@jmw150 Let me know what you think if you don't mind. This really rubbed me the wrong way. I think the guidelines are just more extreme, etymologically ignorant propaganda by the far left wing tankies at google.
They claim that the term "blacklist", which literally originated in the 1600s to refer to individuals who were troublesome to hire (typically due to union involvement), is now "socially charged". How?! Is it because the word has the term "black" in it, which means it's clearly referring to black people? Can we just change the colors to red/green lists? Is that offensive to colorblind people like me now? Or do we just remove the word black entirely from the lexicon as a whole, lest we risk offending someone? If so, there goes the following words and more: blacksmithing, blackmailing, blacktop, blackjack, etc. It's asinine.
They also advocate for the removal of the "master/slave" naming structure. I absolutely hate slavery; however, I don't think that they understand that there is still literal slavery going on in the world, and protecting the delicate sensibilities of programmers who have to read their documentation will do nothing to solve those problems or create a more inclusive environment for ethnic minorities in the slightest. It just seems like slactivism, where they want to "do something", but not so much that they actually accomplish anything other than signalling to others how "moral" they are.
Do I think offensive language can be a barrier to entry for certain groups, especially if it's *intentional*? Absolutely, but the offense taken by a listener to the unintentional expressions of a speaker are more of a problem with the listener. In other words, intent clearly matters during communication, and clarification should be sought when necessary.
To end, here's a short paragraph using a bunch of their banned words, without any offensive intent. Can you spot the "issues" without reading their guidelines?
"To cripple the expressiveness of our language by blacklisting certain words is insanity; it is necessary to fight back against this thought-policing nonsense to protect the intellectual freedom of mankind."
