Amen.
> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Kurt Fitzner <k...@va1der.ca> wrote: > > This is truly unfortunate. The current trend of whitewashing (and no I'm not > afraid of using a word with "white" in it) away perceived slurs where there > never were any is both troubling and counter-productive. > > I shouldn't have to post something like this here. We should all be adults > and intelligent enough to understand these things. The fact that I have to > is also troubling. I find myself shocked and amazed that these facts are not > self evident. But since they clearly aren't, here they are: > > 1) White_____ / Black_____ are not now and nor ever were they racially > motivated compound word prefixes. White and black have been and are > references to light and dark, and in every language race and culture on the > planet are used in compound words, phrases and sentences that evoke metaphors > of good and bad. In this context the prefixes have never had anything to do > with skin colour, and to change the words now casts aspersions on everyone > who has ever used them. It's a backusation of prejudice that has just never > been there. White hat / black hat. Light and dark. Good and bad. The > terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" came into being because they are based on > universally understood concepts of light and dark. You are not going to > change the concepts of "light" and "dark" as metaphors for good and bad - the > light and goodness of day and the frightening aspects of night are etched > into our collective racial and likely genetic memories as good and bad from > long before there ever were humans with different skin colours. Treating > whitelist and blacklist as if they are skin-colour related is factually > incorrect. > > 2) Master and slave are also not racially motivated. I don't have to > recapitulate the history of the lasts two centuries, we all know it, but lets > go further back... two millennia and further. Every conquering culture made > slaves of a certain number of its prisoners and vanquished foes. Every > colour and race in history has done this to every other colour and race. The > words are not inherently racially charged. They are simple references to > states. Further more, master and slave are proper and accurate words to use > in many cases outside of a context of actual human slavery. Master denotes > (variously) leadership, authority, skillfulness, and control. Slave denotes > subservience and being controlled. You cannot erase the concepts of > authority and subservience in their entirety because some people once assumed > immoral authority over others. Changing the words you use will not change > the underlying concept, and treating the words like they are racially charged > now is, again, a backusation that is unwarranted and frankly an affront to > all who have ever used them properly. Are we going to change the rank of > master chief, stop having master cylinders, are going to stop mastering > skills? I sincerely hope this madness doesn't spread that far. The words > are not evil. The concepts of master and slave are not even evil. They are > simple word tools for the ease of understanding concepts and relationships. > Unless you intend to erase the whole concept of hierarchical relationships, > the word choices used to denote them can't make them less racial because they > never were. > > 3) The act of changing these words is, itself, actively self defeating. The > irony of changing words that never were racial on the off chance they might > be interpreted that way as a method of getting to a world where race doesn't > matter is acute. Please tell me I am not the only one to see this terrible > irony. We are all looking for that world where race and colour simply don't > matter. Where the colour of one's skin and the culture one is from is of no > more interest than any other fact or statistic about one's individual > phenotypes or family history. Taking words and shining a spotlight on them > as suddenly racial is a step away from that world of "it just doesn't > matter". It is an affront to the (what I hopefully believe is the) majority > of people of all races and cultures for whom colour simply doesn't matter. > And it is making a racial issue where there was none before. This isn't a > step in the right direction. This is not accomplishing that goal. This is > the opposite of accomplishing that goal. > > This action is wrong because it cannot accomplish its stated goal. This is > wrong because it is making racial what was not. This is wrong because the > connotations you giving the words are factually and historically incorrect. > This is wrong, and that should be self evident to every single one of you. > > Kurt Fitzner > > > > On 2020-07-10 01:00, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > IMPORTANT NOTICE > > If you are running trunk, we are working on changing terms like whitelist to > welcomelist and blacklist to blocklist. > > https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7826 > <https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7826> > > The first test of this work is done with allowlist_to replacing whitelist_to > Committed revision 1879456. > > If you are using trunk, there may be disruption since routines, plugins and > rule changes will all interweave. > > IF YOU ARE RUNNING TRUNK: I recommend you subscribe to the > d...@spamassassin.apache.org <mailto:d...@spamassassin.apache.org> mailing > list to stay abreast of the changes. > > Please let me know if you have any questions! > > Regards, > KAM > -- > Kevin A. McGrail > Member, Apache Software Foundation > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail> - > 703.798.0171
