Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

Re:Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me by McDyver on Monday August 25, 2025 @08:07AM (#45012970)

I understand your point, but my argument is in the more generic aspect.

Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop?

I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me by zipliner on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:33PM (#45015687)

> would eventually

That's an empirical premise in a slippery slope style argument. Any evidence to back it up? Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why? I don't see it.

> no need to self-censor

The terms allow/deny are more directly descriptive and less contested which I see as a clear win-win change, so I've shifted to use those terms. No biggie and I don't feel self-censored by doing so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me by anonfordays on Friday August 29, 2025 @10:50AM (#45064895)

>Who is opposing the terms allow/deny and why?

I am. As a BIPOC, we've been denied rights since the founding of the US. When I read "denylist," I can see my ancestors there, on a list to be denied the right to vote. It's not inclusive to use words like "deny" in the capacity of denying access to things.

[ Parent | on HN ]