[McDyver]

The more we avoid terms, the more negative their connotations become, and the more we forget about history.

I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.

[zipliners]

Allow/deny list is more descriptive. That's one good reason for using those terms. Do you agree?

In reply to your argument, the deny list (the actual list, apart from what term we use for it) is necessarily something negatively laden, since the items denied are denied due to the real risks/costs they otherwise impose. So using and embracing the less direct phrase 'black' rather than 'deny' in this case seems unlikely to reduce negative connotations from the phrase 'black'.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Allow/deny list is more descriptive

It really isn’t. It’s a novel term, which implies a functional difference from the common term. Like, I can run around insisting on calling soup food drink because it’s technically more descriptive, that doesn’t mean I’m communicating better.

To the extent we have a bug in our language, it’s probably in describing dark brown skin tones as black. Not a problem with the word black per se. (But again, not a problem really meriting a linguistic overhaul.)

[McDyver]

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