I do think there is some validity to the change.
Black lists are lists of bad things that need to be blocked or prevented, white lists are things that are good and allowed and wanted. That does create an unsavory connotation with the words themselves.
Furthermore, as someone in an industry that used blacklist and whitelist extensively, noobs screw up those words all the time. It’s not a very clear word. Blocklist and allowlist are much less ambiguous.
Whitelist and blacklist are indeed ambiguous, and they also create negative connotations that could reinforce other, actually racist views and language, whether conscious or not.
But hey, i can do that, too:
> no matter the actual origins of the word in question
> The only way to not be seen as a racist is to apologize and use whatever words they tell you to use.
Please stop using the words "debating", "win", "game", "oppose", "racist", "apologize". They are highly offensive and racist vocabulary.
"words have meaning": this is a right wing dog whistle, even if you are a true language prescriptivist no one will believe you.
"it's stupid": just makes you look like an asshole when someone is trying to do something people see as in good faith.
"it's pointless": then why does it matter one way or another? Goto other reason.
"it's not racist": when we're talking about blacklists it never was, it's about trying to not always associate black with the negative connotation, but you look really racist for wanting to keep it.
"black outside the context of race does have negative connotations in humans, you can't change that we're afraid of the dark": now you look really really racist.
So basically you're "proving" to yourself that everyone is either racist or an asshole, by creating a situation where people don't want to listen to you because you're insufferable. But you can pretend to be virtuous because you're doing it for some make believe greater good about the word "whitelist."
BTW I'm actually trying to help you see the reason there's resistance. I use "allowlist" and "denylist" voluntarily in my OSS repos, because it doesn't really matter to me. But I still find people who make it their moral imperative to police these words insufferable. From my perspective, you either don't know that, which shows you have no tact, or you don't care, which shows that you're doing this in bad faith.
> When was the last time you told someone not to use a word
Literally never. Again you assume a lot about me. I am speaking purely from the perspective of being told to use different words. It's never really bothered me. My response has always been "sure whatever." Some of them are a stretch but a lot of them make sense. No one has ever made me to feel bad about it.
Clearly someone hurt you and made you feel bad and I'm sorry for that.
Believe it or not, people are more likely to be put off by obnoxious word police than they are to be racist.
Okay let's go back to the beginning here.
> The more you oppose someone telling you not to use a word, the more racist you appear, no matter the actual origins of the word in question.
And I expounded why -- literally agreeing with you. Then you called me insufferable. If people took "you're obnoxious" as a valid defense then there would be a way to win the game. Your entire point is that all roads lead to racism and then got defensive when in fact all roads lead to racism. As much as it would be fun to be an omnipotent benevolent dictatress, am I in fact not and have no power to change how people behave.
Also you're clearly mad about word policing but your gripe with them is that you think the way they deliver the message is obnoxious and insufferable. But since you did voluntarily switch up your wording you clearly have no issue with the message itself. Which means you're tone policing. I bet some folks view you the same way you view them.