So In other words, nobody can show that the words blacklist or whitelist cause offence - just people wanting to be offended by them. Got it. Time to tap out also.
1 Like
Itâs not great that everyone whoâs disagreed with this section of the guidelines so far has used âit doesnât cause offenceâ as a reason to dismiss them, when avoiding causing offence is not the rationale that the guidelines mention.
5 Likes
Glad everyoneâs agreeing to disagree.
Looking forward to reading some more media coverage about Monzo, as the topic is meant to be about 
1 Like
The question thatâs worth asking is whether simply removing words from our lexicon is less effort than having a long, drawn out discussion about it. It usually is.
And generally, the body of the discussion in these scenarios is dominated by those unaffected due to their privilege.
It requires very little effort to not use a word when there are alternatives available to make the same point.
The etymology of blacklist does appear to date back to times of slavery. And whilst usage of the word in and of itself doesnât denote racism, an argument can be made that it perpetuates racist stereotypes.
Whether or not you agree with that argument is up to you. The fact that the argument can be made at all is enough for us to try and make an effort to not use these terms.
This research is worth a read: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328014459_Blacklists_and_whitelists_a_salutary_warning_concerning_the_prevalence_of_racist_language_in_discussions_of_predatory_publishing
17 Likes
Iâm happy to read some sources where you found this, but nowhere I can find indicates that the term âblacklistâ has any reference to this whatsoever.
The origin appears to be used in the 1600s to describe a bad list you donât want to be on.
The problem with trying to tie this term to race is that does more harm than good in swapping it.
I canât obviously say for sure but I donât believe a single person has associated the term blacklist with slavery.
1 Like
What harm is it doing swapping it?
2 Likes
Because it takes focus away from times where replacing words makes sense because of past mistakes. This just dilutes that, and you get the get the anti-pc brigade jumping on it as yet another thing and weakens real issues.
Itâs like the boy who cried wolf. Kinda.
3 Likes
I believe the Met or Scotland Yard removed use of the terms some years ago. This is not a new thing.
4 Likes
Granted youâve found a source also stating 1600s.
This isnât on par with black sheep, where we now sing baa-baa red sheep.
I still stand by that picking up on this and attempting to swap a term is causing more harm than good, when nobody would every have associated it with race or slavery.
2 Likes
Do we? Since when? Thereâs no such thing as red sheep
1 Like
Yes from experience of having a 
thatâs now what is sung in nursery and playgroups. I donât know when it changed thought.
Fair enough. Itâs not that kids even notice. Theyâre more than happy with an egg dying of head injuries where horses are the first line of medical help
2 Likes
Of course, had you done this, this conversation would not be taking place. But instead an employee announced it, drawing attention to it. So maybe the question was worth asking and then acting on, rather than trying to make a news article out of it, which, of course, is going to stimulate conversation.
I still believe it is the wrong thing to do. By doing it, you are pandering to people who are permanently looking for reasons to be offended on others behalves.
I hope the word âhystericalâ is also no longer allowed to be used as that genuinely was used against a group of people. You should not use âmumbo-jumboâ either. Offensive. âSold down the riverâ - that is slaves right there. I hope next time you launch a new feature you donât say âhip hip hoorayâ. Have you ever said âno can doâ when someone asks you to do something? Both are offensive to a group of people (all these things are real historical examples).
It is a slippery slope. A minefield. Am I allowed to use those words? (and yes, I know Tone of Voice applies to employees, not myself). I am just making a point of how ridiculous it is.
3 Likes
I wonder if Agatha Christie and her publishers had to put up with arguments like these when they finally settled on âAnd Then There Were Noneâ as a title. 
Not my experience.
Mine are 2, 4, and 6.
1 Like
I think we drew attention to the fact that the tone of voice guidelines in general were updated. I wouldnât say we deliberately tried to make a news article about it, but as a large company these things happen - if it causes other companies to think about their tone of voice and follow suit then I would welcome that.
I donât know if weâve had a conversation about âhystericalâ specifically but Iâve definitely seen conversation about other words that historically related to mental health, so that definitely applies. I can honestly say Iâve never seen the phrases âmumbo jumboâ or âsold down the riverâ posted in slack. âHip hip hoorayâ I just searched on our Slack and it has been used twice in 5 years, so not worth calling out - itâs not regular lexicon here.
âNo can doâ I feel Iâve seen a discussion about but couldnât say for sure.
1 Like
Simon, I wasnât expecting you to search slack 
I was just illustrating the point that there are lots of phrases in common usage which are actually offensive to groups of people. Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere, it just feels odd to draw the line where there is actually nothing causing offence and no connotations - other than from those who want to see them. I think that says more about them than everyone else. Controversial and unpopular opinion Iâm sure.
1 Like
Oh my, not sure what other examples are out there that I may have fallen into accidentally. âlong time, no seeâ is in the same set here
1 Like
Letâs hope they donât grow up to be racist from having sung black sheep.
@simonb My point was when you are trying this hard to be offended nobody is really winning. It actually weakens real black issues.
1 Like