Microsoft to replace industry standard terms like whitelist, blacklist and master on GitHub with politically correct "race neutral" words.

[alhoon]

What a salty response. What failed position are you trying to compensate for?

While I often disagree with Ponti, I have to say he surmised my view on your post fairly well.

[PointOfViewGun]

While I often disagree with Ponti, I have to say he surmised my view on your post fairly well.

Then please answer the question I was asking there. What failed position are you trying to compensate for?

[alhoon]

Then please answer the question I was asking there. What failed position are you trying to compensate for?

Yours, obviously. Wasn't it clear on my post?

[PointOfViewGun]

Yours, obviously. Wasn't it clear on my post?

Oh, come on. You could do better than that. It doesn't even make sense. You were triggered due to my attempt to get some context on the matter. That's bound to be a result of trying to compensate for a failed position you might have had on the matter. I wanna hear about that.

[athanaric]

The rest of the article can be read here


As a programmer I have to say I am completely appalled by the cash grabbing, virtue signaling, hypocrites that lead these tech companies. They saw a moment to get some free publicity and are now shoving down their newspeak down the throats of an entire profession. What's worse is that they're corrupting Linus Torvalds' vision to the core.

Whitelist and blacklist are already neutral terms, as they predate the USA by 500 years ffs.

You gotta love though how all the supposedly anti-capitalist "left-wing" people fall for Woke Capital again and again, in effect doing the bidding of rich people.

[Sir Adrian]

Most anti-capitalist "leftism" IS run/funded in the background by rich people, who are making a killing off of it. Take BLM. All donations to BLM covertly go to the Biden 2020 campaign. The same thing happened in 2016, when all donations to BLM and the Trevor Project went to Hillary. Everything.

In fact, it would be safe to assume that both sides are run the same way, by the same people.

[PointOfViewGun]

Most anti-capitalist "leftism" IS run/funded in the background by rich people, who are making a killing off of it. Take BLM. All donations to BLM covertly go to the Biden 2020 campaign. The same thing happened in 2016, when all donations to BLM and the Trevor Project went to Hillary. Everything.

In fact, it would be safe to assume that both sides are run the same way, by the same people.

This is pretty much libel.

[Gaidin]

I as a programmer can't figure out what this thread is about anymore.

That's after saying what corporations actually do in this issue.

And watching people non-react.

You all have no hope.

[Sir Adrian]

This is pretty much libel.

Link is inaccessible in the EU.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This is pretty much libel.

Libel requires a demonstrably false statement, not one that is the unequivocal truth. Corporate virtue signalling in the form of donations to leftist organizations is undisputed truth. I hope the corporations don't think this will do an iota of good in the eyes of the "peaceful protesters" who have no issues with peacefully setting fires or peacefully vandalizing the same corporations who shill for neoliberals incessantly. I would normally attribute this to some sort of "awakening" or seeing the world as it really is, perhaps even a red-pilling event, but I can't here because all of these people are going to show up and pull the level for sleepy Joe in November.

[wanderwegger]

Why say politically correct. Why not just say race neutral words? They aren't doing it out of political correctness but in order to foster a better more inclusive corporate culture and address systemic racism from the broader culture. Saying politically correct makes it seem like you have an agenda. Worse, it is a phrase often used by racists with agendas. Wouldn't want us to confuse you with them.

[Muizer]

Why say politically correct. Why not just say race neutral words? They aren't doing it out of political correctness but in order to foster a better more inclusive corporate culture and address systemic racism from the broader culture. Saying politically correct makes it seem like you have an agenda. Worse, it is a phrase often used by racists with agendas. Wouldn't want us to confuse you with them.

If my own experience in the Tech world is any indication, when it comes to this kind of moral issues, they're primarily doing it out of a desire to avoid negative coverage in (social) media. It's also an expression of a generational shift in thinking though. Either way, it's not corporates trying to manipulate or shape society with ideological intent. They're more followers in this than leaders. This is kind of problematic though, because unless they find a way to critically think for themselves and find something to actually believe in, radicals and their not seldomly well intentioned but equally disoriented ' allies' will set the course for them. This is what disturbs me a lot in this whole debate: Institutions having become so scared of falling foul of activists that they do not dare question irrational and unfounded assertions coming from the radical fringes.

[wanderwegger]

Or are they both things and many more. Because the world is complex. Not simple.

[alhoon]

Why say politically correct. Why not just say race neutral words? They aren't doing it out of political correctness but in order to foster a better more inclusive corporate culture and address systemic racism from the broader culture. Saying politically correct makes it seem like you have an agenda. Worse, it is a phrase often used by racists with agendas. Wouldn't want us to confuse you with them.

Who is "us" that you refer to?
And I kinda agree with Muizer. They don't do it to fight systemic racism, they do it to appear Politically Correct and wave the flag and make the 2% of the people that actually care about "blacklist" and "whitelist" nod their heads in content.
I.e. it's business.
Furthermore, It's not "race neutral words" as blacklist and whitelist didn't have anything to do with race. That's bait for the slacktivists to congratulate themselves and feel they do something important.


Now, would it lead to a better and more inclusive corporate culture? I really, really doubt it. You see the problem with systemic racism is not the words blacklist and whitelist. It is much much deeper and embedded in the system. Many of the actions taken to address systemic racism backfire or are completely useless (like trying to make a ridiculous connection that "blacklist" and "whitelist" are connected to race).

I don't agree with everything John Lewis said or fought for, but he was a real activist and even if I disagree with some things he supported they were geared towards some real change. Not just some stuff that is not based on race to begin with.

[wanderwegger]

There are people who feel those words have to do with race, you are not the arbiter of what words can mean in the subjective; and even if there weren't. The argument that language doesn't shape us is one someone like me will never find merit in. I think language has power infinite. Not like violence does. Or hunger. But power none the less. Baby steps are better than no steps.

In this and other posts we have already concluded that bettering the world is a solid purpose to me, while its something to rant about to you. To each their own.

I am uplifted to see you acknowledge systemic racism exists.

Who is "us" that you refer to?
And I kinda agree with Muizer. They don't do it to fight systemic racism, they do it to appear Politically Correct and wave the flag and make the 2% of the people that actually care about "blacklist" and "whitelist" nod their heads in content.
I.e. it's business.
Furthermore, It's not "race neutral words" as blacklist and whitelist didn't have anything to do with race. That's bait for the slacktivists to congratulate themselves and feel they do something important.


Now, would it lead to a better and more inclusive corporate culture? I really, really doubt it. You see the problem with systemic racism is not the words blacklist and whitelist. It is much much deeper and embedded in the system. Many of the actions taken to address systemic racism backfire or are completely useless (like trying to make a ridiculous connection that "blacklist" and "whitelist" are connected to race).

I don't agree with everything John Lewis said or fought for, but he was a real activist and even if I disagree with some things he supported they were geared towards some real change. Not just some stuff that is not based on race to begin with.

[Muizer]

There are people who feel those words have to do with race, you are not the arbiter of what words can mean in the subjective;

This seems to follow the simple rule "using black to qualify something as negative is racist or perpetuates racism". IMHO this is just a licence to complain from a position of ignorance. The fact is that in some cases there are racist connotations, but in many there simply aren't. "Black sheep" is a pretty good example (unless one is concerned with discrimination of sheep). If anyone is offended or feels degraded by that expression, then I am afraid to say that is entirely their problem. I don't believe in turning language into such a post-truth-ish battleground.

[Mithradates]

"How come in the game of pool, the WHITE ball pushes the COLORED balls, and even the HALF-COLORED balls into holes, never to be seen again? And then, at the end, the BLACK ball is its final victim, leaving the WHITE ball alone and victorious on the green world? It's subtle, but it's there!"

[alhoon]

There are people who feel those words have to do with race, you are not the arbiter of what words can mean in the subjective; and even if there weren't.

In this and other posts we have already concluded that bettering the world is a solid purpose to me, while its something to rant about to you. To each their own.

A few things:
- Do you realize that those people that feel those words have to do with race are simply put, trying to find reasons to be insulted? I have not conducted research on that specific word, but I am confident that if I ask 1000 black people if they find something wrong with the words "blacklisting on GitHub" the vast majority would say they don't have a problem with that.
- In this and other posts you don't make the world a better place. You don't further your purpose. You simply waste time and energy discussing about a non-issue.

I am uplifted to see you acknowledge systemic racism exists.

Everyone (well most) acknowledge systemic racism exists. I don't remember the exact year, but I had a discussion with a black woman about the case of a black kid that was shot because he was seen running with backpack or something. I don't remember if the kid did anything bad at all, but he was shot because the officer assumed he was a criminal or something.
She told me that she will tell her kids to "not run" on the street to catch a bus because they may be shot.

Those may not have been her exact words and my memory may be a little fuzzy but I remember looking at my screen dumbfounded that someone would have to advise their (future) kids to not run on the street because they may get shot.
She may have been exaggerating (I don't think she was, she a friend of a friend, and she seemed sincere).


When the George Floyd riots started a black teen was found hanging from a tree.
Again I may not remember the details clearly but more or less the police said it was a suicide and someone stole the chair or box the black teen was standing on.

A black politician (Tim Scott from NC) recently shared death-threats he gets.

Those incidents are not "the feelings of 0.001% of people might get hurt when they hear blacklisting". That's not even "I earn less money for the same work and I am told to be glad I make even that".
That's people getting killed (or threatened to be killed).

Nobody in their right mind would disagree that systemic racism exists.

[wanderwegger]

To pretend the intersubjective doesn’t affect us or that the power of language, a fluid thing not set in stone from its origins, isn’t important is a choice. Not a wise one though. Technically the word for a bundle of sticks shouldn’t offend anyone. But it does.

This seems to follow the simple rule "using black to qualify something as negative is racist or perpetuates racism". IMHO this is just a licence to complain from a position of ignorance. The fact is that in some cases there are racist connotations, but in many there simply aren't. "Black sheep" is a pretty good example (unless one is concerned with discrimination of sheep). If anyone is offended or feels degraded by that expression, then I am afraid to say that is entirely their problem. I don't believe in turning language into such a post-truth-ish battleground.

[wanderwegger]

@alhoon I realize and readily acknowledge there are fair greater and important issues the world over most especially when it comes to racism than blacklist and whitelist. Since we both acknowledge how small and unsubstantial a thing changing these usages are.

Why bother being bothered by it?