Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term • Hacker News Board

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#71

Post by thewindow » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

jointpdf wrote: post #48

fennecfoxen wrote: post #5

It's offensive in the same way as Call of Duty: Black Ops is offensive, which is "generally not actually offensive". However, it is possible to derive professional advancement from claiming that it is, so expect to see more of this in tech. Also not offensive: Black Friday, black holes, black beans, black tea, black-eyed peas, black gold (aka oil), Black Mirror, black swans.

I’m not taking a stance on the issue, but this quote from the article illustrates how blacklist vs. whitelist is different than the examples you gave: > “Others pointed to the dualism between black and white as representing evil and good, concepts that have been around since the dawn of civilizations, long before racial divides even existed between humans.” The supporters of the current terminology use this to bolste…

This is quiet common in India also. Black is considered bad, evil and ugly and it spills over into the language. I agree, we need more concrete actions than just thanking things, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#72

Post by mike503 » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

I’ve seen a lot of good examples of black being bad, but black also is a positive thing in many contexts.

Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige.

Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious.

Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible.

The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of racial relation to it.

It’s weird that “black ” is now being looked at so critically, especially since “black people” isn’t even a properly descriptive term, but one that may even have roots itself as the “white man’s N word” back in the day. However it seems to the acceptable phrase. I’m now going to see what the epidemiology of that is, I’m curious who came up with it.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#73

Post by thefounder » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

el_nahual wrote: post #25

mikenew wrote: post #17

Someone please explain to me how labeling the word 'black' as offensive represents some kind of social progress. It reminds me of that joke from The Office where Michael acts like the term "Mexican" is problematic. If there is a real problem here I am genuinely happy to hear about it and try to understand. I would love to see more diversity in computer science and I think the entire industry would benefit. But it sur…

Without commenting on whether or not "black hat" is offensive, you're straw-manning the argument. The argument isn't that "black" is offensive, but rather that it's connotation with negative things is. To use your The Office example, it would be as if "bad" hackers were called "Mexican hat" hackers, forbidden lists "Mexican lists", etc. (Except not, because "Mexican" only means a kind of person, whereas "black" means…

This thought just crossed my mind: I think we should stop using the yellow colour at the semaphore because some Asians may find it offensive, right? Like if it's yellow it's a warning!

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#74

Post by mike503 » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

mike503 wrote: post #72

I’ve seen a lot of good examples of black being bad, but black also is a positive thing in many contexts. Amex Black card? Or other cards? A sign of prestige. Black limousines and towncars are seen as prestigious. Black clothes make you look thinner; plenty of women like to outfit themselves in black as much as possible. The gothic look primarily deals in black. Never seen or heard anyone try to link some sort of rac…

I should elaborate my point slightly.

Even Wikipedia says this: “For many other individuals, communities and countries, "black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation” [1]

So to many (maybe not in US) it already is an offensive term. My thought would be why not move past the term of black people to something more universal with no historical questionability, and not get caught up in “is black ” offensive. Instead of having to fight and question a lot of black due to its actual color, embrace a more transcendent new term (much like Indian vs Indigenous Person vs Native American, that movement)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

Edit for minor typo

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#75

Post by mamon » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #26

tdeck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the term "black hat" perpetuates racial prejudices or not (I'm unconvinced), I think this kind of comment has the potential to take the whole thread down the wrong path. It asserts (without evidence) that no working-class Black people care about this¹, then argues that the author is "no doubt nevertheless wrong", and then quotes a work of fiction without any explanation of why the analogy is apt. Why is it th…

People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.

That's why you should never joke around "social justice warriors" - you don't want to give them any ideas.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#76

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #67

mnm1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. BLM asks to put a stop to police brutality/racism and stupid white people decide to change the phrase "grandfathered" or "you guys" in response. Or to put down entire languages like Spanish because they use gendered nouns. A more tone deaf response would be hard to achieve. Even those of us who have supported the cause against police brutality and racism for years are now losing interest and energy. If th…

> just spreading corona And causing riots, billions in property damages and innocent civilian lives lost (even before we’re considering the corona). At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.

> At this point the BLM movement is a clear net negative for society.

This is a huge stretch. Just because a movement has been exploited by opportunists and some bad apples doesn't make it net negative. Also keep in mind that the victims of systemic racism have suffered for centuries and continue to as their complaints fall on deaf ears.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#77

Post by thefounder » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #52

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still giving the idea too much credit, I think. Black is just a color. The attitude that all black-colored things are intrinsically associated with black people is itself bizarre and problematic.

"Black" people aren't black. "White" people aren't white. Having white skin is a rare disease (albinism). So why did pink people invent the term "negro"/"black" to describe Africans? And why did the pink people call themselves "white"?

Btw yellow people are not really yellow either. And albinism is not "pure" white either.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#78

Post by thefounder » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62

fzeroracer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per my previous comment then, how about 'yellow peril'? Color coding for racist elements has a long and storied history across the world. Nothing exists as simply just a color in many environments because the usage of color matters in context.

I may be misunderstanding the analogy, but I don't get it. "Yellow peril" was developed as an explicit reference to skin color, and I've never seen it used by people who didn't intend that reference. Conversely, I think we'd agree it's pretty silly if someone said that we must rename traffic signals to "gold lights" because "yellow light" isn't simply a color.

There is an issue with red as well(i.e see redskin rename debate) so perhaps we should use totally different colours (maybe some blue?)

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#79

Post by Nasrudith » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #40

dmtroyer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is worthwhile to examine why westerns chose to use the symbolism of black and white hats.

Probably because black has been associated to “death” for millennia (it’s the color of night, which is traditionally dangerous), while white is associated to cleanliness and light. We’re talking Egyptian times, Ancient Greece, etc, when there wasn’t really a concept of “white skin” (more or less everyone in highly-populated European and North-African regions had brown skin, to survive under the sun; very few people e…

Eastern cultures had the opposite association of white with death but that is believed to ironically be a skin color association of the pallor of the deceased.

There are some discussions to be had about different symbolisms but treating it as a reductive to always good or bad well, calling it childish is an insult to children.

Re: Infosec community disagrees with changing 'black hat' term

#80

Post by Nasrudith » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

tdeck wrote: post #29

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.

As far as I can tell, that's a bad-faith misrepresentation of the position. The position is more like "we've got lots of expressions that associate `black` with `bad`, and maybe we should move away from them in a professional context." The claim isn't that the origin of these terms itself is necessarily racist (e.g. a black sheep is a sheep whose wool can't be dyed), only that their use helps to an unconscious climat…

It isn't irrational to be upset at masses of people being stupid. It is quite rational given the sheer history of damage they have caused.

Calling it "rethink" is a euphemism that damages the truth. It is rethinking in the same sense that a true king doesn't have to say he is king as power, deeds, and masses of followers make it abundantly obvious. In this case it is clearly a demand. Actual thinking would involve enough introspection to ask "isn't avoiding black in phrases like the plague in itself suggesting that black is bad far more than any tangental occurance?".

A proper rethinking would be demonstrative instead of imperative - for the previous only demonstrates what they shouldn't do instead of demonstrating what they should do. Coin a new set of phrases for the roles and explain why they are preferrable to the faded zeitgeist. But that would require creation instead of more destructive social bullshit slinging.