It is tiring. The wokeness has replaced even basic education.
There is no way anyone can prove blacklist and whitelist are racially charged terms, and yet most in my line of work actually believe this nonsense.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, and if you google the issue, you’ll find tons of projects, software houses, and IT companies rushing to do the same thing: replace terms that have been used technically for decades, all without a valid reason.
An in doing so, they are now doing something that never happened in history before: they are the ones racially charing these terms for the first time, effectively revealing the evil that resides in the human heart.
Origin of the English Terms
Blacklist originates first, for obvious reasons. It’s much more organically natural to start making “lists of disallowed things” than “lists of allowed things”.
The term appears to be in The true peace-maker: laid forth in a sermon before his Majesty at Theobalds written by the Bishop of Norwich, Joseph Hall, in 1624:
Ye secret oppressors,..ye kind drunkards, and who euer come within this blacke list of wickednesse.
The word black when used in this context refers to negative connotations, and is attested as such way before 1624. The term blackball, which is first attested in 1550, describes the act of placing a black ball into a container as a means of recording a negative vote (and vice-versa using a white ball to record a positive vote). That concept is in turn related to the ancient Greek practice of ostracising someone, before modern racism even developed.
Another 17th century occurrence of blacklist is in the tragedy The Unnatural Combat by Philip Massinger:
Might write me down in the black List of those That have nor Fire, nor Spirit of their own
None of these occurrences is racially charged. Not even a subtle hint. Zilch.
Over the course of 1915 and 1916 British government agencies gradually developed an implemented a system whereby neutral firms and individuals suspected of trading with or otherwise aiding the Central Powers would be denied access to Entente infrastructure such as ship bunker, financial services and communications. British government agencies and departments maintained several such lists, but only one of these were public. Officially called the Statutory List, but much more commonly known simply as the British blacklist.
Another example is the Indiana University, which has a great list of mostly non-racist metaphorical uses of “black” in English and Korean. Using the terms black as night, black sheep, black humor, and black magic isn’t racist at all (and the use of black sheep might not be metaphorical as it applies to sheep, since some are black, with varyingly marketable wool), though in fairness some speakers of English would find a phrase like “black as the ace of spades” potentially racist, though likely not strongly so.
Some would question whether using “black” for “bad” is fair to Wicca, witchcraft, and magic. They would so from a worldview that offers no absolute moral standard, anyway. Plus, the use of innocuous and ancient phraseology with the word “black” in it can’t be seen as inherently racist.
The term whitelist is of much more recent origin, first being attested in 1842, and is then explicitly used to refer to the opposite of a blacklist (i.e. a list of approved or favored items).
The Spiritual Connection
Every civilisation on earth has been using “dark and light” (and derivatives) as a metaphor for “bad and good”. The reason should be obvious, since naturally speaking, the darkness of the night renders your own environment more dangerous and riskier on multiple levels, whereas in the light many dangers disappear.
God himself starts His written revelation in those terms, separating actual light from actual darkness, but at the same time establishing the metaphorical pattern used throughout the rest of the Scriptures.
Unsurprisingly, nearly every other religion (the result of the falling away from the true God after the dispersion of Babel and creation of the nations) follows the same pattern. One of the most obvious examples is the Yin and yang.
Seeing evil everywhere
The era we live in is characterised by a widespread tendency amongst younger generations to see evil everywhere (but their own hearts).
As it is written,
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.Titus 1:15
“Privilege” is the idea that you should react with shame to whatever you should actually react to with gratitude. It assumes that anything about your existence that doesn’t suck was achieved by evil means and this evil emanates from you. And that anything that is good about your life should be removed. It is the assumption that you enjoy a better life than you have, and that a moral duty exists to reduce your circumstances to put things back in some kind of cosmic balance.
It is the excuse a stranger uses to hate you.From here
The redefinition of privilege embodies communist and socialist principles, according to which, if you merited the good things in your life (even if by working hard and honestly, like the majority does), this it is somewhat unfair, and your hard-gained rewards should be taken away from you, and redistributed to others who have not done anything at all to merit them.
The resulting inequality is achieved in the name of equality, which itself is redefined so to mean something it doesn’t. It is the legalisation of robbery, in its simplest form.
Very good introduction to Critical Theory, that explains how diametrically opposed it is to Christianity. CT is a more proper appellation for what some (including myself) refer to as Cultural Marxism. CT is foundational to movements such as BLM, modern environmentalism (see Great Thunberg), and many others.
Very relevant sermon in this period.
Voddie is possibly the only Reformed scholar/preacher I can actually listen to. Unlike the majority of Reformed I know, he actually has a Christian heart. Plus he’s funny. Plus he’s quite good a Jiu Jitsu.
Ethnic Gnosticism is a term crafted by Dr. Voddie Baucham to explain the phenomenon of people believing that somehow because of ones ethnicity that one is able to know when something or someone is racist. In this sermon, Dr. Baucham sheds light on the way this ideology is undermining the gospel and compromising genuine christian relationships in the church today. In recent years we have a growing concern about “social justice.” What is meant by that phrase, however, varies widely among those who use and promote it. What is too often missing—even in the calls for “social justice” coming from Christian leaders—is a clear understanding of biblical justice. Justice exists because God is just and righteous. He is the One who defines justice and He has revealed what true justice is in the Bible. For more resources on these topics, you can visit www.founders.org. This presentation was given by Dr. Voddie Baucham on January 4, 2019 at the Southeast Founders “Do Justice, Love Kindness, Walk Humbly” regional conference in Cape Coral, Florida.
As if she needed to confess to be a trained Marxist. Their statement of belief on their website is Marxist.
I take this chance to share a passage I read yesterday, and that seemed the perfect description of BLM (or any other Marxist movement):
There are six things that the Lord hates, even seven things that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift to run to evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who spreads discord among family members.Prov 6:16-19 (NET)
- Marxists are arrogant, proud and unforgiving
- They lie to achieve their goals (that’s why they can team up with Islam in the Red-Green Axis — both ideologies accept lie as a just means to achieve their spread)
- They devise evil plans (e.g. Burn Down the American Plantation)
- They are quick to resort to evil (see reaction to Floyd’s murder)
- They lie when providing witness
- They put human being against human being, and definitely create discord in the Church, due to some Christian being gullible enough to jump on the bandwagon of these Marxists movements, be it BLM or Great Thunberg nonsense.
After having discussed the recent events in the heat of social networks, I wanted to lay down my point of view completely and clearly. I know it will be a long post, but, hopefully, it’ll be worth it.
Of course, this relates to the recent events in the USA, and the movement that calls themselves Black Lives Matter, amongst others.
This is a matter that is doomed to be polarising, so it is not surprising that I myself I have got into trouble with some friends and brothers in Christ already. It’s sad that some people should even begin to think that for some reason I am denying well established history about the exploitation of Africans over the centuries. I’d be a fool if I did that.
Anyhow, I am getting ahead of myself. I need to break this down properly. So, let’s start with the foundation.Continue reading
Three thousands years ago there was a nation in ancient near east that was very different from all the others surrounding it. Of all the difference, strangely enough, they were on a whole different level when it came to hygiene. The name of the nation is Israel and their hygiene rules are recorded mostly in Leviticus and Deutoronomy, but also other parts of what Christians call “the Old Testament”.
One thing that gets increasingly more difficult for me is the fact that in my line of work almost everyone is a hyper-leftist/progressivist/super-liberal of some sort. That means that we have diametrically opposed worldviews, even on the smallest things in life. And yet their worldviews are now shaping entire businesses policies, mottos, and ways of working.
What follows is a testimony from an interview.
The candidate had been asked salary expectations, which they provided. They then received an offer, which was not quite close enough to their expectations. So they tried to negotiate their way up.
This is what HR said to the candidate in the first instance.
I really appreciate you making a detailed case for increasing the salary offer, we do appreciate the wealth of experience that you have and this is something that was taken into consideration. We like to ask candidate compensation expectations as a check and balance to see if our ranges are in line with candidate’s expectations. We’ve found in the majority of cases they are. We believe strongly in internal equity and don’t offer salaries solely based on candidate’s expectations. We’ve found that could lead to a significant gender gap in wages, as male candidates have a tendency to negotiate much more aggressively, so I’m going to have to decline to negotiate. Please let me know if I can answer any other questions about working here
The emphasis is mine.
What’s really sad is that they think they really are smart and clever with these policies, and they have no idea whatsoever of how absurd their policies are. And when I say absurd, I literally mean that their view reduces to logical absurdity. Let’s see why.
The dirty trick about negotiation
The way they declined negotiation is unfair, because they started the negotiation the moment they asked for salary expectations. Regardless of the reasons for which they do it, asking the candidate for their salary expectations sets HR up as the first negotiator, giving them an advantage. It is reasonable to assume they wouldn’t offer the upper bound salary to someone whose expectations did not exceed such an upper bound. In other words, if a candidate does not understand their own worth and asks for a low salary, they will get what they asked for: a low salary. However, the one that asks for a high salary, they very likely won’t get what they asked for. Dirty trick.
The self-refuting logic
They believe in equity and don’t offer salary just based solely on candidate’s expectations. Well, that’s a silly thing to say to start with: no one offers salary based solely on one’s expectations, because otherwise everyone would be asking for astronomical salaries and they’ll get it.
The fact of the matter is that a candidate’s expectations are based around their perceived merit, which is corroborated by factual information about their experience and past career, and the output of the hiring process. Thus, unintentional as it may be, they seem to be adopting a double standard for how they set the first salary, and how they decide future salary increases (they said elsewhere: “We offer merit increases every 12-18 months”). The latter are based on merit, the former are not, or at least, not entirely, as they are constrained by other, contrary, factors.
Also, equity has got nothing to do with this. In fact, a principle of equity works directly against recognising one’s worth. You either pay someone for what they are worth, or you put everyone on the same salary because of equity. You can’t have it both ways. And this applies also if you just mean “equity per role”, because people that perform the same role, are likely to perform it at different levels of effectiveness and driven by different experience. And to be quite blunt, some people are just cleverer than others.
We’ve found that could lead to a significant gender gap in wages, as male candidates have a tendency to negotiate much more aggressively, so I’m going to have to decline to negotiate.
In the attempt to try and avoid discrimination, their policy has indadvertedly led to discrimination nonetheless. I’d like to share that with you:
- Females are labelled as less able to negotiate
- Males are labelled as getting what they want by being aggressive negotiators
- Males are deprived of alleged gender-specific skills and the ability to put them to full use; negotiation, and ability to defend one’s worth in general, should be valued as a skill, not dismissed as a menace;
- All people, irrespective of gender, that are good negotiators are deprived of their skills; they are constrained to be a lesser version of themselves.
- Cases built on facts are dismissed for the fear of them being uniquely driven by built-in rhetorical aggressiveness, thus effectively discriminating towards those that merit higher compensation, but will have to oblige and be valued less, merely because they are, well, potentially aggressive negotiators.
I mean, that’s just a sick thing to say during an interview process.
That aside, the whole thing crumbles when you think they support gender self-identification. I mean, are they assuming my gender here?
The direct result of applying such self-refuting worldviews to the workplace is not recognising and rewarding worth fairly and justly. And it will only get worse, especially in the IT sector, where they seem to be way ahead of the curve in adopting such mentality.
Fascinating interview on BBC Radio London with Vanessa Feltz where the Metropolitan Police claim it was “very reasonable” to arrest street preacher Olu despite the fact they’ve offered £2,500 in damages. Listen to lawyer Michael Phillips’ response.