigotry be changed seems performative rather than useful or effective is a "childish culture war provocation."
Perhaps you might ask some folks who actually experience such bigotry how they feel about that. Are there any such folks in your social circle? I'm guessing not, as they'd likely be much more concerned with the actual violence, discrimination and hatred that's being heaped upon them, rather than inane calls for banning technical jargon completely unrelated to that violence and hatred.
It's completely performative and does exactly zero to address the violence and discrimination. Want to help? Demand that police stop assaulting and murdering people of color. Speak out about the completely unjustified hatred and discrimination our fellow humans are subjected to in housing, employment, education, full participation in political life, the criminal "justice" system and a raft of other issues.
But that's too much work for you, right? It's much easier to pay lip service and jump on anyone who doesn't toe the specific lines you set, despite those lines being performative, ineffective and broadly hypocritical.
Want to make a real difference? That's great! Whinging about blacklists vs. denylists in a network routing context isn't going to do that.
Rather it just points at you being a busybody trying to make yourself feel better at the expense of those actively being discriminated against.
And that's why I didn't engage on any reasonable level with you -- because you don't deserve it. For shame!
Or did I miss something important? I am, after all, quite simple minded.
The question you posed above, the question that piqued my interest that I responded to, was
> What's the bigoted history of those terms?
I barely hinted at the bigotry inherent in the creation of a black list by Charles II in response to the bigotry inherent in the execution of Charles I as I was curious as to where your interest lay.
Since then you've ignored the bigotry, ignored the black list in the time of Charles II, imagined and projected all manner of nonsense about my position, etc.
I suspect you're simply ignorant of the actual meaning of the word bigot in the time of Charles I & II, and it's hilarious seeing your overly performative accusations of others being performative.
> Want to help? Demand that police stop assaulting and murdering people of color.
I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the question of the bigotry aspect to the Charles II black list but if it makes you feel any better I was a witness against the police in a Black Deaths in Custody Royal Commission a good many years past.
For your interest:
1661 Cowley Cromwell Wks. II. 655 He was rather a well-meaning and deluding Bigot, than a crafty and malicious Impostor.
1741 Watts Improv. Mind i. Wks. (1813) 14 A dogmatist in religion is not a long way off from a bigot.
1844 Stanley Arnold II. viii. 13 [Dr. Arnold] was almost equally condemned, in London as a bigot, and in Oxford as a latitudinarian.
As we're a long way down a tangential rabbit hole here am I to assume it was yourself who just walked through flagging a run of comments that don't violate guidelines? Either way curiosity and genuine exchanges go further than hyperbolic rhetoric.
>I to assume it was yourself who just walked through flagging a run of comments that don't violate guidelines?
You could make that assumption, but you'd be wrong. I haven't flagged any of your comments.
I suppose I could flag this one as complaining about downvotes/flags does violate HN guidelines.
But I won't. Especially as "flagging" comments or submissions should be limited to spammy and/or low-quality entries. I disagree with your comments being flagged (or even downvoted, for that matter), as that stifles discussion. And more's the pity.
Edit: Unfortunately, it's too late for me to "vouch" for your comments. But I would if I could.
I don't much care about the flagging either way; it's more I only noticed you replied when I saw my top level comment in this old discussion had changed state (HN makes it hard to follow old discussion threads, I don't have any custom tooling to highlight replies, just a habit of mostly circling back every few days).
> I suppose I could flag this one as complaining about downvotes/flags does violate HN guidelines.
You'd be hard pressed to justify on those claimed grounds; noticing a comment has been flagged is _not_ equivalent to complaining about a comment being flagged .. after more than ten years here it amuses me more than anything.
Again, you've sidestepped any comment with substance re: the original question of bigotry which you posed and I've addressed ..
If you'd like to address that or ask any more actual questions (rather than intuitive leaps of essentially incorrect judgement) I'm open to continuing here (tomorrow or the next day).
