>>> Nobody has a problem understanding "blacklist" and "whitelist". These >>> are universally understood words even outside of computing. Claiming >>> that we need clearer alternatives is smoke and mirrors. >> >> Actually, as a non-native English speaker, the first time I saw >> "<color>list", I had to do some research in order to understand what it >> means :-)
You have to research and lookup *any* new words in a language when you see them the first time. You'd also have to look up "allow" when seeing it for the first time too. > Thanks for the perspective. This is why we need clear and uniform words. > Our community is global. English isn't English everywhere either. > So, the proposed alternatives "allowlist" and "denylist" are better because they are not English but are in some kind of a global language? Your argumentation doesn't seem to pan out. The language in the Linux source is English, and in that language "blacklist" has a meaning that is not limited to computing but is universal, irrespective of the field of science, and is even used in everyday life. And this meaning isn't associated with ethnic differences. As I stated multiple times, I support removing all references to slavery and masters. But trying to avoid "blacklist" is not just pointless but also useless. The real problem is that "black" by itself already has a negative connotation. so instead of blocking words unrelated to ethnicity, we should not call Afro-Americans "blacks" anymore. The problem is that a group of people are marked with "black" which is a word with black connotation. We should stop calling them blacks, and that'd be a real solution (at least as far as the language is concerned). Raschko T.
