Software going politically correct

[GuitarStv]

As a Software Engineer: no this does not concern me at all. I can assure you that the software does not care at all what terms you use for something. If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work then why wouldn't you want to use it?

If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work, then absolutely.  I've got no problems changing terms.  But it's unclear to me that this change in terminology is actually driven by uncomfortable employees rather than management overreacting to the current political climate.

But I'm also a privileged straight white dude.  Any black people in here want to weigh in with their feelings on the black hat/white hat thing?  Is this a real issue?

[ixtap]

I hate this so much. Not because I'm so attached to specific terms, but because it feels so manipulative. Like 1984 new speak where the language is purged so that people will not be able to express or even think certain concepts.

And yet, what it is doing at this point is the opposite. Making people realize that words have consequences and should be thought about.

Just like folks have said here, most people don't think about "gypped" as being problematic, but it is. Learning that just might help people think and express themselves more clearly, not less.

[sherr]

As a Software Engineer: no this does not concern me at all. I can assure you that the software does not care at all what terms you use for something. If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work then why wouldn't you want to use it?

If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work, then absolutely.  I've got no problems changing terms.  But it's unclear to me that this change in terminology is actually driven by uncomfortable employees rather than management overreacting to the current political climate.

But I'm also a privileged straight white dude.  Any black people in here want to weigh in with their feelings on the black hat/white hat thing?  Is this a real issue?

Let me reassure you then that this has been a conversation in the industry for a long time. Here's one example from 2014. The BLM protests are at most adding a level of urgency to the discussion, not fabricating an issue out of whole cloth.

[techwiz]

Just starting to hear this at work too. The amount of risk and cost of replacing terms upgrading old software and testing will not be cheap if they want it done quickly. On the positive side look at all the new work for coders.

[Laura33]

At first glance these seem like weird/nonsensical things to get upset about, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I couldn't explain to you what is offensive about all of these terms, but what seems nonsensical to me is making a stink about a simple change in terminology. If anything, the new alternatives are clearer. How is switching going to hurt anyone? This isn't the first boring task that's ever been assigned and it won't be the last.

I wasn't really trying to 'make a stink'.  Just a bit confused.  How does getting rid of a term that refers to cowboy westerns help race relations?  Black hat/white hat seems like a weird thing to target . . . and like it was chosen by someone ignorant of the etymology of the term.

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).  On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.  Sort of like the ice cream truck song. 

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly. 

[Wrenchturner]

At first glance these seem like weird/nonsensical things to get upset about, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I couldn't explain to you what is offensive about all of these terms, but what seems nonsensical to me is making a stink about a simple change in terminology. If anything, the new alternatives are clearer. How is switching going to hurt anyone? This isn't the first boring task that's ever been assigned and it won't be the last.

I wasn't really trying to 'make a stink'.  Just a bit confused.  How does getting rid of a term that refers to cowboy westerns help race relations?  Black hat/white hat seems like a weird thing to target . . . and like it was chosen by someone ignorant of the etymology of the term.

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).  On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.  Sort of like the ice cream truck song. 

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly.

I think it's more like an unfortunate correlation.  See black market, black ops, shadow economy, black/dark money, etc.  These don't have racist roots, they have roots in opacity.

An occult fracture is not a broken bone that practices witchcraft.

I like those Python suggestions on the previous page, though.

[sherr]

I think this “cleaning up” of terminology is going down a very slippery slope.

Slippery Slope arguments are almost universally bad arguments. Just because you can imagine some negative outcome somewhere in that direction doesn't mean that this particular change isn't a good one.

[nereo]

If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work, then absolutely.  I've got no problems changing terms.  But it's unclear to me that this change in terminology is actually driven by uncomfortable employees rather than management overreacting to the current political climate.

But I'm also a privileged straight white dude.  Any black people in here want to weigh in with their feelings on the black hat/white hat thing?  Is this a real issue?

I'm also a white dude, but I can give you a real-world example of how these terms made everyone on my team uncomfortable.

Quick background - I'm a scientist that's forced to code, instead of a coder who works on science.  I'm pretty low on the coding spectrum.  For the last 3 years I've been working on a coding project to take environmental and fisheries data, model it in near-real time and use that to produce a suite of graphics which help managers set catch limits and for the fishing industry to know the status of the stock.

Anyway, there's nine of us in this group, let by two genuine coders who know little about ecology/biology and 7 biologists that stumble their way through writing code.  For the rest of the post I'll use "main" and "branch" - our currently preferred terminology, but these are akin to the former "Master" and "Slave".

On any given month each of us is working on a 'branch' of the 'main code, with the two dedicated coders overseeing the 'main' code (because that's what they are good for and because they have definite blindspots when it comes to understanding ecological data in context).  For example, I spent several months on a branch that could import data from several dozen buoys (e.g. temperature, wind, swell), error check it, and apply a running 24h average and then feed it into another branch that dealt with developing a 2D spatial model (much like those colorful weather maps you see on the news).

When I first started the two coders still used the traditional terminology of 'master' and 'slave'.  To keep everything together and allow people to see who was working on what we use software that lists who is working on what, as well as a white-board for our weekly meetings.  Basically it would say "nereo - slave, weather".  Now it's "nereo - branch weather" (and it's DONE!! so I'm on a new branch...)

Several of us were not comfortable with this, and we discussed migrating to different terms.  At the same time, we had a new postdoc join our group who was black, and was also new to coding.  Everyone became uncomfortable, as no one was going to write "Nicolas - slave [name of branch]".  He's my friend now and I can say he would not be cool with it either.

All ofnthis was occurring just over a year ago and coincided with GitHub's move to change those terms.  So one meeting the head coder asked about changing the nomenclature and we unanimously agreed, some of us very enthusiastically.

Besides just giving you a real world example, the other reason I share this is to emphasize that - for people who have been coders most of their adult lives - the terminology is embedded and second nature.  With familiarity comes acceptance, or at least a sort of blindness to why others might cringe at its usage.  For the rest of us, who were/are just dipping our toes into the world of coding, it was uncomfortable.  As the terms weren't ideal to begin with shifting made sense for us.

[GuitarStv]

At first glance these seem like weird/nonsensical things to get upset about, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I couldn't explain to you what is offensive about all of these terms, but what seems nonsensical to me is making a stink about a simple change in terminology. If anything, the new alternatives are clearer. How is switching going to hurt anyone? This isn't the first boring task that's ever been assigned and it won't be the last.

I wasn't really trying to 'make a stink'.  Just a bit confused.  How does getting rid of a term that refers to cowboy westerns help race relations?  Black hat/white hat seems like a weird thing to target . . . and like it was chosen by someone ignorant of the etymology of the term.

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).

But you're talking about westerns where the hero was a square-jawed Aryan*, and the villain was a square-jawed Aryan*.

(*Although not really . . . Hitler more or less made up the modern usage of the term Aryan.  Historically, Aryans were not pale skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed people.  They were a mix of ethnic Indian and Iranian.  Kinda ironic that the incorrect and racist term that Hitler made up is being used here, rather than simply going with 'white'.  Especially while discussing sensitivity towards hidden meanings of language.  But I digress.)

On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.

It is?  Historically, black has always been used in the west to connote evil.  Black of course, was the colour of mourning so got people thinking of death immediately - so this makes sense but it goes much deeper than that.  The concept of black and white dualism pre-dates the bible, but I suspect that much of what we currently associate with the words comes from that manuscript.  In the book of genesis creation myth, on the first day God separated light from darkness - and continues to use light as a symbol of God and darkness as a symbol of evil throughout.

Note that there is also a huge difference between black as a colour traditionally denoting evil and black as denoting dark brown skinned people.  Honestly, as a kid I always thought that it was kind of racist that we called black people black instead of brown . . . and white people white instead of pink.  White people aren't white, and black people aren't black.  Why are we forcing them into a good/evil structure created more than 2000 years ago?

I have yet to be able to find any evidence that black hat/white hat is steeped in any sort of anti-black (anti-brown?) racism (other than maybe the tangential racism that there were never any black people in old cowboy movies) as you claim here.

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly.

Huh, that's interesting.  I had always assumed that 'niggardly' was racially based and have never used the word for that reason.  And although it's apparently not racist, would still not use the word going forward.  To me, it's too likely to be mistaken for a racist comment.  Not sure if this makes me a hypocrite.

[maizefolk]

My grammar editor on some dumb work self assessment platform flagged “old” as offensive and tried to change it to experienced. I can’t talk about needing to update the experienced process to a new one. It makes no sense. I’m also concerned about the apparent large portion of employees who are using this self assessment tool to bitch about colleagues. Why else would that be there?

Parody becomes reality.

I remember being a small child and watching an episode of spin city where software was installed on all the computers to replace black with african american (because it was the 1990s and at the time that was what folks were taught was the preferred terminology, preferred use swung back the other way since) ... with the inevitable consequence that invitations go out to the mayor's "African american-tie dinner."

I have no problem with one and done changes of coding terminology that is either offensive or awkward. Master/slave sure, get rid of it, particularly since in most cases it's not all that informative terminology to begin with. (nereo, I hadn't thought about how the terminology for code could potentially end up being used to describe tasks assigned to coders, your example helped a lot to see how this could case direct problems.)

I do hope it doesn't become an ongoing thing with programmers continuing having to learn new versions of terminology for the same concepts and get in trouble if they forget and use the a term that used to be correct and no longer is.

[Tyler durden]

Cultural change is slow... so if words become unacceptable going forward that seems reasonable. But I also feel strongly that we can’t demonize someone who still uses that old language. Especially when their intent is benign.

If someone uses those words should they lose their job ? That’s what it seems to be coming too.

[maizefolk]

On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.

It is?  Historically, black has always been used in the west to connote evil.  Black of course, was the colour of mourning so got people thinking of death immediately - so this makes sense but it goes much deeper than that.  The concept of black and white dualism pre-dates the bible, but I suspect that much of what we currently associate with the words comes from that manuscript.  In the book of genesis creation myth, on the first day God separated light from darkness - and continues to use light as a symbol of God and darkness as a symbol of evil throughout.

Note that there is also a huge difference between black as a colour traditionally denoting evil and black as denoting dark brown skinned people.  Honestly, as a kid I always thought that it was kind of racist that we called black people black instead of brown . . . and white people white instead of pink.  White people aren't white, and black people aren't black.  Why are we forcing them into a good/evil structure created more than 2000 years ago?

I have yet to be able to find any evidence that black hat/white hat is steeped in any sort of anti-black (anti-brown?) racism (other than maybe the tangential racism that there were never any black people in old cowboy movies) as you claim here.

Consistent with this, centuries ago, well after the black/light good/evil distinction was embedded in english, if a person from sub saharan africa had suddenly found themselves in England, the word that would likely have been used to describe them was that they were a  "moor" not that they were black.

Good example of this is Othello in the play by the same name.

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly.

Huh, that's interesting.  I had always assumed that 'niggardly' was racially based and have never used the word for that reason.  And although it's apparently not racist, would still not use the word going forward.  To me, it's too likely to be mistaken for a racist comment.  Not sure if this makes me a hypocrite.

Niger seed for birds (finches) has a similar problem (separate deverivation but looks too close written down). Recently it seems like when I buy it the same product is now spelled nyjer seed which seems to solve the problem.

[sherr]

I have yet to be able to find any evidence that black hat/white hat is steeped in any sort of anti-black (anti-brown?) racism (other than maybe the tangential racism that there were never any black people in old cowboy movies) as you claim here.

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly.

Huh, that's interesting.  I had always assumed that 'niggardly' was racially based and have never used the word for that reason.  And although it's apparently not racist, would still not use the word going forward.  To me, it's too likely to be mistaken for a racist comment.  Not sure if this makes me a hypocrite.

Since you seem to be fixated on the white/black hat issue, I'll add my 2c too. Doesn't it make you a tiny bit of a hypocrite? Even if you're right, isn't the difference between white/black hat and "niggardly" merely one of degrees? If a reasonable person could assume that it's a racist term, why not use something else?

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

I do hope it doesn't become an ongoing thing with programmers continuing having to learn new versions of terminology for the same concepts and get in trouble if they forget and use the a term that used to be correct and no longer is.

Right, I think this is the point of coming up with a whole list, instead of dealing with terms piecewise over a long period of time. And including marginal terms like white/black hat. So that it's a "one and done" change, not something that has to be agonized about for all eternity.

[sherr]

Cultural change is slow... so if words become unacceptable going forward that seems reasonable. But I also feel strongly that we can’t demonize someone who still uses that old language. Especially when their intent is benign.

If someone uses those words should they lose their job? That’s what it seems to be coming too.

If someone historically used the terms that are now considered undesirable, but is now complying with their company's guidance on the issue? Obviously not.

If someone is steadfastly refusing to do what their employer is ordering them to and insisting on using master/slave for no reason other than self-righteous spite? Yeah probably.

[ChickenStash]

It's interesting to hear master/slave being used in coding. I'm used to seeing master branches but I've never seen anyone actually refer to the other branches as slaves. They were always referred to as "feature" or "fix" or named after the environment (dev/test/etc.).

I guess that goes along with my earlier thought that master/slave is a great one to leave behind simply because its too ambiguous to be useful. 

[MudPuppy]

I think it’s great to adapt behavior and thinking after learning/understanding new information. Being kind is generally free.

[GuitarStv]

I have yet to be able to find any evidence that black hat/white hat is steeped in any sort of anti-black (anti-brown?) racism (other than maybe the tangential racism that there were never any black people in old cowboy movies) as you claim here.

*An example of this is the word "niggardly," which has zero racial connotations but sure sounds like it does.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly.

Huh, that's interesting.  I had always assumed that 'niggardly' was racially based and have never used the word for that reason.  And although it's apparently not racist, would still not use the word going forward.  To me, it's too likely to be mistaken for a racist comment.  Not sure if this makes me a hypocrite.

Since you seem to be fixated on the white/black hat issue, I'll add my 2c too. Doesn't it make you a tiny bit of a hypocrite? Even if you're right, isn't the difference between white/black hat and "niggardly" merely one of degrees? If a reasonable person could assume that it's a racist term, why not use something else?

That's what I was wondering!  :P

The n word has such strong connotations of racism that it makes me uncomfortable to use words that appear to be closely related, or could be mistaken as that word.

To me white/black don't carry that kind of weight because the words are so commonly used for non-racist reasons (in the bible, in the white hat/black hat thing, etc.).  As mentioned, I think using black or white to denote skin colour that is brown or pink is a misnomer . . . and if we're changing terminology, that would seem to be the correct place to start.

TLDR - I feel that a reasonable person doesn't hear the term 'white hat' and immediately think "RACISM!".

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

[LWYRUP]

I agree with the elimination of master / slave.  I see no issue with refreshing language to be more culturally sensitive, though I don't like the "outrage mobs" that occasionally swarm on people who are good people but prefer to use the language they are used to with no ill intent.  I think language change should be done organically over time, not as part of a vengeful twitter mob. 

If I had to guess, the original white / black distinction (which is very old) is a shorthand for light / dark, which is a shorthand for people being afraid of the dark and things that go bump in the night.  Human fear of nighttime is encoded deep within us.  That's an example of a term where I think it would be inappropriate to jump to the conclusion of racism.  If my employer told me to use replacement terminology in written work product, I would not object.  If there were witch hunts for anyone that disobeyed in colloquial conversation, I would probably start looking for a new job, mostly because of what those events would say about the company's culture generally not because I care about dying on that particular hill.

Similarly, the "pot calling the kettle black" has to do with the fact that people in England and Ireland used to heat their teapots with coal (or in Ireland, which was poorer, peat, which is even worse) and the pots and kettles would get sooty.  So people didn't like that because it was dirty and because if you weren't careful that soot would get on your hands and clothes.  Think of all the ragamuffins in coal-stained clothes in Charles Dickens stories.  Anyways, I still try to avoid the term because I recognize not everyone knows the etymology (and the reference is anachronistic anyways) but I grew up hearing it and so sometimes it just springs into mind. 

[RWD]

Big endian and little endian are also non PC since they sort of make fun of Lilliputians and Blefuscuians

You're joking, right? Hard to tell on the internet...

It's interesting to hear master/slave being used in coding. I'm used to seeing master branches but I've never seen anyone actually refer to the other branches as slaves. They were always referred to as "feature" or "fix" or named after the environment (dev/test/etc.).

I guess that goes along with my earlier thought that master/slave is a great one to leave behind simply because its too ambiguous to be useful. 

I've never heard of slave branches in revision control either. In that context "master" is not a controlling entity but instead the original version (like as in the master version of an album recording).

Master/slave in computing is used where one device or process controls one or more devices or processes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)

[maizefolk]

I hadn't heard it for software either, but I do remember it used to be used when two different hard drives were connected to a motherboard with the same IDE cable.

Looks like even there is has now been removed from the documentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Master_and_slave_clarification

[RetiredAt63]

Black/white as descriptor definitely has connotations - think of black magic versus white magic.

[bacchi]

Black/white as descriptor definitely has connotations - think of black magic versus white magic.

Or the Black AmEx. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_Card

Or the black belt.

It might be useful to see how other cultures use these terms, recognizing that they might be influenced by the west (or by the west's retelling). "Black" shamanism in Siberia is considered evil and "yellow" shamanism is considered good. However, without looking at the primary sources, we're trusting how historians interpret them.

[sherr]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

[Laura33]

Well, FWIW, I don't use "niggardly" in conversation any more either.  I do cry a little inside, because I'm a language person, and it is such a unique, interesting word.  But I understand that most people don't know its etymology and reach the wrong conclusion and find that hurtful.  So I refrain out of both consideration for their feelings and my own selfish desire not to derail the conversation I'm trying to have. 

[iris lily]

Well, FWIW, I don't use "niggardly" in conversation any more either.  I do cry a little inside, because I'm a language person, and it is such a unique, interesting word.  But I understand that most people don't know its etymology and reach the wrong conclusion and find that hurtful.  So I refrain out of both consideration for their feelings and my own selfish desire not to derail the conversation I'm trying to have.

agreed on “Niggardly.” Sounds like something it isnt.

[GuitarStv]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

Black/white hat have nothing to do with race though.  No longer to use the terms certainly falls within the company's circle of control, but it fails to address the problem they're aiming for.

If we're interested in addressing racism, then it's certainly possible for a software company (or any other company) to tell it's employees to stop using the culturally loaded and incorrect terms "black" and "white" when addressing race.

Ridiculous?  How is it more ridiculous to use more correct descriptors rather than to continue using incorrect terms that force you to throw out common unrelated and non-racist terms?

[dcheesi]

Using blacklist/whitelist to refer to blocked/permitted is exclusionary language, originally by design, then by cultural inertia. There is no reason to continue it. Continuing to associate mal-intent with a colour is as dumb as privileging right-handedness over left-handedness. We can do better.

There goes maladroit.

And sinister motives.

[phildonnia]

Avoid using the word "class" in your code, as it perpetuates the oppressive patriarchal hegemony.

[sherr]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

Black/white hat have nothing to do with race though.  No longer to use the terms certainly falls within the company's circle of control, but it fails to address the problem they're aiming for.

Says you. And the issue is not even really whether you're right or not, it's whether a reasonable person would assume that, same as the word "niggardly". When the issue is "people feeling comfortable at work", then to some degree "feels" do in fact equal "reals".

[boy_bye]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

Black/white hat have nothing to do with race though.  No longer to use the terms certainly falls within the company's circle of control, but it fails to address the problem they're aiming for.

Says you. And the issue is not even really whether you're right or not, it's whether a reasonable person would assume that, same as the word "niggardly". When the issue is "people feeling comfortable at work", then to some degree "feels" do in fact equal "reals".

I think it's helpful in these cases to use my imagination to try to understand what other folks might be feeling.

For instance, imagine you are Black American, raised in this culture where, with few exceptions, "white" connotes goodness and "black" connotes badness. Can you imagine how irritating / upsetting it might be to have *your identity* so often used as shorthand for evil or excluded, throughout all parts of the culture from fairy tales to Western movies to literally lists of entities that your computer can and can't interact with? Especially in the context of widespread systemic racism in which we are living?

It doesn't matter where "White Hat/ Black Hat" came from -- it really doesn't. What matters is that it upholds and perpetuates the deep-seated cultural trope of "white" = good and "black" = bad. That cultural trope is the thing we are trying to undo here, regardless of where it came from.

[TrMama]

As a Software Engineer: no this does not concern me at all. I can assure you that the software does not care at all what terms you use for something. If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work then why wouldn't you want to use it?

If using a different term for something makes your coworkers feel less uncomfortable at work, then absolutely.  I've got no problems changing terms.  But it's unclear to me that this change in terminology is actually driven by uncomfortable employees rather than management overreacting to the current political climate.

But I'm also a privileged straight white dude.  Any black people in here want to weigh in with their feelings on the black hat/white hat thing?  Is this a real issue?

Let me reassure you then that this has been a conversation in the industry for a long time. Here's one example from 2014. The BLM protests are at most adding a level of urgency to the discussion, not fabricating an issue out of whole cloth.

This issue isn't new at all. As a tech writer it's been brought up to me (and by me) going back 10 years. I'm thrilled there's now some momentum to actually address the issue. Plus, it's also not just the code that's an issue. The UI of many apps also use these terms, so it's not just the coders who see them, it's also every. single. user.

Want to know how much I hated documenting the whitelist/blacklist access control system that only allows people on the whitelist to access the site? Seemed like an obviously segregationist term to me. At the time I was told the terms couldn't be changed in the UI because they were industry standard and it was what the customer wanted.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Well, FWIW, I don't use "niggardly" in conversation any more either.  I do cry a little inside, because I'm a language person, and it is such a unique, interesting word.  But I understand that most people don't know its etymology and reach the wrong conclusion and find that hurtful.  So I refrain out of both consideration for their feelings and my own selfish desire not to derail the conversation I'm trying to have.

I too am a wordsmith.

I  used "niggardly" on another website for which I was subjected to a tidal wave of vituperation.

I think ignorant posters thought the word was a variant of  the slur  "n*rly."

Since then I've not used the word in any post on any website.

MOD EDIT: No need to write it out, we know what you mean.

[GuitarStv]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

Black/white hat have nothing to do with race though.  No longer to use the terms certainly falls within the company's circle of control, but it fails to address the problem they're aiming for.

Says you. And the issue is not even really whether you're right or not, it's whether a reasonable person would assume that, same as the word "niggardly". When the issue is "people feeling comfortable at work", then to some degree "feels" do in fact equal "reals".

I think it's helpful in these cases to use my imagination to try to understand what other folks might be feeling.

For instance, imagine you are Black American, raised in this culture where, with few exceptions, "white" connotes goodness and "black" connotes badness. Can you imagine how irritating / upsetting it might be to have *your identity* so often used as shorthand for evil or excluded, throughout all parts of the culture from fairy tales to Western movies to literally lists of entities that your computer can and can't interact with? Especially in the context of widespread systemic racism in which we are living?

It doesn't matter where "White Hat/ Black Hat" came from -- it really doesn't. What matters is that it upholds and perpetuates the deep-seated cultural trope of "white" = good and "black" = bad. That cultural trope is the thing we are trying to undo here, regardless of where it came from.

But that's my whole point.

We don't have to undo the "white" = good and "black" = bad cultural trope that predates slavery in America by thousands of years.  There's actually nothing wrong with it.

We need to stop calling brown people "black" and pink people "white".  Leave the pre-existing cultural stuff alone.  Attack the problem from the source and stop misidentifying people . . . because it kinda seems like this black/white mis-identification came from an attempt to tie racism in to the "white" = good and "black" = bad thing that already existed.  So opt out of playing that racist game, rather than trying to dismantle a multi-century old existing cultural artifact bit by bit.

[Paul der Krake]

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).  On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.  Sort of like the ice cream truck song. 

I'm not a linguist but I posit that the western world has been using dark as a shortcut for bad/danger since time immemorial. When most people tended to their crops their entire lives within a 30 mile radius of where they were born, not even knowing that there were black people in this world.

Night and darkness is scary, and universally so, which is why we film horror movies tend to be filmed in dark settings.

Here's a random quote from Homer I picked from dozens and dozens of occurrences of "black" and "dark":

“And marshal Agamemnon took his lead:
“Pray god you’re right, dear brother Menelaus!
But the wound—a healer will treat it, apply drugs
and put a stop to the black waves of pain.”

[boy_bye]

There doesn't appear to be any downside to using less-colored terminology, except simply that it's a change and people are resistant to change of any sort.

See, here I kind of disagree.  Getting rid of black / white terminology reinforces the incorrect (and racist) use of black / white to denote skin colour that is neither black nor white.  That is a downside greater than what changing the terminology is supposed to resolve.

I'm not opposed to changing terms that we use, but think that we might be changing the wrong terms in haste.

Your proposed "better" solution - to stop using black / white as descriptors of skin color - requires a society-wide change and is definitely not within a software company's circle of control. They would look even more ridiculous taking that route.

They themselves not using the terms "black/white hat" is entirely within their control.

Black/white hat have nothing to do with race though.  No longer to use the terms certainly falls within the company's circle of control, but it fails to address the problem they're aiming for.

Says you. And the issue is not even really whether you're right or not, it's whether a reasonable person would assume that, same as the word "niggardly". When the issue is "people feeling comfortable at work", then to some degree "feels" do in fact equal "reals".

I think it's helpful in these cases to use my imagination to try to understand what other folks might be feeling.

For instance, imagine you are Black American, raised in this culture where, with few exceptions, "white" connotes goodness and "black" connotes badness. Can you imagine how irritating / upsetting it might be to have *your identity* so often used as shorthand for evil or excluded, throughout all parts of the culture from fairy tales to Western movies to literally lists of entities that your computer can and can't interact with? Especially in the context of widespread systemic racism in which we are living?

It doesn't matter where "White Hat/ Black Hat" came from -- it really doesn't. What matters is that it upholds and perpetuates the deep-seated cultural trope of "white" = good and "black" = bad. That cultural trope is the thing we are trying to undo here, regardless of where it came from.

But that's my whole point.

We don't have to undo the "white" = good and "black" = bad cultural trope that predates slavery in America by thousands of years.  There's actually nothing wrong with it.

We need to stop calling brown people "black" and pink people "white".  Leave the pre-existing cultural stuff alone.  Attack the problem from the source and stop misidentifying people . . . because it kinda seems like this black/white mis-identification came from an attempt to tie racism in to the "white" = good and "black" = bad thing that already existed.  So opt out of playing that racist game, rather than trying to dismantle a multi-century old existing cultural artifact bit by bit.

At this point, though, Blackness is an identity. Black people identify as Black. As a people, they have been through unique and horrifying and uniting experiences based on their Blackness. To do as you say, we'd need to wipe the entire concept of race away and I think it's pretty unlikely and honestly historically inaccurate to do that.

There's also the fact that skin color doesn't correlate neatly to the race people identify with. Lots of light-skinned folks who identify as Black and lots of darker-skinned people who don't.

We can't go back in time and undo the concepts of Whiteness and Blackness. That cat is out of the bag. What we can do is make the language that we use TODAY less hurtful to and more inclusive of people who are alive today.

[MudPuppy]

@madgeylou hits the nail on the head

[LWYRUP]

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).  On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.  Sort of like the ice cream truck song. 

I'm not a linguist but I posit that the western world has been using dark as a shortcut for bad/danger since time immemorial. When most people tended to their crops their entire lives within a 30 mile radius of where they were born, not even knowing that there were black people in this world.

Night and darkness is scary, and universally so, which is why we film horror movies tend to be filmed in dark settings.

Here's a random quote from Homer I picked from dozens and dozens of occurrences of "black" and "dark":

“And marshal Agamemnon took his lead:
“Pray god you’re right, dear brother Menelaus!
But the wound—a healer will treat it, apply drugs
and put a stop to the black waves of pain.”

I think it is possible both be more sensitive in how we use words (if we want to use something else other than blacklist, that's fine with me) but also be more rational about understanding things in their context and think through what's derived from a racist source and needs to be excised completely (e.g., blackface) and what's a totally non-racial metaphor. 

Like, this is one of my favorite poems, and practically an anthem in the UK, and mentions black negatively due to association with night terrors and has nothing at all to do with race.  It would be a shame to lose a cultural treasure like this:

Out of the night that covers me,
      Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
      For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
      I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
      My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
      Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
      Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
      How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
      I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY

[boy_bye]

It's not that black hat/white hat is an innocent term that originated because of a director's choice in an old movie, and people nowadays are assuming incorrectly that it's racist because the bad guy just happens to wear black and the good guy just happens to wear white.* 

It's that the reason directors chose the black hat for the bad guy and the white hat for the good guy was because of the longstanding cultural assumptions that white = good and black = bad.  It was a super-easy signal to the audience to know who the bad guy was.  Look, he's wearing black!  Ooohhh, and he's swarthy with facial hair, too!  Oh, but look, here's our clean-cut, square-jawed Aryan in the white hat -- he must be the good guy who's going to save the day.

IOW, the very choice of who wore what color -- the reason why that was such an effective signal -- was the result of hundreds of years of how we viewed and characterized our fellow humans based on their color (with higher being better, of course).  On its face, the choice of hat color appears entirely innocent.  But its origin is steeped in racism.  Sort of like the ice cream truck song. 

I'm not a linguist but I posit that the western world has been using dark as a shortcut for bad/danger since time immemorial. When most people tended to their crops their entire lives within a 30 mile radius of where they were born, not even knowing that there were black people in this world.

Night and darkness is scary, and universally so, which is why we film horror movies tend to be filmed in dark settings.

Here's a random quote from Homer I picked from dozens and dozens of occurrences of "black" and "dark":

“And marshal Agamemnon took his lead:
“Pray god you’re right, dear brother Menelaus!
But the wound—a healer will treat it, apply drugs
and put a stop to the black waves of pain.”

I think it is possible both be more sensitive in how we use words (if we want to use something else other than blacklist, that's fine with me) but also be more rational about understanding things in their context and think through what's derived from a racist source and needs to be excised completely (e.g., blackface) and what's a totally non-racial metaphor. 

Like, this is one of my favorite poems, and practically an anthem in the UK, and mentions black negatively due to association with night terrors and has nothing at all to do with race.  It would be a shame to lose a cultural treasure like this:

Out of the night that covers me,
      Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
      For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
      I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
      My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
      Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
      Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
      How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
      I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY

Is anyone asking for poems to be rewritten? No. People are asking for humans alive right now to use more inclusive language in this moment.

The approach I've often seen taken in discussing historical texts that have antiquated language or tropes is to include that as part of the discussion.

[LWYRUP]

Nobody is asking for poems to be rewritten.  But some people regularly try to get curriculums changed to eliminate certain works, many of which have great historical and cultural value. 

Some of which have offensive parts, and that should be recognized and addressed in the discussion, but still taught.  Other of which, like this poem, do not actually have any offensive parts, in which case the correct etymology should be explained. 

[boy_bye]

Nobody is asking for poems to be rewritten.  But some people regularly try to get curriculums changed to eliminate certain works, many of which have great historical and cultural value. 

Some of which have offensive parts, and that should be recognized and addressed in the discussion, but still taught.  Other of which, like this poem, do not actually have any offensive parts, in which case the correct etymology should be explained.

I believe it's worthwhile to diversify the texts that people are taught. As more Black / queer / indigenous / non-dude voices are added to the curriculum, that might mean pushing some racist / sexist / colonialist texts off the list. I'm okay with that, especially since most of what people my age at least (47) were taught was 90%+ centered on white male voices.

ETA: on the idea that some things are "not actually offensive." I would argue that the person in the group being impacted by identifying black with bad would be much better positioned to accurately let us know what is and isn't offensive.

[GuitarStv]

At this point, though, Blackness is an identity. Black people identify as Black. As a people, they have been through unique and horrifying and uniting experiences based on their Blackness. To do as you say, we'd need to wipe the entire concept of race away and I think it's pretty unlikely and honestly historically inaccurate to do that.

There's also the fact that skin color doesn't correlate neatly to the race people identify with. Lots of light-skinned folks who identify as Black and lots of darker-skinned people who don't.

We can't go back in time and undo the concepts of Whiteness and Blackness. That cat is out of the bag. What we can do is make the language that we use TODAY less hurtful to and more inclusive of people who are alive today.

These are good points.  And now I'm more conflicted than before about the whole thing.

We can't call brown people 'brown' because we originally called them 'black' to associate them with negative stuff.  But since we've been calling them 'black' for the negative associations, they started identifying as 'racially black' and now like the term.  So now we are dismantling existing language in a (what seems a likely futile attempt) to disassociate millennia of referring to black stuff as being bad and good stuff as white . . . because it's not possible to just stop calling brown people 'black' (due to the racial identity erasure issue you brought up).

That's a clusterfuck of terrible options with no clear good path that I can see.



What if instead of trying to call brown people who identify 'black' because of their brownness, we change 'white' people to 'pink' people instead?  This would be more socially acceptable, no?  And then we can leave all the many white/black comparisons because they wouldn't be racially comparable.  Nobody's worried about 'pink hat'/'black hat' comparisons, right?

[boy_bye]

At this point, though, Blackness is an identity. Black people identify as Black. As a people, they have been through unique and horrifying and uniting experiences based on their Blackness. To do as you say, we'd need to wipe the entire concept of race away and I think it's pretty unlikely and honestly historically inaccurate to do that.

There's also the fact that skin color doesn't correlate neatly to the race people identify with. Lots of light-skinned folks who identify as Black and lots of darker-skinned people who don't.

We can't go back in time and undo the concepts of Whiteness and Blackness. That cat is out of the bag. What we can do is make the language that we use TODAY less hurtful to and more inclusive of people who are alive today.

These are good points.  And now I'm more conflicted than before about the whole thing.

We can't call brown people 'brown' because we originally called them 'black' to associate them with negative stuff.  But since we've been calling them 'black' for the negative associations, they started identifying as 'racially black' and now like the term.  So now we are dismantling existing language in a (what seems a likely futile attempt) to disassociate millennia of referring to black stuff as being bad and good stuff as white . . . because it's not possible to just stop calling brown people 'black' (due to the racial identity erasure issue you brought up).

That's a clusterfuck of terrible options with no clear good path that I can see.



What if instead of trying to call brown people who identify 'black' because of their brownness, we change 'white' people to 'pink' people instead?  This would be more socially acceptable, no?  And then we can leave all the many white/black comparisons because they wouldn't be racially comparable.  Nobody's worried about 'pink hat'/'black hat' comparisons, right?

I honestly don't understand why we can't just say "good" or "evil" or some other term, instead of white and black hats? It doesn't seem that complicated to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[maizefolk]

If we cannot change the word being used to describe people even though it is A) inaccurate B) has centuries less claim to that word than the use of the same word to describe either a color or a bad thing, I propose we just change the name of the color.

Announce that henceforth black (the color) and black (as in the scared or depressing feeling of being alone in the dark) is spelled blic, and any references to black as a color or scary/bleak are simply using an archaic spelling/pronunciation for a modern word that just happened to be spelled the same as the word a group of people use to describe themselves.

Two concepts, two different words. Nobody has to try to rewire human beings to stop being afraid of the night.

Or like GuiitarStv proposed we start calling the people who would currently be called white pink instead (which would remove POC from our lexicon as well).

[MudPuppy]

Language changes and context changes. To whine about minuscule usage adaptations that reflect today’s context is pretty silly.

[sherr]

What if instead of trying to call brown people who identify 'black' because of their brownness, we change 'white' people to 'pink' people instead?  This would be more socially acceptable, no?  And then we can leave all the many white/black comparisons because they wouldn't be racially comparable.  Nobody's worried about 'pink hat'/'black hat' comparisons, right?

Whether I am pink or red depends on how much time I've been in the sun. Also some people are actually black, for example:


But seriously, you're still doing the thing where you're proposing solutions that are beyond the circle of control of the people in question. OP's company can't convince society to switch to pink/brown. They can decide to stop using the terms "white/black hat". You can have high-minded discussions about what the optimal societal solution is beyond that, but to frame it as "this company's word-change list is wrong because" makes no sense.

[LWYRUP]

Nobody is asking for poems to be rewritten.  But some people regularly try to get curriculums changed to eliminate certain works, many of which have great historical and cultural value. 

Some of which have offensive parts, and that should be recognized and addressed in the discussion, but still taught.  Other of which, like this poem, do not actually have any offensive parts, in which case the correct etymology should be explained.

I believe it's worthwhile to diversify the texts that people are taught. As more Black / queer / indigenous / non-dude voices are added to the curriculum, that might mean pushing some racist / sexist / colonialist texts off the list. I'm okay with that, especially since most of what people my age at least (47) were taught was 90%+ centered on white male voices.

ETA: on the idea that some things are "not actually offensive." I would argue that the person in the group being impacted by identifying black with bad would be much better positioned to accurately let us know what is and isn't offensive.

You are correct that diversifying curriculum will necessitate reductions in certain areas (e.g., who studies Greek anymore) but that's not the critique I am making.

I think what's offensive or not can be made on an objective, reasonable person basis.  Within any group, you can always find some people offended by virtually nothing and some people offended by a hair trigger.  Frequently in these discussion, the current practice is "the most offended person wins." 

You can both support efforts be culturally sensitive and inclusive while disliking the "most offended person wins" culture. 

[mckaylabaloney]

I don't like the "outrage mobs" that occasionally swarm on people who are good people but prefer to use the language they are used to with no ill intent.

What is it that makes a person "good"? Or, conversely, not good?

If I use a term with no ill intent, and then I learn that term is hurtful to others, but I continue to use the term anyway (or to insist that I should be "allowed" to use it, or whatever) because I "prefer" it, how does that indicate that I'm "good"? Or even that I have no ill intent? That is, if I knowingly use language that is potentially or definitely harmful, when non-harmful alternatives exist, how could my intent be anything other than dismissive at best?

Fixating on whether we are "good" or "bad" is not just impossibly vague, but is also actively harmful, since it centers our own intent rather than what actually matters: our impact. My intent is irrelevant except to the extent that it indicates whether I'm likely to repeat my mistakes. If I learn that I regularly do something that unintentionally causes harm to others, it's not important for me to defend my intent. It's important to stop doing that thing.

Focusing on "good" and "bad"/"not good," and intent over impact, also turns these issues into matters of core identity, which is equally (if not more) harmful. If my perception of myself is that I'm a "good person," and someone tells me that a term I've used all my life is harmful to them, I'm likely to receive that feedback as a threat to my understanding of myself as "good," and react defensively. This is often why people are resistant to change -- it's not just about whatever small or large effort may be required to train yourself to change, it's also (and maybe primarily) about the fact that being told you need to change indicates that you were wrong or bad before, which threatens your self-identity as "good" (and humans are deeply resistant to ideas that threaten their core identities).

So, I don't find it very helpful to consider myself a "good person." I'd rather think of myself as a person who is always trying to minimize the amount of harm she causes and increase the amount that she improves things for other people. When I'm successful at internalizing that, it's easier for me to receive a message that I've caused harm and turn my attention to what matters: repairing the harm done, to the extent possible, and preventing myself from causing the same harm in the future.

[LWYRUP]

I don't like the "outrage mobs" that occasionally swarm on people who are good people but prefer to use the language they are used to with no ill intent.

What is it that makes a person "good"? Or, conversely, not good?

If I use a term with no ill intent, and then I learn that term is hurtful to others, but I continue to use the term anyway (or to insist that I should be "allowed" to use it, or whatever) because I "prefer" it, how does that indicate that I'm "good"? Or even that I have no ill intent? That is, if I knowingly use language that is potentially or definitely harmful, when non-harmful alternatives exist, how could my intent be anything other than dismissive at best?

Fixating on whether we are "good" or "bad" is not just impossibly vague, but is also actively harmful, since it centers our own intent rather than what actually matters: our impact. My intent is irrelevant except to the extent that it indicates whether I'm likely to repeat my mistakes. If I learn that I regularly do something that unintentionally causes harm to others, it's not important for me to defend my intent. It's important to stop doing that thing.

Focusing on "good" and "bad"/"not good," and intent over impact, also turns these issues into matters of core identity, which is equally (if not more) harmful. If my perception of myself is that I'm a "good person," and someone tells me that a term I've used all my life is harmful to them, I'm likely to receive that feedback as a threat to my understanding of myself as "good," and react defensively. This is often why people are resistant to change -- it's not just about whatever small or large effort may be required to train yourself to change, it's also (and maybe primarily) about the fact that being told you need to change indicates that you were wrong or bad before, which threatens your self-identity as "good" (and humans are deeply resistant to ideas that threaten their core identities).

So, I don't find it very helpful to consider myself a "good person." I'd rather think of myself as a person who is always trying to minimize the amount of harm she causes and increase the amount that she improves things for other people. When I'm successful at internalizing that, it's easier for me to receive a message that I've caused harm and turn my attention to what matters: repairing the harm done, to the extent possible, and preventing myself from causing the same harm in the future.

You would be surprised how little I disagree.

I just note that prior back in the thread someone wrote basically "why not make the change, kindness is free."  That's true.  That's something the twitter mobs should think of as well.  Kindness is a virtue for ALL of us.  That's what I was trying to get at. 

[GuitarStv]

What if instead of trying to call brown people who identify 'black' because of their brownness, we change 'white' people to 'pink' people instead?  This would be more socially acceptable, no?  And then we can leave all the many white/black comparisons because they wouldn't be racially comparable.  Nobody's worried about 'pink hat'/'black hat' comparisons, right?

Whether I am pink or red depends on how much time I've been in the sun. Also some people are actually black, for example:


But seriously, you're still doing the thing where you're proposing solutions that are beyond the circle of control of the people in question. OP's company can't convince society to switch to pink/brown. They can decide to stop using the terms "white/black hat". You can have high-minded discussions about what the optimal societal solution is beyond that, but to frame it as "this company's word-change list is wrong because" makes no sense.

First of all . . . that picture is crazy!


Not sure your argument here is valid.  Surely a workplace that can tell it's people not to use black hat/white hat can also tell it's people to use 'pink' instead of 'white'.  It's not like the workplace has control over use of black hat/white hat terms in society, just as it doesn't have control over use of pink/white.  That shouldn't stop them from doing what they think is right.

(I'd like to point out that I'm probably going to stop using the term black hat/white hat anyway . . . because apparently enough people think that it's offensive that this seems like a sensible way forward.  So I'm not wedded to the term or anything.  But the reasoning used to exclude it still seems really odd and somewhat misplaced to me.)

[maizefolk]

I think what's offensive or not can be made on an objective, reasonable person basis.  Within any group, you can always find some people offended by virtually nothing and some people offended by a hair trigger.  Frequently in these discussion, the current practice is "the most offended person wins." 

You can both support efforts be culturally sensitive and inclusive while disliking the "most offended person wins" culture.

In Taleb's "Hidden Asymmetries" book he makes this point in a completely different context.

About 1 in 200 people in the USA keep kosher, yet the vast majority of the drinks you can find in the grocery store are indeed kosher. Because a proportionally small number of people care extremely strongly, and the vast majority of people don't care either way, everyone ends up adopting the standard. It's a good model for how a small but intransigent group can set standards for a large but flexible (or disengaged one).

Fascinating read. The relevant chapter appears to be posted on medium by the author.