> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.

Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.

> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.

At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.

> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.

I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too. Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.

If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.