It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    while in some ways I can see your point, I would just have a hard time saying this in a work meeting here in the deep south with black colleagues present

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      most sociologists and some psychologists would refer to this as a subconscious, or subdued form of racism.

      it is kind of silly a the end of the day. How a terminology originally referring to a power dynamic. Has been so excessively ingrained in relation to race (which isn’t very historically relevant) such that even using these terms in a generic capacity, not relating to in any form what would constitute this “negative slavery” concept, that it makes people feel uneasy, summarizes rather weirdly, the human condition.

      maybe this is just my autism speaking, but i see so little resemblance contextually, and almost zero historical relevance that i see almost no connection between the words and the practices at hand. Like you could do a wikipedia speedrun from technology to slavery, but you could also do that from any topic, to slavery. Everything is so interconnected there is nothing pure anymore.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Isn’t the inverse - “I asked x number of black people and they were OK with it” or even “I assume y% number of black people are ok with it” subject to the same criticism?

        I am white so we’re probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          yeah they’re both equally susceptible to the same problem. Ultimately though, one of the things we can best do to examine something like this is relate it to other similar concepts/problems. PTSD for example, hearing a certain word or phrase may make you deeply uncomfortable or uneasy. It’s not recommended to simply cope with that, or stop hearing those terms. It’s recommended to learn how to work with and against it, in order to become a more functional human. And you could argue a similar thing in regards to master/slave terminology being used.

          You could also expand into the general normalization of a concept. For example curse words are only bad because we deem them to be. If a white guy explains the architecture of a piece of software using master/slave terminology to a group of people which includes black people, specifically in the country of america. It might be weird, but realistically, it probably shouldn’t be. Why? It’s simple, there’s nothing that prevents this from being a presentation from a black person explaining an architecture using a master/slave architecture in the exact same manner as the white guy, to a room of people that includes white people. Is that weird? I see no reason for it to be weird there either.

          The entire reason the master/slave terminology is frowned upon is because of the power balance in that specific situation, however if there is no power imbalance, it’s debatable as to whether it matters or not. It’s perfectly fine in the BDSM space even between white/black people because it’s a consented accepted terminology in that specific context. So we could even extend the social acceptableness of it based on who consents to experiencing that dialog.

          There are a lot of ways to look at and think about things, ultimately it’s probably worth not thinking all too hard about most things as they don’t lead to much.

          I am white so we’re probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.

          definitely, but that’s part of the fun, if you can’t discuss things in a philosophical manner whats the point of even asking the question in the first place.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Or isn’t the other half of that …… if you have a toxic personality and wish to change that, there may be no single fix but to pay more attention to many small habits contributing to that toxicity.

            This whole conversation reminds me of the similar one many years ago, about crude jokes and pictures/calendars in the workplace. The dominant population said exactly the same things. However now we’re all more professional and work is much less toxic, not just for women, minorities, people with different preferences, but also less toxic for us white male heteros as well. We all won that one

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              yeah that’s certainly an option, but defining a toxic personality or a toxic personality trait in it of itself is a really hard and difficult process, and doing that externally is arguably worse. As it’s rife for gaslighting and abuse, but that’s a different story.

              As for crude jokes, if you mean like, sexual harassment i think that’s different. I think crude language in general is perfectly reasonable, though the trick is obviously being able to read the room. There’s a fine line between hanging with the friends, and then being a fucking asshole.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        this is actually a terminology that i would be interested on seeing the historical context for actually. My assumption has always been light based “whitelist referring to a well lit room, where as blacklist refers to a completely dark room” making things easy/hard to find as a a result.

        It could also literally just be a coincidence and it simply sounded better for the allow list to be whitelisted, and the deny list to be blacklisted, humans have weird connections to words like that.

        • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Fucking thermodynamics is racist guys

          Black absorbs, white reflects

          Blackhole, sun

          fuck these people

        • Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          For most people it’s a lot more simple and subconscious than that. White=positive, black=negative. Most people do not consciously apply this to race, but they don’t have to for the subconscious association to take root.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            i would assume it’s more accurately interpreted as “white=allowed, and black=denied” but in order for that to transmit to your subconscious racism i feel like you probably need to be racist already.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If I had to guess, it’s just the general “white=good black=bad” which itself is likely related to day/night.

          But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

            that seems like an oddly specific origination for that specific term, but it’s certainly a possibility. But as with words being alive and taking on unintended meanings, it’s also equally likely that it became skin color agnostic at some point, and the term stuck because it was already being used.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                yeah no i understand, i’m just saying that’s a potential point where i could’ve originated and then morphed over time. Even if it was founded on race originally, it’s not super likely it would matter today in any broader contexts.

                • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Idk if that’s for white folks like me (and you?) to decide, and there is no harm on erring on the side of caution.

                  It’s like the deal with micro-aggressions. Alone they’re not much, but a constant buildup of these little things can leave someone feeling raw and very sensitive to it.

                  I don’t think the etymology started with race, I think it started with day/night. But I’m not an expert on etymology, and while I’m very curious, it probably doesn’t really matter here.

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Idk if that’s for white folks like me (and you?) to decide, and there is no harm on erring on the side of caution.

                    yeah, probably not, and that’s why i tend to err on the side of these discussions not being very productive. As for erring on the side of caution, idk. I’m not really sure theres that much caution even present to begin with. It might even be sufficient enough to just not use the terms around specific people per their request, or not at all, who knows.

                    It’s like the deal with micro-aggressions. Alone they’re not much, but a constant buildup of these little things can leave someone feeling raw and very sensitive to it.

                    i think my problem, is that people have a very analytical and sterile approach to these things. In terms of classifying and denoting things micro aggressions as a term makes sense. But from a broader societal perspective, i think it’s useless, if not negatively impactful.

                    It’s better to identity specific facets of society that are problematic, for example treatment and behavior of certain people differently from others, as opposed to “treating the symptom” so to speak.

                    I don’t think the etymology started with race, I think it started with day/night. But I’m not an expert on etymology, and while I’m very curious, it probably doesn’t really matter here.

                    it really could’ve been from anything, but at the end of the day whatever it started from is irrelevant to it’s use case today, and anybody using it to be offensive is offensive for other reasons at that point.

      • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Bro I fucking said “whitelist” in a meeting and got so many glares, fuck all of these fucking uneducated pieces of shit that can only punch down because they know nothing except “DATS RACIST”