Renewed calls to replace "blacklist," "whitelist," and "master/slave" terms amid BLM protests

dms96960

Posts: 386   +118
This whole thing is getting dumber and dumber. If you're in good financial shape, you are said to be in the black. Is that racist? Shall we change it, too?

Even worse, if you are in bad financial shape, you are said to be in the red. Should native Americans be offended?
 

Seraphim401

Posts: 89   +37
The world is burning,but will rise from the ashes like a phoenix.
By the way, what did Churchill do to these protestors?

Not "white" by the way.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,149
No, YOU are missing the point. There is no racial connotation associated with the words blacklist or whitelist.

Please extrapolate. I'll wait for you to actually provide something of substance to back your comment up. Please tell me why black being associate with bad isn't racist and the real origins of the connotation.
 

Brach Speicher

Posts: 23   +7
Please extrapolate. I'll wait for you to actually provide something of substance to back your comment up. Please tell me why black being associate with bad isn't racist and the real origins of the connotation.
"Black" != "blacklist", that's all you need to know to figure it out. Or you could scroll up and read on the actual origin of blacklist and whitelist and see the lack of connotation with black and white as races, your call.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,820   +789
Whitewash is considered a negative, but no one is jumping the shark to change it. Cracker is a racist epithet, but again no white person gives a crap about it. White wall tires are ugly to me so I put that on the inside. In decorum, I prefer black. At night, I prefer darkness, so I can sleep. I prefer blues over country. The lie is that we're more divided than alike. BS. Like Morgan Freeman said, 'racism will die if people stop bringing it up'. He should know. He's seen it all. Most people know if he's in the movie, it'll generally be good. Simply put, all the Democrats and socialists have to fuel their campaigns is the 'merchandising of hate and division', science when it suits them, and social constructs when it does not. Let it go.......................
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,820   +789
If somebody believes you're against them, no amount of overt or covert display of convincing will change their mind. Coddling will only make it worse and only serves to continue the instilling of the belief and disrespect.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,464   +6,149
"Black" != "blacklist", that's all you need to know to figure it out. Or you could scroll up and read on the actual origin of blacklist and whitelist and see the lack of connotation with black and white as races, your call.


The known origins of the word do not describe the reasons for which they specifically choose "Blacklist" instead of something else. Of course you could cite the fact that black had long been associated with evil deeds (as in theological sense) but then again, that meaning may too have been derived from a racist origin. There's other words like blackball and black hand as well.

You are very confident in your opinion but you are not providing any info to backup your position.

Whitewash is considered a negative, but no one is jumping the shark to change it. Cracker is a racist epithet, but again no white person gives a crap about it. White wall tires are ugly to me so I put that on the inside. In decorum, I prefer black. At night, I prefer darkness, so I can sleep. I prefer blues over country. The lie is that we're more divided than alike. BS. Like Morgan Freeman said, 'racism will die if people stop bringing it up'. He should know. He's seen it all. Most people know if he's in the movie, it'll generally be good. Simply put, all the Democrats and socialists have to fuel their campaigns is the 'merchandising of hate and division', science when it suits them, and social constructs when it does not. Let it go.......................

That might be because whitewash is based off a solution of lime and water that, you guessed it, covers a wall in white. The origins of that word are well known and have nothing to do with race. In addition, the changed meaning of the word is political, not race targeted. In otherwords, when people say whitewash they mean to cover up like the lime and water based paint, not as if white is something bad.

Cracker can be an offensive word but we aren't here to discuss words we already know are offensive. On a scale of 1 to 10, that is a 1 on the offensive scale. As far as racist words go, the arsenal levied against blacks seems far more offensive. I used to go to mostly black schools, I had white friends call me cracker. It's not that I didn't care, it was more of a greeting. It's really in how you use the word. The same cannot be said for many other words, which are bad in every situation.

If somebody believes you're against them, no amount of overt or covert display of convincing will change their mind. Coddling will only make it worse and only serves to continue the instilling of the belief and disrespect.

This is a good example of why some of the word's greatest leaders were great because they were able to extend a genuine olive branch.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 1,228   +498
The truth is actually much worse than you think.

This has nothing to do with human rights. Quite the opposite. They want gangs to rule the cities. Right now, in parts of Seattle which were "liberated from the police", because "police is brutal", armed rebels control the streets and private businesses have to pay racket to them. Or their shops get ruined and who knows what happens to the owners.

That's the kind of "human rights" that left extremists (Antifa) are bringing. That's what you get if Democrats win. But your media somehow forgot to mention this mafia-style rule in the "liberated parts of the city". They keep demonizing Trump, while completely forgetting about the gangster control of the "liberated hoods". Thanks for that kind of "liberation", but no thanks.
 

dotnon

Posts: 36   +49
My problem is with why they are being changed and when it's going to stop.
This is the old "slippery-slope" argument, and it's difficult to refute because it's so fuzzy. The words are being changed because they have the potential to offend a large group of people. It will stop when the cost of changing the terminology outweighs the level of offense caused.

If we are going to have to change internationally recognised industry-standard terminology every time someone in a single country gets offended by them (and that is starting to happen a lot lately), we'll end up going backwards. Nobody will know what to call the words. People / companies / sites will be attacked for using the wrong word (we changed that word 6 months ago, shame on you!).
No one is saying we're going to change terminology "every time someone" gets offended. I don't know where you live, but if you lived in the US we would be talking about something in the region of 13% of people in your own country.

Use whatever word best describes the objects in context and don't target people because they don't meet your very particular and localised standards.
In most cases the proposed words better describe the objects and are more contextualised (e.g. primary/replica). And "particular and localised" is really the polar opposite of what we're talking about here - these are broadly used terms in a global community. The only people who are being targeted are those making a poor case for the continued use of these terms - nicely represented by your "just get over it" comment.

So to be clear, I don't see anyone arguing that we should change terms every time someone objects. But when the number of people affected is this large, and the case is a clear one, we should have the humility to listen and adapt.

Blacklist/whitelist and master/slave are so obviously related to race and slavery respectively, that coming out against this change does look a little racist (or at least demonstrate a psychopathic lack of empathy). Some of the other usages that have been raised recently are less clear-cut, and a good case can be made for continuing to use them. But I'm not seeing that in this thread.
 
We should really take a look at the film industry too. They are subconsciously making us associate darkness with horror, and evil. And lighter scenes with happiness, safety and good.

I know when I walk out in the middle of the night I a little bit for fearful than if I went for a walk during the day. Thanks media.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,902   +1,105
were George Washington and other Revolutionary generals "traitors"?

To England? Absolutely. To America? No.

Had the Confederacy survived, the southern generals would not be traitors to the Confederacy - and would be traitors to the Union - but the Confederacy did not survive, so those generals (and everyone who supported them) are left as just plain-old traitors. That is the way rebellion and civil wars work, and always have worked.

The Confederacy and all those who supported it should only be remembered as the traitors to the Union that they were. Nothing more.
 

franticfrosty

Posts: 107   +118
When these jokers stop "owning" things, I'll join them, otherwise that money in their bank is owned by them, which aka is part of slavery according to them. Lets stop owning things and start sharing things.. like their wives, lets see how fast they backtrack when you put their logic back in their faces.