On 20200721 10:34:13, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 7/21/20 9:09 AM, Peter L. Berghold wrote:
This is the first time this long time lurker has posted here and I'm probably
going to offend a lot of people by what I have to say.
I don't think your post is offensive. It is said as a statement of facts and
does not seem to contain any malicious intent. Sometimes facts hurt. Sometimes
they don't.
I really don't get why anyone would be offended by blacklistd and whitelist
given neither have any sort of connection to race or skin color.
I think that many people are ~> some of society is hypersensitive to the two
five letter strings "white" and "black". Some people are so hypersensitive that
they can't see the forest (meaning of the words containing said five letter
strings) for the trees (said five letter strings).
It is absurd in my opinion that there is a population going about that is
offended by seemingly everything and sees racism where none exists.
I agree and share your opinion that it is absurd where people are ascribing
racism where none has historically exists.
Will we be asked to rename "blacktop", which is a specific subset of asphalt?
Or what about renaming the SR-71 Blackbird? Or will White Castle need to
rename, when the name was originally meant to reference clean and safe to eat
at? Or dare I say it, what about renaming the U.S.A.'s White House?
*NONE* of these three examples were named with any racism in them. They were
named based on the color of their appearance.
Sure, the White House may be associated with specific individuals, many of whom
happened to be white, which have done some questionable things. But the occupant
of the building has nothing to do with the building's naming.
What offends me more is the notion we have to wreak havoc in order to
accommodate these thin skinned social warriors.
I am willing to consider new accepted norms for things going forward. (See
below.) I think that retroactively changing things because of a sub-string
collision is fraught with errors.
Looking at a dictionary blog: https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/blacklist
there is no indication the term was racial at all. A list of "objectionable
or suspicious people" is not necessarily with regard to race.
I completely agree.
I wonder when these folks are going to want black and white as colors stricken
from the English language?
IMHO completely removing the words is a very bad idea. Lest we forget where we
have been in the past, thus dooming us to repeat it in the future.
For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a
whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
"gay" had a significantly different meaning 100 years ago than it does today.
Language, much like society grows, changes, and evolves.
I think that it is generally a good thing to use the current accepted words when
creating new things. But creating new is decidedly different than retroactively
changing things that exist today. That being said, I think that the majority of
people would agree that we have not yet crossed the tipping point for "white"
and "black".
Even if the meaning changed overnight — something that I think is unlikely to
happen — there will be years of cohabitation of the old meaning and the new
meaning of the words.
I hear that the old RMA resistor color code is under attack as it is
exceptionally discriminatory. As you may or may not know black is the lowest
value 0, brown is only 1, Red is 2. This must insult the blacks as being the
lowest of the low. Mexicans must be screaming about being below American
Indians. And even the Asians at 4 have a cause to claim discrimination because
white is all the way up past twice the Asian value at (GASP) 9. The lordly
whites obviously designed the RMA color code, published as EIA RS-279, to put
all the other races down. So it MUST be abolished. Scrap all your color coded
resistors. They are racist reminders of oppression!
{O.O}
