Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too.
Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
Indeed there's racism in many forms, shapes, and sizes. At what point should it be addressed, and where? I am certainly no expert here. What I observe in society when it comes to cultural change in general is that often a change is set in by a particular group who trigger a kind of overreaction on the theme by their activism, which in turn leads to severe resistance by others, followed by some 'middle road' becoming the new cultural norm over time. This can take many years.
You saw that with feminism, where at some point many fierce feminists held quite extreme views on the desired role of men in society. The vanguard opened the way, and then during many years feminist ideas started to permeate into every day society. On racism, Black Pete the helper of Saint Nicholas in a yearly children's festivity in the Netherlands, is an example where initially practically no one thought it racist. Until it was made a theme by activists. Now a couple years later about 3 quarters of the country see soot-faced Pete's (from the chimney through which they dispatch gifts), while a third clings to tradition with black face Pete and the argument "it isn't racist, and never was".
My friend's brother got fired for saying something at work, except HR would not tell him what it was he said. Instead, they gave him a pamphlet filled with "problematic" phrases and suggested alternatives; it was many pages and may or may not have even contained his particular unsanctioned phrase. Who knows.
Included in the pamphlet were phrases such as (with minimal paraphrasing) "that falls on deaf ears", which offends the deaf community, "this is a blind spot", which offends blind people, "we're coming up short on that", which offends short people, "that's a tall order", which offends tall people, and more.
I'm really hard pressed to accept that on the off chance someone gets upset about their height because someone uses distance or length to compare two concepts in a work meeting, that it should be anyone's problem other than that person.
I feel similarly about words like "dark", or "whitelist/blacklist", which have documented nonracial etymology, etc. At some point we draw the line, but we draw it to reject absurdity, not to embrace it.
I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc. instead of finding ever more ways to pat ourselves on the back for minimal effort.
> I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc.
As most people do. Guess all of that will happen simultaneously in the chaotic cauldron of society, including language evolution to that happy middle ground over time when terms find common well-accepted meaning.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.
This one is a stretch. 'Dark pattern' makes me think of something like a burglar hiding in the darkness of shadows or nighttime, not race.
And the website in question is hosted by the Australian government, American censorship doesn't come into the picture..
Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too. Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
> Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though
Yes, I use blocklist / allowlist myself, without the dashes.
> Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better.
Good example. I agree. Using the most descriptive variant is a good practice then, and no need to fall back to a vaguer container concept.
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
Indeed there's racism in many forms, shapes, and sizes. At what point should it be addressed, and where? I am certainly no expert here. What I observe in society when it comes to cultural change in general is that often a change is set in by a particular group who trigger a kind of overreaction on the theme by their activism, which in turn leads to severe resistance by others, followed by some 'middle road' becoming the new cultural norm over time. This can take many years.
You saw that with feminism, where at some point many fierce feminists held quite extreme views on the desired role of men in society. The vanguard opened the way, and then during many years feminist ideas started to permeate into every day society. On racism, Black Pete the helper of Saint Nicholas in a yearly children's festivity in the Netherlands, is an example where initially practically no one thought it racist. Until it was made a theme by activists. Now a couple years later about 3 quarters of the country see soot-faced Pete's (from the chimney through which they dispatch gifts), while a third clings to tradition with black face Pete and the argument "it isn't racist, and never was".
Where does it end?
My friend's brother got fired for saying something at work, except HR would not tell him what it was he said. Instead, they gave him a pamphlet filled with "problematic" phrases and suggested alternatives; it was many pages and may or may not have even contained his particular unsanctioned phrase. Who knows.
Included in the pamphlet were phrases such as (with minimal paraphrasing) "that falls on deaf ears", which offends the deaf community, "this is a blind spot", which offends blind people, "we're coming up short on that", which offends short people, "that's a tall order", which offends tall people, and more.
I'm really hard pressed to accept that on the off chance someone gets upset about their height because someone uses distance or length to compare two concepts in a work meeting, that it should be anyone's problem other than that person.
I feel similarly about words like "dark", or "whitelist/blacklist", which have documented nonracial etymology, etc. At some point we draw the line, but we draw it to reject absurdity, not to embrace it.
I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc. instead of finding ever more ways to pat ourselves on the back for minimal effort.
> I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc.
As most people do. Guess all of that will happen simultaneously in the chaotic cauldron of society, including language evolution to that happy middle ground over time when terms find common well-accepted meaning.
I agree that "dark pattern" does not to me think of race, either, but I think that "deceptive design" is a better word anyways.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.