Hacker News Reader

Comment by downerending | Hacker News Reader

We were recently asked by management to stop using the words whitelist and blacklist, as they are seen as being "hurtful". No real idea how to react to that, given that they are terms of art (and of course, were never any sort of reference to race).

I suppose it's pretty much like most management edicts that come down over time. Just nod your head, keep your mouth shut, and with any luck it will all blow over in a month or two.

View on HN

I’m curious, what words did they ask you to use instead?

I remember in the mid-2000’s we had to stop using master/slave in reference to LDAP and database servers, and (I forget now whether it was IDE or SCSI) the switches on hard drives. The replacement was primary/secondary, which I felt somewhat obfuscated the intended meaning.

There were no suggested alternatives. I almost suggested that we just invert the usage, but clearly this is not a time in which one can make such jokes.

I suppose I'll just start using definitions instead: e.g., "the list of allowed IPs". Good luck googling that...

> I suppose I'll just start using definitions instead: e.g., "the list of allowed IPs".

That's pretty verbose. How about acceptlist and denylist (or blocklist)?

For "master/slave" maybe "boss/worker" would be a good substitute?

In principle, sure. In practice, when a junior wonders why they can't find anything useful when they google or grep for "acceptlist", then what?

> In practice, when a junior wonders why they can't find anything useful when they google or grep for "acceptlist", then what?

Lots of words have synonyms, so that's not a real problem. Sooner or later the search results will catch up, and in the mean time it's always an option for a junior developer to ask a question or figure things out themselves by looking at the implementation.

Not sure what to say to that. For normal corporate use, this would be standard Dilbert-esque silliness. In safety-critical situations, it would be madness.

Maybe (borrowing from audio a bit) a goodpass filter and badpass filter?

EDIT nope I’m confused, but leaving comment for completeness

EDIT2 what about andlist and nandlist?

Ha. Sounds like /r/maliciouscompliance.

producer / consumer

primary / replica

Orchestrator / Executor

None of those really capture the original connotation.

In your mind what's the original connotation?

Even master / minion would be better imo, the I prefer the others already mentioned

A producer makes, a consumer eats. That simply isn't the same as a master/slave relationship. Slaves do not "eat" what masters make. And so on.

But taking a step back, we have decades of lore giving us a sense of what "master/slave", in the technology sense, means. Ditching that for a few seconds of PC glory is madness.

Parent / child

deny list / allow list is being used by some folks in place of whitelist / blacklist.

Blocklist / allowlist or Block / permit

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-knodel-terminology-01

Consider it a chance to use a term with more semantic meaning.

Guarding access? You have an allow list or a deny list. Rolling out an experiment? You have an enable list or disable list. Restricting an input? You have a filter.

> disable list

You are so fired.

I think a lot of this goes too far, but I do agree with whitelist and blacklist. In all aspects of our lives we use "white" to describe things that are good and "black" to describe things that are bad. That movie is "dark." It has a "black-hearted" villain.

While that phenomenon does not have its origin in racism, I do think it reinforces it. I've moved to allow-list and block-list on my company's recommendation. I only remember to do it about 50% of the time, so I'm glad that it's not being policed, but rather a constructive suggestion.

Ok what about your balance sheet being in the black? Should that be neutralized too?

I think it’s going too far. If you want to do something for people go out and help them. Devote time to kids, provide mentorship, etc. This other superficial stuff only satisfies misguided activists and does nothing for affected kids.

Here’s the thing. It’s easy to find someone or something to pillory. It’s time consuming and hard to get on the ground and help. People love “showing” how good they are, but rarely act on it in real life with hard effort —that’s too much work.

As Zizek says, what happens the day after (the revolution)? Everyone is enamored with the effervescence or revolution being the good guys... but no one wants to do the hard work. Everyone’s life has to go on when you get back to reality.

I generally don't like the way these discussions play out because there is plenty of vocabulary we've changed over time when it becomes less palatable to the contemporary taste. It's easy to pull out all of the more innocent examples of the word while ignoring the perspective of those who don't appreciate it.

There are definitely instances of taking it too far, and they tend to be the ones that get disproportionate attention because they generate easy outrage. But in all honesty, if what we're seeing happen right now is progress towards a fairer society, I'd rather not stand in the way of it just because I'm used to having 'master' as my main branch on git, and I'd prefer to have the people most directly affected make their voice heard on this kind of thing.

So no “maître d'” no “maistro”, “meister” either... or is there a line somewhere?

Am I not my dogs master? I mean, of course it should not be used to show relationships between people, but relationships between things or people and animals, I don’t see an issue.

I don't think reductio ad absurdum is an appropriate reaction. Nobody is banning those words wholesale.

Of course no one can ban a word. Words exist independently of any authority... that said, it’s not an absurd proposition to think people will want to control those words for their own reasons. I don’t think my examples are a stretch given that it’s a stretch to tie conceptual data relationships to human relationships and see something untowards in it.

Do we change the name for “Slavic” people too because it harkens back to their history where Slavs were the default slave people in Western Europe and the origin of the word’s English meaning?

If anything, Slavs would have a point as it unfairly defaults them as being slaves etymologically.

I might well be wrong but this kind of authority over the use of language seems to be much more US-specific than I've seen elsewhere, which you could attribute to the overall dominance of US people in the places where these discussions tend to crop up (github, HN, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.).

I don't really know what to make of it except that these discussions about not using 'master', 'cop', etc. seem _heavily_ biased to the US perspective and current affairs in the US. I can understand it taking place due to the sheer cultural upheaval that has (quite frankly) been a long time coming, but my mild frustration about `US === the whole wide world` can take a step aside while we focus on the injustices fellow humans face.

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I am exposed to a similar phenomenon. I am blind. And blindness is routinely used to indicate all sorts of inabilities. Someone is "blind" to something. The blind leading the blind. The blind men and the elephant. I could go on for days. However, I am OLD enough to understand that I am not going to change the world. And there are also no public demonstrations going on, cheering "disability is cool". I just have to deal with the reality of my situation, as everyone on this fucked up planet has to learn at some point in their life. Policing the language does ntt change people.

Reinforces? ... Like the Amex Black Card is bad, why being in the black financially is bad, why cooking delicious ribs on the grill turns the outer portion black, why black is the preferred color for high end limousines, why Chanel and Dior and Bond use black and white logos, why black is used in fashion to emphasize slimness, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

You can also be Black and Proud. I would not suggest you use white in the same sentiment.

If it were just a constructive suggestion, it would be harmless enough. My guess, though, is that "errors" in usage will be regarded with increasing gravity. Use the wrong wording, and your boss and colleagues will tacitly start marking you as one of "them", division increases, and the cycle continues.

There is nothing new under the sun. We're just inventing new ways to hate each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com