Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative(itcommunity.stanford.edu)
itcommunity.stanford.edu
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/ehli
1,859 comments
It's pretty remarkable that this conflates:
- Well-known slurs like "Jewed"
- Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite"
- Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
- Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want to avoid, like "manpower"
- Words that have long since lost any stigmatizing meaning by virtue of the original use being so ancient ("lame", "dumb", "stupid")
- Words that, if you look into their history, originally had something to do with some racist practice ("grandfather" something in)
- Words that never had anything to do with racism, but someone who was really on high alert might wonder if they ever did ("tarball" for "archive made with the tar tool")
- Anything that might be derogatory to anybody ("Karen": "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors.")
- Terms that I genuinely have no idea how anyone could view as harmful in their actual context: "user" ("it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues"), "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.")
Very much an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" approach.
- Well-known slurs like "Jewed"
- Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite"
- Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
- Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want to avoid, like "manpower"
- Words that have long since lost any stigmatizing meaning by virtue of the original use being so ancient ("lame", "dumb", "stupid")
- Words that, if you look into their history, originally had something to do with some racist practice ("grandfather" something in)
- Words that never had anything to do with racism, but someone who was really on high alert might wonder if they ever did ("tarball" for "archive made with the tar tool")
- Anything that might be derogatory to anybody ("Karen": "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors.")
- Terms that I genuinely have no idea how anyone could view as harmful in their actual context: "user" ("it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues"), "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.")
Very much an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" approach.
I can think of a few more!
"register" - might indicate that someone has to register as a second-class citizen, enemy alien, etc.
"bit" - might imply that someone is only a 'bit player', leading to feelings of inferiority.
"tool" - an obviously offensive word meaning that someone is only fit to be used by others.
"terminal" - we need to be sensitive about words that bring up the concept of death, to avoid triggering effects.
"inheritance" - individuals are not the product of their ancestry!
"class" - we don't need a class-structured society, that's a leftover from a feudal past.
"polymorphism" - too close to hermaphrodite, must be eliminated.
"register" - might indicate that someone has to register as a second-class citizen, enemy alien, etc.
"bit" - might imply that someone is only a 'bit player', leading to feelings of inferiority.
"tool" - an obviously offensive word meaning that someone is only fit to be used by others.
"terminal" - we need to be sensitive about words that bring up the concept of death, to avoid triggering effects.
"inheritance" - individuals are not the product of their ancestry!
"class" - we don't need a class-structured society, that's a leftover from a feudal past.
"polymorphism" - too close to hermaphrodite, must be eliminated.
"Stanford" - may refer to noted racist and Asian-exclusionist Leland Stanford. Also may refer to related location formed originally as a whites-only educational enclave on indigenous lands.
And of course the “Master’s” degree.
Now called a Main’s degree
That's too close to the spelling of the word Man, which would be exclusionary of the woman gender.
Let's call it a Human's degree.
Or better yet, a Being's degree. Let's not be speciesists.
Or better yet, a Being's degree. Let's not be speciesists.
Human ends in “man” and has already been regarded as offensive to “people” or “persons”. Being when referenced to an organism is only used in context of “human” (offensive) or an “alien” (offensive). Anything that is referential to an offensive word must be struck as well.
No word should ever create a mental reference to a banned word nor should a substitute word create a mental suspicion or guess of what the original offensive word was. A new vocabulary must be formed -newspeak if you will.
No word should ever create a mental reference to a banned word nor should a substitute word create a mental suspicion or guess of what the original offensive word was. A new vocabulary must be formed -newspeak if you will.
> Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
Human has the word man in it, so let’s use huperson
But "person" has the word "son" in it, and that's gendered.
Better go with huperchild.
Better go with huperchild.
Huperchild has the words “per child” in it, which is exclusionary to people who choose not to worsen overpopulation by not procreating.
How about huperperson?
Uh wait, that’s recursi- political correctness overflow error.
How about huperperson?
Uh wait, that’s recursi- political correctness overflow error.
"Terran" is an established term.
That's exclusionary of beings not native to Terra.
That's not going to be an issue. There are zero such beings known so far, no hard evidence they even exist, and we're not going to find or create ones any time soon - the same people who engage in language policing also currently dislike space exploration for various ideological reasons.
> That's not going to be an issue. There are zero such beings known so far
Maybe the reason there are zero openly non-terran (or, preferrably, differently planeted) folks is attutides like yours. Think about it.
Maybe the reason there are zero openly non-terran (or, preferrably, differently planeted) folks is attutides like yours. Think about it.
Well the colonizers didn't know that Native Americans existed before landing in America, and look what happened. We must prevent any and all such occurrences in our interplanetary future by only using a non-specieist vocabulary.
It’s so obvious that if colonizers had used inclusive language, everybody would have lived in peace. Though maybe labelling them ‘colonizers’ and not ‘welcome guests’ was only the first of a set of micro aggressions that precipitated the situation.
This is gaslighting the lived experience of those who have reported abduction by aliens.
> for various ideological reasons
They are opposed to colonies wherever they might be, even lunar colonies.
They are opposed to colonies wherever they might be, even lunar colonies.
You have no argument there. The same people who care about butchering language and destroying society are the same people who don't care about facts or what's real.
I just love this thread.
What do you identify as, though?
I think you missed the joke, friend.
Scentient, please. But let's not use the New Order's classification of species as scentient or not.
You're discriminating against non-beings.
Or elementist (Silicon vs. carbon)
Being brought up in multicultural Australia, I was colourblind [1] to race. I find it hard to even remember what ethnicity my peers were.
As such, I have no hate of other races but I'm filled with hate every time my "git push origin master" fails because the branch is now called "main".
[1] How was this word not on the list?
As such, I have no hate of other races but I'm filled with hate every time my "git push origin master" fails because the branch is now called "main".
[1] How was this word not on the list?
Add aliases to your gitconfig. Not gonna solve the frustration but at least it doesn’t have to be a trigger (oops). Also, I much prefer trunk over main/master anyway so I just went back to that.
I hope you've got a big trunk, because I'm going to put my bike in it
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Thank you! I had no idea one could alias branch names.
Why be woke, when you can be aliased awake.
"Being brought up in multicultural Australia, I was colourblind [1] to race."
Tell that to Ibram Kendi.
Tell that to Ibram Kendi.
He can't believe that kids in racially integrated environments are efficient thinkers largely concerned with simple priorities. Is Billy a bully? Should I pick Alice first in the game on the sandlot? Can Jose help me with this math problem?
I almost spit my tea out. You made me laugh.
[deleted]
I'm not very smart and would prefer it just being called a university degree, to describe where you get it from.
I mean what the fuck is a sophomore?
I mean what the fuck is a sophomore?
You're not wrong; it would probably make sense to have first/second/third level degrees instead of BSc/MSc/PhD (and their equivalents). We might even get there eventually. But the reason this would be desirable has nothing to do with etymology of "master's degree" (or "bachelor's degree"), nor with the hypocrisy of a university declaring the word "master" as offensive, while not renaming the corresponding degree.
Sophomore is an oxymoron:
> From earlier sophumer, from the obsolete sophom (“sophism or dialectical exercise”), likely influenced by Ancient Greek σοφός (sophós, “wise”) + μωρός (mōrós, “fool”). Compare oxymoron (literally “sharp-dull”), a similar contradiction.
> From earlier sophumer, from the obsolete sophom (“sophism or dialectical exercise”), likely influenced by Ancient Greek σοφός (sophós, “wise”) + μωρός (mōrós, “fool”). Compare oxymoron (literally “sharp-dull”), a similar contradiction.
[deleted]
Only in the UK. In the US, it's better known as a Line Degree.
it would be even easier to say that "Bachelors" degree is worse on multiple woke levels except perhaps race.
PhD isn't any better - the Ph stands for "philosophy", which ostensibly is about "love for wisdom", but it's clear etymologically that phílos + sophía isn't exactly ungendered.
Might explain some of the existential self-loathing embodied in this list...
Yeah if they want to go full political correct that is probably the best place to start.
Stanford also contains "Ford", a possible reference to the notorious anti-semite Henry Ford.
I propose renaming the institution after a more acceptable historical figure, one whom most undergraduates don't think did anything wrong: Stalin.
I propose renaming the institution after a more acceptable historical figure, one whom most undergraduates don't think did anything wrong: Stalin.
They have an email link to submit additional words. We're I not early in my academic career and worried of potential repercussions, I would be emailing these suggestions to them. Though I worry if they wouldn't just add them all to the list rather than understanding the message.
This should not be considered hyperbole. These people will write entire books which can be summarised as "Pol Pot did nothing wrong" [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
Funny you mention this because it reminds me of the time I pointed out that Chief Seattle owned slaves and committed a genocide against the Chimmicum people. I forgot the context in which I made this observation but the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people of historical significance would merit cancelling by today’s standards.
The road where on can’t lead anywhere but renaming anything just so a younger generation can claim superiority over older generations whom they are forcing to adopt their new vernacular at risk of cancellation.
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” —Philip K. Dick
The road where on can’t lead anywhere but renaming anything just so a younger generation can claim superiority over older generations whom they are forcing to adopt their new vernacular at risk of cancellation.
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” —Philip K. Dick
[deleted]
"black Friday" - what could possibly have been on sale originally when it got this name?
Clearly a reference to "white savior" Robinson Crusoe's manservant Friday, a highly offensive stereotype of a subservient BIPOC.
Know your hierarchy of oppression. That's sexist. Clearly it would be code for
His Girl Friday.
"Girl"? Seriously? Infantilising women is sexist.
Origin
early 17th century (as school slang, in the sense ‘Friday on which an examination is held’). The shopping sense dates from the 1960s and was originally used with reference to congestion created by shoppers; it was later explained as a day when retailers’ accounts went from being ‘in the red’ to ‘in the black’.
I always assumed this was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1929 market crash and subsequent events.
Taken to mean “this is going to be a really stressful day”. Probably utterly not at all that though.
Taken to mean “this is going to be a really stressful day”. Probably utterly not at all that though.
The real answer is that financial ledgers used to use black ink for positive numbers and red for negative, hence the terminology "in the red"/"in the black" to mean an enterprise is in debt or profitable. Black Friday was the day of the year where every department store would have so much business that it put them "in the black", even if they had just spent the entire previous part of the year "in the red".
That's a good story, but according to Wikipedia this etymology was invented after the fact and isn't the real origin of the term (which is somewhat obscure.)
...and which pen is used in an accounting ledger at certain times of year is not obscure?
I don't get what you're saying. It's not obscure at all that black ink denotes profits and red ink denotes losses - "in the black" and "in the red" are well-understood English phrases.
All I'm saying is that this particular meaning of black/red doesn't appear to be the origins of the name "black Friday", at least according to Wikipedia, but I really don't care about this enough to investigate any further.
All I'm saying is that this particular meaning of black/red doesn't appear to be the origins of the name "black Friday", at least according to Wikipedia, but I really don't care about this enough to investigate any further.
"Trigger warning" is now hurtful and should be replaced by "content note". That's recursively triggering.
Ask the French about the sensitivities involved in 'bit'. Actually, they've already highlighted the issue, with typical maturity and sophistication: https://coq.inria.fr/ . (The name wasn't a coincidence, no.)
These are brilliant, I can't wait to troll my well-meaning but sanctimonious colleagues with these.
How 'bout "gold standard", "golden rule", etc. After all, black people were forced to work in gold mines during South Africa's aparthied era. Maybe the name of the element gold needs to be changed too.
How do you feel about "bad faith"?
Clearly insulting religion, to be avoided!
... unless that religion is Christianity, in which case, fire away!
prox(1)
How dare you use such an offensive word as "eliminate"!?!?!? /s
<< "polymorphism" - too close to hermaphrodite, must be eliminated.
You do not eliminate, you disintermediate.
I will admit that this may explain some of the general public's attitude towards academia and higher learning.
You do not eliminate, you disintermediate.
I will admit that this may explain some of the general public's attitude towards academia and higher learning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"tool" is historically and currently also slang for penis. Can't have that.
[deleted]
[flagged]
It's my opinion that the best policy is no policy. If you make rules people will break them. And when the rules are so strict it means nobody bothers. If the rules aren't strict some will push it as far as they can. Everything has context. But in general I think people are far too easily offended today, and considering offense a valid issue to fight on has turned out to be a real rabbit hole. Unfortunately, there's no way an institution is going to push back; instead we get this cowardly policy that always caters to the most neurotic minority of social policers (and is probably partly written by said policers). This is policy by mob, and lowest common denominator decision making.
This is the reason why individuals should defend others, even if they disagree with them or think what they said was unnecessary or even malicious. Because there isn't enough time in the day to worry about language this much, and because it's Orwellian... without the literal thought police.
This is the reason why individuals should defend others, even if they disagree with them or think what they said was unnecessary or even malicious. Because there isn't enough time in the day to worry about language this much, and because it's Orwellian... without the literal thought police.
> It's my opinion that the best policy is no policy. If you make rules people will break them.
That's precisely the point of such obscure, arbitrary ruleset. Keep everyone obediently in line. Keep everyone on the edge, afraid of "failing" and being subjected to a Maoist style trial that they can't win. That's a tool of power and oppression, under the smart disguise of forbidding relationships of power and oppression.
That's precisely the point of such obscure, arbitrary ruleset. Keep everyone obediently in line. Keep everyone on the edge, afraid of "failing" and being subjected to a Maoist style trial that they can't win. That's a tool of power and oppression, under the smart disguise of forbidding relationships of power and oppression.
> I think people are far too easily offended today
One has to wonder who was ever offended by the usage of the term "whitespace". Yes, that is actually on the list under "Institutionalized Racism" because it "assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized."
I am skeptical of the entire "subconsciously racialized" idea in the first place; to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for it. But even if we accept it for the sake of the argument, does "whitespace" assign any value connotation at all? [Insert tabs vs. spaces joke here]
I don't really have a problem with with a policy on this as such, but the issue tends to be that once you start drafting a policy you will get a committee or the like and they will search for words that that could possible maybe perhaps be considered problematic by someone, somewhere, sometimes. That's kind of the reverse of how it should work: policy should reflect real concrete problems that were encountered. "I'm black and find the usage of 'slave' problematic" is, I think, more than reasonable, and a concrete situation. But grepping the dictionary for (white|black) ... a bit less so.
Once you start looking for something you will find it. This is why studies are double blind etc.
I have a lot of issues with this list. Does "more than one way to skin a cat" really "normalize violence against animals"? Cruelty against animals – especially pets – seems one of the very few topics where everyone from the most hard-core "Stalin did nothing wrong" communist to the most hardcore "Hitler did nothing wrong" neo-Nazi can find common ground. Does a phrase like that change it? I don't see how it does. I can go on and on, but clearly this is a "dictionary grep" list and not a "let's solve concrete problems" list.
So, are people "far too easily offended today"? I'm not so sure if they are.
One has to wonder who was ever offended by the usage of the term "whitespace". Yes, that is actually on the list under "Institutionalized Racism" because it "assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized."
I am skeptical of the entire "subconsciously racialized" idea in the first place; to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for it. But even if we accept it for the sake of the argument, does "whitespace" assign any value connotation at all? [Insert tabs vs. spaces joke here]
I don't really have a problem with with a policy on this as such, but the issue tends to be that once you start drafting a policy you will get a committee or the like and they will search for words that that could possible maybe perhaps be considered problematic by someone, somewhere, sometimes. That's kind of the reverse of how it should work: policy should reflect real concrete problems that were encountered. "I'm black and find the usage of 'slave' problematic" is, I think, more than reasonable, and a concrete situation. But grepping the dictionary for (white|black) ... a bit less so.
Once you start looking for something you will find it. This is why studies are double blind etc.
I have a lot of issues with this list. Does "more than one way to skin a cat" really "normalize violence against animals"? Cruelty against animals – especially pets – seems one of the very few topics where everyone from the most hard-core "Stalin did nothing wrong" communist to the most hardcore "Hitler did nothing wrong" neo-Nazi can find common ground. Does a phrase like that change it? I don't see how it does. I can go on and on, but clearly this is a "dictionary grep" list and not a "let's solve concrete problems" list.
So, are people "far too easily offended today"? I'm not so sure if they are.
> "I'm black and find the usage of 'slave' problematic" is, I think, more than reasonable, and a concrete situation.
I don't think so. If it is, then so is being offended about 'kill' command.
Why is using a concept as a metaphor bad? Also, I really don't like the implication that slavery is somehow racialized. The internet is global; it seems that Americans don't even acknowledge it.
I don't think so. If it is, then so is being offended about 'kill' command.
Why is using a concept as a metaphor bad? Also, I really don't like the implication that slavery is somehow racialized. The internet is global; it seems that Americans don't even acknowledge it.
If someone was trying to be cute and name some anti-virus quarantine code "Auschwitz" then I'd object.
Of course there are limits to what is or isn't reasonable, as I mentioned in my previous post, but I can see how people might find "master/slave" inappropriate, like I would consider "Auschwitz" inappropriate.
At the end of the day, I don't really mind adjusting a few terms here or there if people really object to it, even if I don't fully understand it, or even agree with it, just as a matter of being nice to people. I'm neither Black nor American, so who am I to judge what they can or can't find offensive? The problem with lists like this is that I don't think anyone genuinely objects to half of the items on it, if not more.
> Also, I really don't like the implication that slavery is somehow racialized. The internet is global; it seems that Americans don't even acknowledge it.
Considering the history of the country it's not really a huge surprise. Also worth remembering it's the 3rd largest country on the planet, and the largest Western country by quite a substantial margin (Germany comes second with ~85M, vs the US ~330M).
And sure, I've been annoyed by American self-centred attitudes as well; not everything is about the US, but we also can't just always dismiss it either.
It's also not an uniquely American issue, in my own country in Europe there have been similar discussions as well.
Of course there are limits to what is or isn't reasonable, as I mentioned in my previous post, but I can see how people might find "master/slave" inappropriate, like I would consider "Auschwitz" inappropriate.
At the end of the day, I don't really mind adjusting a few terms here or there if people really object to it, even if I don't fully understand it, or even agree with it, just as a matter of being nice to people. I'm neither Black nor American, so who am I to judge what they can or can't find offensive? The problem with lists like this is that I don't think anyone genuinely objects to half of the items on it, if not more.
> Also, I really don't like the implication that slavery is somehow racialized. The internet is global; it seems that Americans don't even acknowledge it.
Considering the history of the country it's not really a huge surprise. Also worth remembering it's the 3rd largest country on the planet, and the largest Western country by quite a substantial margin (Germany comes second with ~85M, vs the US ~330M).
And sure, I've been annoyed by American self-centred attitudes as well; not everything is about the US, but we also can't just always dismiss it either.
It's also not an uniquely American issue, in my own country in Europe there have been similar discussions as well.
[deleted]
> Unfortunately, there's no way an institution is going to push back
If everyone pushed back harder, perhaps things would be different.
From what I remember, HN reacted mostly positively to someone's speculation that 'master' branch or 'blacklist' might offend black people (they weren't black themselves). Tons of comments arguing that changing it is not an issue, so we should do it.
If everyone pushed back harder, perhaps things would be different.
From what I remember, HN reacted mostly positively to someone's speculation that 'master' branch or 'blacklist' might offend black people (they weren't black themselves). Tons of comments arguing that changing it is not an issue, so we should do it.
Basically anything that can make anybody[1] offended. If a term doesn't seem offensive right away, see if you can make it offensive through mental gymnastics.
[1] This, of course, excludes people like me, who are offended by the very existence of such lists.
[1] This, of course, excludes people like me, who are offended by the very existence of such lists.
Uh oh! “mental gymnastics” sounds like it implies able bodied people who can do gymnastics are better than people with disabilities! Burn the heretic!
I find a lot of the cultural appropriation items on this list deeply ironic because they imply English is allowed to take words from French (“beef”, “rendezvous”) and German (“welcome”, “hound”, …). But terms from non-white cultures aren’t allowed to become part of english? (“Guru”, “bury the hatchet”, and so on in this list.)
Is it just me or is that policy remarkably racist?
I find a lot of the cultural appropriation items on this list deeply ironic because they imply English is allowed to take words from French (“beef”, “rendezvous”) and German (“welcome”, “hound”, …). But terms from non-white cultures aren’t allowed to become part of english? (“Guru”, “bury the hatchet”, and so on in this list.)
Is it just me or is that policy remarkably racist?
The negative forms of cultural appropriation they want to remove is when a religious/ceremonial/"important" term from another culture (gury, bury the hatchet) is used in inappropriate context, not just any word from another language (beef, rendezvous, welcome, hound).
If you want a better example (though convoluted and still imperfect) of what that could look like for English, it would be like if a different language/culture started using the word "PhD" for anyone with some expertise. Now maybe you don't mind, but you've got to recognize that a fair amount of people would feel like it cheapens the work and expertise that goes into becoming a doctor.
If you want a better example (though convoluted and still imperfect) of what that could look like for English, it would be like if a different language/culture started using the word "PhD" for anyone with some expertise. Now maybe you don't mind, but you've got to recognize that a fair amount of people would feel like it cheapens the work and expertise that goes into becoming a doctor.
You do not need to come up with convoluted example like PhD, just call code monkey an engineer and see chartered engineer come out of woodwork to complain that to be called engineer you need to do some random formal stuff and without that you break law in one province or another.
And as someone who went to an accredited engineering program, I’d agree they’re silly. Doctor’s and lawyers have specific value in being restricted because the harm is so high. Chartered engineers can’t be confused because the business hiring them should be doing a backend check with the licensing board to confirm their license anyway (regardless of the title they put on a resume). I used to think it’s a good thing but I’ve come around to recognizing it as unnecessary protectionism / wanting to feel special.
Also doctors raise similar complaints when PhDs call themselves doctors.
Also doctors raise similar complaints when PhDs call themselves doctors.
> Also doctors raise similar complaints when PhDs call themselves doctors.
... what do they think the "D" in PhD stands for?
... what do they think the "D" in PhD stands for?
Doesn’t matter. The powers a licensed medical doctor have are very different and when someone says they’re a doctor in the middle of giving medical advice, they can’t play the “but I have a PhD card” or “free speech” because the recipient of that message would reasonably assume due to common colloquial understanding that that person is a licensed medical doctor (unless the PhD somehow clarified this in a reasonable way).
The main distinction that lawyers and medical doctors have in terms of the title is that these professions talk to lay people outside their profession regularly and there needs to be a distinction between them and other people offering advice that’s not governed by the rules of the medical community and codified in law. The risk and consequence of harm would be elevated and the ability for recourse would be limited. For example, if you get bad legal advice from random Joe Schmoe, you can’t claim ineffective council (heck you can’t even do that if it’s a licensed lawyer who told you something if that isn’t your lawyer. This doesn’t happen with engineers.
Now I’m not defending or espousing any specific position here. I’m just trying to illuminate the differences and the claims. The counterpoint is that these licensing requirements don’t actually change anything, they’re over broad, they raise prices on services far more than they should, they unfairly exclude people from prestigious jobs that maybe they could do anyway even without schooling (eg an experienced paralegal for 15 years maybe doesn’t need a “lawyer’s education” for certain kinds of legal work) and they go against the principle of free speech. On the other hand, trademarks exist and inhibit free speech in similar ways. On the other hand, trademarks can’t be regular words. On the other hand the government is responsible for writing the rules of trademarks.
On the other hand, this post brought to you by Tevya the Milkman and his fiddle.
The main distinction that lawyers and medical doctors have in terms of the title is that these professions talk to lay people outside their profession regularly and there needs to be a distinction between them and other people offering advice that’s not governed by the rules of the medical community and codified in law. The risk and consequence of harm would be elevated and the ability for recourse would be limited. For example, if you get bad legal advice from random Joe Schmoe, you can’t claim ineffective council (heck you can’t even do that if it’s a licensed lawyer who told you something if that isn’t your lawyer. This doesn’t happen with engineers.
Now I’m not defending or espousing any specific position here. I’m just trying to illuminate the differences and the claims. The counterpoint is that these licensing requirements don’t actually change anything, they’re over broad, they raise prices on services far more than they should, they unfairly exclude people from prestigious jobs that maybe they could do anyway even without schooling (eg an experienced paralegal for 15 years maybe doesn’t need a “lawyer’s education” for certain kinds of legal work) and they go against the principle of free speech. On the other hand, trademarks exist and inhibit free speech in similar ways. On the other hand, trademarks can’t be regular words. On the other hand the government is responsible for writing the rules of trademarks.
On the other hand, this post brought to you by Tevya the Milkman and his fiddle.
That's a fairly long response not to answer a very simple question.
> when someone says they’re a doctor in the middle of giving medical advice, they can’t play the “but I have a PhD card” or “free speech” because the recipient of that message would reasonably assume due to common colloquial understanding that that person is a licensed medical doctor (unless the PhD somehow clarified this in a reasonable way).
I don't see why in this scenario the burden would be on the PhD to offer clarification. Again, the meaning of the "D" in PhD hasn't changed in the west since the Middle Ages.
Medical Doctor can simply state his affiliation to his licensing board; to me some organization claiming ownership of a term in common usage singe the Middle Ages screams first amendment violation.
> when someone says they’re a doctor in the middle of giving medical advice, they can’t play the “but I have a PhD card” or “free speech” because the recipient of that message would reasonably assume due to common colloquial understanding that that person is a licensed medical doctor (unless the PhD somehow clarified this in a reasonable way).
I don't see why in this scenario the burden would be on the PhD to offer clarification. Again, the meaning of the "D" in PhD hasn't changed in the west since the Middle Ages.
Medical Doctor can simply state his affiliation to his licensing board; to me some organization claiming ownership of a term in common usage singe the Middle Ages screams first amendment violation.
> Doctor’s and lawyers have specific value in being restricted because the harm is so high.
Nah. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
> The notion of a professional can be traced to medieval European guilds, most of which died off by the middle of the nineteenth century, the exception being the scholars guild, or university.
> With most guilds formally abolished outside of the realm of academia, establishing exclusivity and standards in a trade had to be achieved via other means such as licensing practices, of which might begin as an informal process established by voluntary professional associations, but then eventually become law due to lobbying efforts.
> (...) a significant motivation in the development of the AMA was to gain authority over unlicensed practitioners so as to minimize competition among medical practitioners, thereby enhancing the earning power and prestige of medical professionals. The licensing process Starr argues, was unnecessarily prolonged and the costs were artificially enhanced with the specific aim of deterring potential practitioners from entering the field.*
> (...) while defenders of guilds have argued that they allowed markets to function by ensuring quality standards, Sheliah Olgelvic has instead argued that markets of the Middle Ages flourished when guilds were abolished and that there is much evidence to support the notion that individuals prefer a wide variety of products of varying quality and price to being granted protections which they did not ask for, and which artificially constrain consumer options.
* on that note, https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...
> In America, aspiring doctors do four years of undergrad in whatever area they want (I did Philosophy), then four more years of medical school, for a total of eight years post-high school education. In Ireland, aspiring doctors go straight from high school to medical school and finish after five years.
> Americans take eight years to become doctors. Irishmen can do it in four, and achieve the same result. Each year of higher education at a good school – let’s say an Ivy, doctors don’t study at Podunk Community College – costs about $50,000. So American medical students are paying an extra $200,000 for…what?
Nah. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
> The notion of a professional can be traced to medieval European guilds, most of which died off by the middle of the nineteenth century, the exception being the scholars guild, or university.
> With most guilds formally abolished outside of the realm of academia, establishing exclusivity and standards in a trade had to be achieved via other means such as licensing practices, of which might begin as an informal process established by voluntary professional associations, but then eventually become law due to lobbying efforts.
> (...) a significant motivation in the development of the AMA was to gain authority over unlicensed practitioners so as to minimize competition among medical practitioners, thereby enhancing the earning power and prestige of medical professionals. The licensing process Starr argues, was unnecessarily prolonged and the costs were artificially enhanced with the specific aim of deterring potential practitioners from entering the field.*
> (...) while defenders of guilds have argued that they allowed markets to function by ensuring quality standards, Sheliah Olgelvic has instead argued that markets of the Middle Ages flourished when guilds were abolished and that there is much evidence to support the notion that individuals prefer a wide variety of products of varying quality and price to being granted protections which they did not ask for, and which artificially constrain consumer options.
* on that note, https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...
> In America, aspiring doctors do four years of undergrad in whatever area they want (I did Philosophy), then four more years of medical school, for a total of eight years post-high school education. In Ireland, aspiring doctors go straight from high school to medical school and finish after five years.
> Americans take eight years to become doctors. Irishmen can do it in four, and achieve the same result. Each year of higher education at a good school – let’s say an Ivy, doctors don’t study at Podunk Community College – costs about $50,000. So American medical students are paying an extra $200,000 for…what?
> code monkey
Please don't use that term as it summons the Ghost of Racism Past.
Please don't use that term as it summons the Ghost of Racism Past.
But that's what the word in Latin doctus means: being learned or skilled in something: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctus.
And in any case, when a word is incorporated from another language, it's meaning is misunderstood all the time. Why is this case somehow morally offensive?
And in any case, when a word is incorporated from another language, it's meaning is misunderstood all the time. Why is this case somehow morally offensive?
Doctor’s borrowed the title from academics. They didn’t even have it first.
Yes, that's right. It's racist but defended as "anti-racist", which is a remarkably effective phrase.
It was the same thing with food packaging. Land 'o Lakes literally removed the Native American woman but they kept the land! She used to be in every grocery store. Now removed.
It was the same thing with food packaging. Land 'o Lakes literally removed the Native American woman but they kept the land! She used to be in every grocery store. Now removed.
England didn't take words from French, the French inserted them by force. The French conquered them and they had to learn some French to understand their lords and masters who spoke a different language.
That's why they as peasants looked after the cows, but the aristocrats from France ate the beef. (Sheep/mutton, pig/pork)
That's why they as peasants looked after the cows, but the aristocrats from France ate the beef. (Sheep/mutton, pig/pork)
England didn't take words from French, the French inserted them by force. The French conquered them and they had to learn some French to understand their lords and masters who spoke a different language.
False, it was not the French but the Normans, Vikings who had learned to speak French, who conquered England.
An England made up of Brittanic Celts who had been conquered, ruled over, and had mixed with and learned to speak the Germanic languages of the Angles, the Saxons and then the invading Danes.
French, the language of France, is derived from the Latin language of the Romans who had conquered that Gaulic Celtic place before they were in turn conquered by the Germanic Franks who switched from their lingua franca to Latin. Then the Normans settled in Normandy, just north of Brittany, still occupied by the Celts.
So there is nothing French about the Germanic Franks, nor anything Gaulic or Frankish about the language French, a language the Romans brought to Gaul and the Germanic Normans brought to Great Britain.
False, it was not the French but the Normans, Vikings who had learned to speak French, who conquered England.
An England made up of Brittanic Celts who had been conquered, ruled over, and had mixed with and learned to speak the Germanic languages of the Angles, the Saxons and then the invading Danes.
French, the language of France, is derived from the Latin language of the Romans who had conquered that Gaulic Celtic place before they were in turn conquered by the Germanic Franks who switched from their lingua franca to Latin. Then the Normans settled in Normandy, just north of Brittany, still occupied by the Celts.
So there is nothing French about the Germanic Franks, nor anything Gaulic or Frankish about the language French, a language the Romans brought to Gaul and the Germanic Normans brought to Great Britain.
Your comment reminded me of a line I heard from a 90s comedian: "Oh, the royals are a sort of middle-class German family really,"
> England didn't take words from French, the French inserted them by force.
Is "reverse cultural appropriation" a thing then, or do we have a better phrase for when it's no longer appropriate for a population to use words that were inserted into their language by force?
Is "reverse cultural appropriation" a thing then, or do we have a better phrase for when it's no longer appropriate for a population to use words that were inserted into their language by force?
They fight back by pronouncing it horribly:
“L'anglais n'est que du français mal prononcé”
“English is little more than badly pronounced French”
-- D'Artagnan in Vingt ans après
“L'anglais n'est que du français mal prononcé”
“English is little more than badly pronounced French”
-- D'Artagnan in Vingt ans après
murky buckup poor lead !
[deleted]
> Indian summer | late summer | This term infers that Indigenous people are chronically late. While it may be innocently used to describe a beautiful time of year, it could have an unintended negative impact on those who hear it.
This one was surprising to me. I always assumed Indian summer was about summer in India lasting longer.
Apparently it really is about an American phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer . Though I don't see the negative reading on the Wikipedia page.
This one was surprising to me. I always assumed Indian summer was about summer in India lasting longer.
Apparently it really is about an American phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer . Though I don't see the negative reading on the Wikipedia page.
Speaking of Indigenous Americans... the list has Brave (noun), with the reasoning: "This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man."
I actually think Brave ("the Braves") would have been a good name to refer to Native Americans. I don't feel like "noble, courageous" is much of a slur. It's pretty honorable in fact. I don't see how calling someone brave equates them with less than a man.
I actually think Brave ("the Braves") would have been a good name to refer to Native Americans. I don't feel like "noble, courageous" is much of a slur. It's pretty honorable in fact. I don't see how calling someone brave equates them with less than a man.
Well, I've wondered about that. Isn't it odd that black Americans have a comparatively low suicide rate, whereas native Americans have a sky-high one?
I have wondered if maybe at least some suicides are about a disconnect between what you're actually able to do, and what people expect of you.
It's obviously bad if people hate you and expect no good to come of you. But there's an additional horror when you're given an impossible task, and people expect you to do it - indeed, when they're actually genuinely disappointed in you when you can't. It's like in Kafka's "The transformation": the real horror isn't that Samsa wakes up and finds that he's turned into a giant cockroach. It's his family's reaction: how could you do this to us? How could you put us in this situation?
I'm thinking maybe that stereotypical image of the noble, brave Indian with his great wisdom, connection to nature, unbreakable spirit - something you'd want to live up to, who wouldn't? - is especially cruel in the face of the material realities of first nation communities.
I have wondered if maybe at least some suicides are about a disconnect between what you're actually able to do, and what people expect of you.
It's obviously bad if people hate you and expect no good to come of you. But there's an additional horror when you're given an impossible task, and people expect you to do it - indeed, when they're actually genuinely disappointed in you when you can't. It's like in Kafka's "The transformation": the real horror isn't that Samsa wakes up and finds that he's turned into a giant cockroach. It's his family's reaction: how could you do this to us? How could you put us in this situation?
I'm thinking maybe that stereotypical image of the noble, brave Indian with his great wisdom, connection to nature, unbreakable spirit - something you'd want to live up to, who wouldn't? - is especially cruel in the face of the material realities of first nation communities.
I've never heard brave used as a noun. Can you give me an example?
I guess I can see it used in an infantalising way.
I guess I can see it used in an infantalising way.
It was very common on old ‘cowboys and Indians’ movies’, at least on the old Spanish language translated reruns I watched as a kid: Some scout returned to some army fort and reported the presence of ‘500 braves’ coming from the north o hidden beyond some mountain or something like that.
It's often used in a wild west sorta way, "we were surrounded by braves". It's super outdated, for sure, as are most words that mean "my enemy's warriors".
example: "We came across a camp with twenty braves."
It's an unusual usage. Fun Fact: "brave" when referring to male warriors is assumed to come from Spanish bravo which means "courageous, untamed, savage".
The association of courage and savagery comes from Spanish Renaissance culture and both meanings are meant simultaneously - that is, savages - those prone to violence -- were associated with courage and vice versa. Because English didn't have such an association, the word was repurposed to have two meanings and the second meaning fell into disuse after the 19th Century.
Now in the 21st century, unless you are reading a book written in the 1800s, when you hear "brave" you can pretty much assume it's an adjective with the primary usage.
It's an unusual usage. Fun Fact: "brave" when referring to male warriors is assumed to come from Spanish bravo which means "courageous, untamed, savage".
The association of courage and savagery comes from Spanish Renaissance culture and both meanings are meant simultaneously - that is, savages - those prone to violence -- were associated with courage and vice versa. Because English didn't have such an association, the word was repurposed to have two meanings and the second meaning fell into disuse after the 19th Century.
Now in the 21st century, unless you are reading a book written in the 1800s, when you hear "brave" you can pretty much assume it's an adjective with the primary usage.
> that is, savages - those prone to violence -- were associated with courage and vice versa. Because English didn't have such an association
The association of "savages" with honor and courage seems pretty universal. Like the vikings are often depicted with a strong sense of honor. Or the celtics by the romans, or the huns and mongols. Basically any tribal culture I can think of. While those living in cities / bigger civilizations are associated with corruption, deceit etc.
I suppose it's better to accept that both honor and deceit exist in all human beings, irrespective of group.
The association of "savages" with honor and courage seems pretty universal. Like the vikings are often depicted with a strong sense of honor. Or the celtics by the romans, or the huns and mongols. Basically any tribal culture I can think of. While those living in cities / bigger civilizations are associated with corruption, deceit etc.
I suppose it's better to accept that both honor and deceit exist in all human beings, irrespective of group.
Yes, that's a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if this goes back to the original Latin
The Atlanta Braves is a Major League Baseball team.
Used like you would use “warrior”.
Used like you would use “warrior”.
[deleted]
When I was growing up (many years ago now) we were taught that the indigenous people of North America were not men and women, but braves and squaws. Like stallions and mares, bucks and does, roosters and hens.
> A little Indian brave who before he was ten
> Played war games in the woods with his Indian friends
> And he built a dream that when he grew up
> He would be a fearless warrior, Indian Chief
> Many moons passed, and more the dream grew strong
> Until tomorrow he would sing his first war song
> And fight his first battle
> But something went wrong
> Surprise attack killed him in his sleep that night
> And so castles made of sand > Melts into the sea eventually
From Jimi Hendrix's Castles Made of Sand, one of his better and more underrated tunes.
> Played war games in the woods with his Indian friends
> And he built a dream that when he grew up
> He would be a fearless warrior, Indian Chief
> Many moons passed, and more the dream grew strong
> Until tomorrow he would sing his first war song
> And fight his first battle
> But something went wrong
> Surprise attack killed him in his sleep that night
> And so castles made of sand > Melts into the sea eventually
From Jimi Hendrix's Castles Made of Sand, one of his better and more underrated tunes.
[deleted]
The dictionary sez: "a North American Indian warrior"
This stuck out to me as well. Also because you’re not supposed to use the word in any form so saying”devmunchies is brave” is bad.
I can understand a complaint like the Atlanta Braves offending someone because it’s a caricature, but still don’t think it should be changed.
I can understand a complaint like the Atlanta Braves offending someone because it’s a caricature, but still don’t think it should be changed.
Brave Browser? Banned?
The Dutch term for Indian Summer is "Old wives summer". Referring to old wives knitting clothes at that time of the year in preparation for winter, in correlation to another phenomenon in late summer: an explosion of spiders making cobwebs.
Ableist, sexist, biologal-essentialism, so many red flags. Wait, red is a cultural appropriation as its differently used in different cultures.
Anyway, Indian Summer referring to people being late is completely made-up.
Ableist, sexist, biologal-essentialism, so many red flags. Wait, red is a cultural appropriation as its differently used in different cultures.
Anyway, Indian Summer referring to people being late is completely made-up.
They got the etymology wrong. There is no negative connotation.
Same for "burry the hatchet". That's actually a beautiful and creative expression to resolve a situation into peace.
Cultural appropriation is such a fucking dumb concept. It is a positive. It enriches all of us.
Cultural appropriation is such a fucking dumb concept. It is a positive. It enriches all of us.
All of human history involves "cultural appropriation", since cultures are shared and shaped as different groups interact over time. Very few human groups remain so isolated that they're not influenced or don't influence other cultures.
Exactly. We can now eat the best foods from all over the world, enjoy music, stories, art, all of it.
How very cynical and destructive does one have to be to police that? This movement is miserable.
How very cynical and destructive does one have to be to police that? This movement is miserable.
In Russian this is called "women's summer"
And in czech, "Babi Leto: or "granny summer", like the summer has gotten old, but still bakes you cookies.
Unsurprisingly, given the linguistic similarity, it's same in Polish ("babie lato"). But that's sexist and ageist, of course.
Yeah, same in Russian but I was too lazy to type it out on a mobile :D
This list doesn't really seem all that concerned with historical or etymological facts to be honest. Take a look at the entry for brownbag, for example.
Actually, the way I learned it in probably the '80s was that during the colonial era in the Northeast US, the indigenous peoples (Indians) would resume attacks against frontier colonists during late-autumn thaws (cold weather typically preempted organized war parties).
Totally ok to use "incel" but not Karen.
Notice how they are fine with using words like "gunman", "conman" but not the positive masculine words like man-made, mankind ...
Also no issues with "motherboard" or "mother nature".
Notice how they are fine with using words like "gunman", "conman" but not the positive masculine words like man-made, mankind ...
Also no issues with "motherboard" or "mother nature".
Notice it is also missing many other "offensive" terms like :
"Settler" - It actually uses this word a lot in its definitions as to why words are bad, but "Settler" itself is an offensive term used by First Nations against "whites".
"White privilege" is also missing? Again another harmful word thrown around which many consider offensive. Words which include "Everyone" are generally not good because within "white people" there is a wide range of thoughts/beliefs. I'm sure that very poor white people don't feel they have "white privilege"?
When asked to define "white privilege" the SJW's fail miserably.
At the end of the day, given Stanford is in the US and has "first amendment rights" this list itself is utter nonsense.
"Settler" - It actually uses this word a lot in its definitions as to why words are bad, but "Settler" itself is an offensive term used by First Nations against "whites".
"White privilege" is also missing? Again another harmful word thrown around which many consider offensive. Words which include "Everyone" are generally not good because within "white people" there is a wide range of thoughts/beliefs. I'm sure that very poor white people don't feel they have "white privilege"?
When asked to define "white privilege" the SJW's fail miserably.
At the end of the day, given Stanford is in the US and has "first amendment rights" this list itself is utter nonsense.
This is an inane and deliberately obtuse response to this policy.
There is a vast difference between terms used by marginalised groups to refer to dominant ones, and terms used by dominant groups to refer to marginalised ones.
Whether or not this policy itself is effective or well-considered, the broader mission to identify ways in which historic injustice is ingrained and perpetuated through our language and try to amend it is a noble one.
There are many words throughout history that have been common place but carried so much cultural baggage that they became damaging and were thus abandoned - most terms we now consider slurs were once defended with arguments of similar merits to your own.
The process of improving our language is never going to be an easy one, no doubt many found it challenging to fully excise many of our abandoned terms from their vocabulary, but it's been done before, and will likely be done indefinitely into the future unless we ever reach a point of such equality that our language can no longer cause harm.
There is a vast difference between terms used by marginalised groups to refer to dominant ones, and terms used by dominant groups to refer to marginalised ones.
Whether or not this policy itself is effective or well-considered, the broader mission to identify ways in which historic injustice is ingrained and perpetuated through our language and try to amend it is a noble one.
There are many words throughout history that have been common place but carried so much cultural baggage that they became damaging and were thus abandoned - most terms we now consider slurs were once defended with arguments of similar merits to your own.
The process of improving our language is never going to be an easy one, no doubt many found it challenging to fully excise many of our abandoned terms from their vocabulary, but it's been done before, and will likely be done indefinitely into the future unless we ever reach a point of such equality that our language can no longer cause harm.
> The process of improving our language
Political Correctness is not improving language, it's forcing people to be afraid of what they're saying, thus thinking.
> that our language can no longer cause harm.
Language does not cause harm. Emotionally immature people do.
Political Correctness is not improving language, it's forcing people to be afraid of what they're saying, thus thinking.
> that our language can no longer cause harm.
Language does not cause harm. Emotionally immature people do.
Sure there's a difference, but not for the purpose of this discussion. The term 'settler' is basically a slur used to marginalize people who pass as white in North America. So it should receive the same treatment as these other offensive terms.
The policy itself is inane and deliberately obtuse, why would the response be any different?
What you've described is essentially Newspeak. I won't be part of any effort to purge language, and I don't believe that doing so will socially engineer a better society, nor do I believe in such attempts to social engineer. I also don't believe words are harmful unless they're used in a harmful manner, and a majority of the words on Stanford's list not used in such a manner, being just part of every day language.
Suggesting that women are less likely to want to be plumbers? (Nothing)
Suggesting that women are less likely to want to be programmers? Get fired, and yelled at by the media.
Suggesting that women are less likely to want to be programmers? Get fired, and yelled at by the media.
Well, I am not sure they understand those words the same way I do: eg. a "man-made lake" should be a "lake made by hand"? ;)
> "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.")
And they’re simultaneously kink shaming!
And they’re simultaneously kink shaming!
Surely “American” is the most absurd. Literally no one is offended that people in the United States of America are referred to as American, even if there are 42 other countries in the Americas. The technical fact is it’s correct - anyone in the americas could be called an American correctly. But only one has “America” in the country name. But by including this it sparks a patriotic and nationalist response in most Americans and makes the whole “wokeism is against us” meme have teeth. It’s the political football that speaks to many people, especially immigrants who are proud to be called an American and not merely a U.S. citizen - which frankly has more nativist connotations and is used to separate natural born citizens from naturalized.
They also focus on age being the problem with “grey beard” rather than the implication that all senior engineers are men. I’ve always been turned off by the term not because it singles out age as a proxy for experience, because they’re literally proxies for each other. You don’t have 30 years of experience without aging 20 years. But not everyone with 30 years of experience can grow a beard or has a penis. Given the gender issues in technology, which are so obvious in the statistics over time, I genuinely think language like this calcifies the gender divide.
They also focus on age being the problem with “grey beard” rather than the implication that all senior engineers are men. I’ve always been turned off by the term not because it singles out age as a proxy for experience, because they’re literally proxies for each other. You don’t have 30 years of experience without aging 20 years. But not everyone with 30 years of experience can grow a beard or has a penis. Given the gender issues in technology, which are so obvious in the statistics over time, I genuinely think language like this calcifies the gender divide.
You are wrong. I'm from South America, and the "American" thing is an issue for many people. In Spanish, we don't even call Americans "Americanos" but "Estado Unidenses". Many people joke when Americans say they are Americans by answering, "yeah, me too." I couldn't care less especially because I know the difference between America and "The Americas" but many people don't
And just to show that nothing is straightforward, if you were to refer to a Canadian as an American, they will definitely make a point to correct you.
If you feel offended by referring to the two landmasses as "America", then rest assured there is no malice intended. Northern and Southern America are connected landmasses .. why not simply use the term "America" to refer to both areas? Remember, just because someone are not "sophisticated" enough to come to the conclusion that Americans can also be South Americans does not mean they are seeking to offend you.
I’m also from South America and my observation is that it’s not an issue for almost all people. The only people that I’ve ever seen make it an “issue” do so to try and be pompous to some gringo. They don’t really care. It’s meaningless flexing.
This isn’t an issue for anyone but for people like yourself.
Like you said there are a couple words used for Americans in Spanish:
Gringo, Americano, Estadounidense.
That set of words does not intersect with any words used to describe anyone from South America. This applies to slang or official sources.
Please show me an example where a Paisa from Colombia or Argentino would like to be referenced as “American”.
In fact, especially with the World Cup win, any warm blooded Argentinian would fight if called “American”.
Plus it’d be an easy fight as someone who’s pushing for “words are violence” has clearly never experienced real violence.
Like you said there are a couple words used for Americans in Spanish:
Gringo, Americano, Estadounidense.
That set of words does not intersect with any words used to describe anyone from South America. This applies to slang or official sources.
Please show me an example where a Paisa from Colombia or Argentino would like to be referenced as “American”.
In fact, especially with the World Cup win, any warm blooded Argentinian would fight if called “American”.
Plus it’d be an easy fight as someone who’s pushing for “words are violence” has clearly never experienced real violence.
If by "people like me" you mean people from South America then yes that's what I said. By the way I said I personally don't care. I was just correcting OP when he said that "literally no one is offended" when I know for a fact many are. Also I never said they wanted to be called Americans. And no idea what your point is with your violence blabber.
Lol “violence blabber”. Call a spade a spade.
I too am from South America, never have I seen anyone down there assume they are “American”.
This is just a ban list, or better yet a black list to bring a 1984 dystopia.
I too am from South America, never have I seen anyone down there assume they are “American”.
This is just a ban list, or better yet a black list to bring a 1984 dystopia.
If your point is that it offends "no one", except "people like [the other commenter]", i.e. people that are offended, then I guess this would apply to any word about any group.
> Literally no one is offended that people in the United States of America are referred to as American
Actually, no - my Mexican wife is genuinely offended when I refer to US citizens as Americans, or when I refer to the United States as America.
So I do it as often as I can.
Actually, no - my Mexican wife is genuinely offended when I refer to US citizens as Americans, or when I refer to the United States as America.
So I do it as often as I can.
I wouldn’t be so sure. I (a European) have occasionally used “American” in that sense when speaking English in a group of foreign students in Europe that included one from Latin America, and he somewhat pointedly substituted “from the States” etc. in his replies. He never went as far as correcting me, and I never explicitly asked if that phrasing annoyed him, but it seemed like it did.
Of course, there’s a substantial difference between annoying and offending, but it seems like there are, in fact, reasonable people who object to that usage.
Of course, there’s a substantial difference between annoying and offending, but it seems like there are, in fact, reasonable people who object to that usage.
In addition to my sibling posts, I do wonder about “Americans” who are not from the North American continent, e.g. people that live in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam etc. or even Puerto Rico to an extent (or especially Puerto Rico since “Americano” in Spanish usually means from the two continents and the Caribbean).
This demonym is really unfortunate.
This demonym is really unfortunate.
I've had Canadians thank me for always specifically calling USAmericans "USAmericans", instead of just "Americans", because they didn't want to be put into the same bucket.
> "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
Isn’t that precisely when it’s ok to ridicule someone? Not based on properties they cannot change (race, height, sex, etc) but indeed based on behavior they choose to engage in (religion, politics, social behavior, life choices, etc.).
If ridiculing people for their behavior is now off limits then what the hell is left? Do we just talk about the weather?
Isn’t that precisely when it’s ok to ridicule someone? Not based on properties they cannot change (race, height, sex, etc) but indeed based on behavior they choose to engage in (religion, politics, social behavior, life choices, etc.).
If ridiculing people for their behavior is now off limits then what the hell is left? Do we just talk about the weather?
Reading this comment, all I can picture is a Sims character with a full red Social bar and only three interaction bubbles:
Ridicule (trait), Ridicule (behaviour), Discuss Weather
Firby nurbs!
Ridicule (trait), Ridicule (behaviour), Discuss Weather
Firby nurbs!
I really don't understand how anybody proposing these types of rules is ever met with anything but open contempt. No one has ever been able to explain it to me.
Some people recognize that language has impact on others, despite the intentions of the speaker. Those people may chose to adapt their language to be more accommodating, or ignore it.
Its like requiring all new buildings be handicap accessible. No one is mandating that everyone use a wheelchair, but instead we're building new things in a way to (try to) minimize the impact on the handicap. By telling architects that stairs are hard to use, and ramps are easier, you're telling people how to build for everyone.
Similarly, by telling people what words may have negative meanings, you're empowering them to minimize their impact on others. This is a suggested language update, not a forced way of speaking, so its even weaker than the handicap accessible requirement. If you meet this list with open contempt but you don't show the same contempt for a handicap ramp... then maybe approach the list with a different perspective.
Its like requiring all new buildings be handicap accessible. No one is mandating that everyone use a wheelchair, but instead we're building new things in a way to (try to) minimize the impact on the handicap. By telling architects that stairs are hard to use, and ramps are easier, you're telling people how to build for everyone.
Similarly, by telling people what words may have negative meanings, you're empowering them to minimize their impact on others. This is a suggested language update, not a forced way of speaking, so its even weaker than the handicap accessible requirement. If you meet this list with open contempt but you don't show the same contempt for a handicap ramp... then maybe approach the list with a different perspective.
Strong disagree. You present a very poor strawman (sorry, straw-person). Don't attempt to equate physical disabilities with what is effectively learned behaviour.
Academic institutions are increasingly places which attempt to police language (and consequently thought). It's a nigh-on puritanical drive to molly-coddle the overly sensitive and limit debate. And it's even more frustrating considering the fact that an academic institution is the place where young people should be exploring all viewpoints, not just what has been deemed acceptable by the elite or those in power. Also see: de-platforming.
It's telling that some of these are terms which have been used without issue for far longer than half a century. It's only recently that they've ever been deemed to be "harmful". I don't know, it's almost as if...the same word can have different meanings depending on its context!
You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion, but it's a short path from compiling a list of these terms to real honest-to-goodness compelled speech.
Academic institutions are increasingly places which attempt to police language (and consequently thought). It's a nigh-on puritanical drive to molly-coddle the overly sensitive and limit debate. And it's even more frustrating considering the fact that an academic institution is the place where young people should be exploring all viewpoints, not just what has been deemed acceptable by the elite or those in power. Also see: de-platforming.
It's telling that some of these are terms which have been used without issue for far longer than half a century. It's only recently that they've ever been deemed to be "harmful". I don't know, it's almost as if...the same word can have different meanings depending on its context!
You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion, but it's a short path from compiling a list of these terms to real honest-to-goodness compelled speech.
> It's a nigh-on puritanical drive to molly-coddle the overly sensitive and limit debate.
When have you last spent any significant time at a university? Debate and diversity of thought are ever present. I can’t think of a single viewpoint that is missing from my institution.
Sometimes people don’t like what you have to say and cause a stink, but that’s what tenure is for. Unless you’re consuming a steady right wing news diet, I don’t see how you could come to your conclusion.
> You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion
So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words? This is just an exercise in marketing, not the slope to which your speech will be controlled. Feel free to do and say whatever you want, offend whomever you want. No one is obliging you to pay attention to the guidelines Stanford is making for themselves behind their school login; this list is not only optional for you, it’s not even meant to be read by you.
When have you last spent any significant time at a university? Debate and diversity of thought are ever present. I can’t think of a single viewpoint that is missing from my institution.
Sometimes people don’t like what you have to say and cause a stink, but that’s what tenure is for. Unless you’re consuming a steady right wing news diet, I don’t see how you could come to your conclusion.
> You may say that this is optional and just a suggestion
So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words? This is just an exercise in marketing, not the slope to which your speech will be controlled. Feel free to do and say whatever you want, offend whomever you want. No one is obliging you to pay attention to the guidelines Stanford is making for themselves behind their school login; this list is not only optional for you, it’s not even meant to be read by you.
“I can’t think of a single viewpoint that is missing from my institution.“
You know when you are a bubble when…
You know when you are a bubble when…
> So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words?
I'm not a huge fan of watching baseball. Would you also assume that I want baseball to be banned just because I'm not that into it?
There are ways to gracefully respond to someone you disagree with, but suggesting that someone wants to "ban letting people make lists of words" because they disagree with the content of a single list isn't one of them. If you're going to be disingenuous at least put a little effort into it.
I'm not a huge fan of watching baseball. Would you also assume that I want baseball to be banned just because I'm not that into it?
There are ways to gracefully respond to someone you disagree with, but suggesting that someone wants to "ban letting people make lists of words" because they disagree with the content of a single list isn't one of them. If you're going to be disingenuous at least put a little effort into it.
I’m not being disingenuous. If you haven’t noticed, the range of opinions here starts at “meh” and ends at “I’m serious that we need to literally ban these people who wrote this list from decent society.”
That someone here might believe we need to ban the making of lists like this (because they believe them to be the first step to controlled speech) is not far fetched to me, especially when they are so worked up about a list that has no conceivable power over them and their life. It’s just a list of words. If you see a problem with a list of words, what is the proposal to fix that, exactly? Short of banning lists entirely, what fixes are even possible?
Anyway, can you think of ways to engage with someone without calling them disingenuous? Why wade into this discussion if you’re just going to attack my motives? You felt like I needed to be chided even though all of the discussion in this story has died?
That someone here might believe we need to ban the making of lists like this (because they believe them to be the first step to controlled speech) is not far fetched to me, especially when they are so worked up about a list that has no conceivable power over them and their life. It’s just a list of words. If you see a problem with a list of words, what is the proposal to fix that, exactly? Short of banning lists entirely, what fixes are even possible?
Anyway, can you think of ways to engage with someone without calling them disingenuous? Why wade into this discussion if you’re just going to attack my motives? You felt like I needed to be chided even though all of the discussion in this story has died?
> So what do you propose, we ban letting people make lists of words?
Amazingly, the strawmen keep coming. You think this is a bad list because it has bad entries in it? You must be against the very concept of lists!
Amazingly, the strawmen keep coming. You think this is a bad list because it has bad entries in it? You must be against the very concept of lists!
> No one is mandating
Humandating, please. Etymology aside, this is suggestive of men forcing people to do things, which is insensitive of ~~survivors of rape~~ people who have survived rape.
> architects
People who engage in architecture. Just as people who engage in sex work do not want to be reduced to sex workers, people who architect do not want to be reduced to their occupation. Architect also has white supremacist undertones, as it's derived from a Greek word and implies the ability of white men to impose order on physical reality.
Humandating, please. Etymology aside, this is suggestive of men forcing people to do things, which is insensitive of ~~survivors of rape~~ people who have survived rape.
> architects
People who engage in architecture. Just as people who engage in sex work do not want to be reduced to sex workers, people who architect do not want to be reduced to their occupation. Architect also has white supremacist undertones, as it's derived from a Greek word and implies the ability of white men to impose order on physical reality.
'Perspective' is a visual phenomenon, and therefore its use is offensive to the blind.
‘Handicap’ is offensive consider using ‘differently-abled’
Elsewhere in the comments jojobas informed us that "differently abled" is also offensive now: https://www.betterup.com/blog/differently-abled
And fair enough. If I were disabled, and you called me "differently abled," or any of these other awful bureaucratic terms, I would probably want to punch you in the face. It's just dripping with condescension.
Haha now that’s hilarious.
You should let people in a wheelchair know that providing wheelchair ramps is on the same level of importance as removing words like “tarball” from use. Sounds very important.
> Some people recognize that language has impact on others, despite the intentions of the speaker.
Fine; can we ban "nail polish remover"? I'm a Pole, and this reminds me of Nazis killing millions of poles. When will someone do something about this horrific phrase?
Fine; can we ban "nail polish remover"? I'm a Pole, and this reminds me of Nazis killing millions of poles. When will someone do something about this horrific phrase?
Oh come on. The page itself recognizes that it’s only advice.
There were a few things on the list I didn’t know the history of (e.g. ‘grandfathered’) that I’ll try to avoid now. I can understand why someone who comes from a different history than I do could be frustrated by them - indeed, I probably will be (mildly) now I’ve learned of the connotations. It costs me almost nothing to avoid them.
There are also a few things I find questionable - but on the whole this list is basically just ‘try to be kind to others’. It’s disappointing to see it so badly received.
There were a few things on the list I didn’t know the history of (e.g. ‘grandfathered’) that I’ll try to avoid now. I can understand why someone who comes from a different history than I do could be frustrated by them - indeed, I probably will be (mildly) now I’ve learned of the connotations. It costs me almost nothing to avoid them.
There are also a few things I find questionable - but on the whole this list is basically just ‘try to be kind to others’. It’s disappointing to see it so badly received.
A good long part of the list is dedicated to avoiding black/white words as if the negative connotations of the color black, and the positive connotations of the color white, have anything to do with their use in racial contexts. I find this deeply disturbing and absurd.
A blacklist, a black-hat hacker etc have nothing to do with racialized use of these terms. The color black is deeply associated with death in European cultures, and as such it has clear negative usages. Trying to make it seem like this somehow reflects negatively on black people is simply wrong, ahistorical, and encourages a kind of extreme thinking that really does seem like a slippery slope.
The logic used to even suggest these words are harmful to black people directly leads to the conclusion that dressing in black at a funeral or representing Death as a figure hooded in black should be avoided, as they perpetuate this association.
A blacklist, a black-hat hacker etc have nothing to do with racialized use of these terms. The color black is deeply associated with death in European cultures, and as such it has clear negative usages. Trying to make it seem like this somehow reflects negatively on black people is simply wrong, ahistorical, and encourages a kind of extreme thinking that really does seem like a slippery slope.
The logic used to even suggest these words are harmful to black people directly leads to the conclusion that dressing in black at a funeral or representing Death as a figure hooded in black should be avoided, as they perpetuate this association.
Language absolutely affects how we think, the brain makes links subconsciously and learns all the time from all inputs, so I don't think it's sensible to dismiss the idea of language making small differences to how we think.
The most likely cause of death for me on the next 20 years, as a white man in his 20s, is suicide. A major part of the reasoning for that is men typically struggle to reach out and talk about issues. A contributing factor I think is growing up around phrases like "man up" or "stop being a girl". Obviously anyone who says them isn't saying "bottle up serious issues until it becomes too much" but that repeated learning does stick and despite times changing and there being far less pressure now to be an alpha head of family type guy, the issues continue to affect us.
I don't see any reason that same repeated learning from a young age wouldn't also apply to black/white language if there's an overwhelming imbalance.
Muhammad Ali famously gave a speech on exactly this, though he also covered cultural references as well which is a broader scope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52988605
The most likely cause of death for me on the next 20 years, as a white man in his 20s, is suicide. A major part of the reasoning for that is men typically struggle to reach out and talk about issues. A contributing factor I think is growing up around phrases like "man up" or "stop being a girl". Obviously anyone who says them isn't saying "bottle up serious issues until it becomes too much" but that repeated learning does stick and despite times changing and there being far less pressure now to be an alpha head of family type guy, the issues continue to affect us.
I don't see any reason that same repeated learning from a young age wouldn't also apply to black/white language if there's an overwhelming imbalance.
Muhammad Ali famously gave a speech on exactly this, though he also covered cultural references as well which is a broader scope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52988605
The link between the color black and negative feelings exists beyond language, and it has 0% to do with anyone's race. Furthermore, the negative association is with the deep black color of funeral clothes, not with the brown color of most black people's skin.
Even more, the color black itself has many different connotations, and not all are negative. It is for example a color of formal prestige (black belt, black ribbon). It is high-contrast (the situation is black and white). It is the color of things which don't emit light (black body radiation, black hole). It is also the color of many bronze statues, and also of ebony - both often used to depict saints and Jesus himself all in black since medieval times.
Humans are perfectly capable of keeping context in mind, and connotations from one context don't actually bleed into other contexts all that much.
The missing representation of black people in European and American art is a different problem, and it is a real problem that won't be addressed by replacing black box with opaque box.
Even more, the color black itself has many different connotations, and not all are negative. It is for example a color of formal prestige (black belt, black ribbon). It is high-contrast (the situation is black and white). It is the color of things which don't emit light (black body radiation, black hole). It is also the color of many bronze statues, and also of ebony - both often used to depict saints and Jesus himself all in black since medieval times.
Humans are perfectly capable of keeping context in mind, and connotations from one context don't actually bleed into other contexts all that much.
The missing representation of black people in European and American art is a different problem, and it is a real problem that won't be addressed by replacing black box with opaque box.
Not bleeding across "all that much" might well be true, though I disagree since it's kinda the whole strength of the human brain applying learning from one area to another, that's why we're more intelligent than animals and have been more adaptable to new problems. You're also thinking about this in terms of conscious decision making when in our day to day lives we rarely sit down with an open mind and properly think about things.
But even if it is not all that much, it's still there. A million people having a 1% shift in their views due to language adds up. That's why we're seeing groups of individuals who aren't racist/sexist somehow reach answers that statistically do appear to be.
The specifics of which uses are neutral or not is the next debate. Step 1 is acknowledging that language is something that feeds into the "nurture" side of how we think, especially since language is such a large part of our learning during early brain development. With that in mind, it's something that should be debated and selection of words should be considered.
But even if it is not all that much, it's still there. A million people having a 1% shift in their views due to language adds up. That's why we're seeing groups of individuals who aren't racist/sexist somehow reach answers that statistically do appear to be.
The specifics of which uses are neutral or not is the next debate. Step 1 is acknowledging that language is something that feeds into the "nurture" side of how we think, especially since language is such a large part of our learning during early brain development. With that in mind, it's something that should be debated and selection of words should be considered.
If there actually was even a 1% universal association of the color black with evil (instead of the more specific associations that happen in certain contexts), do you really think anyone in medieval times would have created representations of Jesus, Mary and other highly revered figures in black wood or metal?
It is up to anyone claiming such an effect exists to go and prove it with solid data, enough data to overturn hundreds of years of language use. And if such a link actually exists, and someone actually believes in it, then I would like to see them insist people don't wear black (or red, yellow, brown or whatever other color they think is racialized) to funerals.
Edit: I also want to comment on the idea that the brain's ability to generalize would apply to meaning bleeding between separate contexts that use the same words. I think this is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. Concepts used in our thought later get translated into (spoken/written) language, or back again when listening/reading. But, the concepts are not the words that they are represented by. The black of a funeral is not the same concept as the black used to refer to a black person, even though they use the same word or symbol. Just like I'm not applying anything I know about mice scurrying through my house to the mouse I'm holding in my hand while playing (even though the origin of the word is exactly that animal), there is no reason to think there is any transfer whatsoever between the various meanings of black, even if they are related.
It is up to anyone claiming such an effect exists to go and prove it with solid data, enough data to overturn hundreds of years of language use. And if such a link actually exists, and someone actually believes in it, then I would like to see them insist people don't wear black (or red, yellow, brown or whatever other color they think is racialized) to funerals.
Edit: I also want to comment on the idea that the brain's ability to generalize would apply to meaning bleeding between separate contexts that use the same words. I think this is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. Concepts used in our thought later get translated into (spoken/written) language, or back again when listening/reading. But, the concepts are not the words that they are represented by. The black of a funeral is not the same concept as the black used to refer to a black person, even though they use the same word or symbol. Just like I'm not applying anything I know about mice scurrying through my house to the mouse I'm holding in my hand while playing (even though the origin of the word is exactly that animal), there is no reason to think there is any transfer whatsoever between the various meanings of black, even if they are related.
If you're waiting for someone to find a case of someone joining the KKK because they once heard about a blacklist, of course that is never going to happen. This is about one facet of learning that happens over 20 years of someones childhood, and then trying to link it to statistical issues that emerge over large groups. If it were even possible to isolate all the different factors to just look at language, it would take generations to test.
This is where we're coming at it from different sides. I think changing language is a relatively cheap and easy thing to do, that might help fix an issue in some small way, and there's really not much reason not to. The cause and effect is plausible, if not provable on any reasonable timescale.
Metaphor, simile, pathetic fallacy are all powerful tools that really do change the way we interpret the substance of what we read. Colours too, it's not a coincidence the major tech brands have gone with various blues, those blues are deliberately designed to nudge people towards a particular emotional response that is completely unrelated to the brand itself. If word selection really did nothing to change the impression of what we read, then writers and poets would be out of a job.
This is where we're coming at it from different sides. I think changing language is a relatively cheap and easy thing to do, that might help fix an issue in some small way, and there's really not much reason not to. The cause and effect is plausible, if not provable on any reasonable timescale.
Metaphor, simile, pathetic fallacy are all powerful tools that really do change the way we interpret the substance of what we read. Colours too, it's not a coincidence the major tech brands have gone with various blues, those blues are deliberately designed to nudge people towards a particular emotional response that is completely unrelated to the brand itself. If word selection really did nothing to change the impression of what we read, then writers and poets would be out of a job.
>The link between the color black and negative feelings exists beyond language
We should probably just stop calling people "black" then.
We should probably just stop calling people "black" then.
In NASCAR the color black is legendary for reasons I truly hope don't need to be explained
This is the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it has been disproved many times. Language certainly affects how you think in the way you turn sentences (a french speaker speaking in english will definitely word and think of things relative to how french behaves), but the theory that using words that could eventually have had a racial history in the very specific context of the United States would affect you on a deep level is utter bullshit.
The issue with "man up" or "stop being a girl" isn't language, it's patriarchal habits having ingrained in many of us that men don't cry, men don't talk, men are strong. It's not the words used that kill you, it's the social construct.
The issue with "man up" or "stop being a girl" isn't language, it's patriarchal habits having ingrained in many of us that men don't cry, men don't talk, men are strong. It's not the words used that kill you, it's the social construct.
> It's not the words used that kill you, it's the social construct
How does the social construct get perpetuated except through words?
How does the social construct get perpetuated except through words?
The point is that they get perpetuated through any words. "Ban" a word and a phrase will take its place.
This is very visible in the words used for those with mental disabilities. They used to be called "idiots" by doctors. Then, as idiot became a common insult, doctors moved on to "<people with a> mental retard". When that became a common insult, they moved on to "mentally challenged" and so on. This will be a never-ending arms-race though: as long as people insist on insulting others by comparing them to those that have a mental disability, they will always pick up the current medical terminology for them and use it as an insult.
Note that I'm not saying we should be calling children with Down syndrome "idiots" or "retards". Even though the "fight" will probably be endless, it's worth it not to use known derogatory terms for your pacients. Similarly, even though racists and other bigots can express their bigotry even with perfectly neutral language, it doesn't mean we should accept the use of slurs.
But it's also important not to get a false impression that just because Richard Spencer isn't using the n-word to refer to black people (in public), it means he's not being racist. You can always use language to teach others to hate BIPOC and ask for them to be thrown out of the country, along with LGBTQIA+ people if you're at it.
This is very visible in the words used for those with mental disabilities. They used to be called "idiots" by doctors. Then, as idiot became a common insult, doctors moved on to "<people with a> mental retard". When that became a common insult, they moved on to "mentally challenged" and so on. This will be a never-ending arms-race though: as long as people insist on insulting others by comparing them to those that have a mental disability, they will always pick up the current medical terminology for them and use it as an insult.
Note that I'm not saying we should be calling children with Down syndrome "idiots" or "retards". Even though the "fight" will probably be endless, it's worth it not to use known derogatory terms for your pacients. Similarly, even though racists and other bigots can express their bigotry even with perfectly neutral language, it doesn't mean we should accept the use of slurs.
But it's also important not to get a false impression that just because Richard Spencer isn't using the n-word to refer to black people (in public), it means he's not being racist. You can always use language to teach others to hate BIPOC and ask for them to be thrown out of the country, along with LGBTQIA+ people if you're at it.
By every single sense and aspect of you.
Hearing those words is a thing, yes. Men wearing floral perfumes will be shamed for it (patriarchy sees this as feminine). Men will receive less gentle physical touches, caresses, care, either in an expectation that it makes them weaker, or that they don't need it. Men are expected to dress a certain way.
Men don't commit suicide _just_ because they're told to man up and deal with it. They do it because of a socially enforced dreadful lack of emotional comfort. A hug doesn't need words to comfort someone, not being judged or looked at wrongly for going away from the mold doesn't need words to comfort someone. That's why it's a social construct, not a verbal construct. It permeates everything around you.
Hearing those words is a thing, yes. Men wearing floral perfumes will be shamed for it (patriarchy sees this as feminine). Men will receive less gentle physical touches, caresses, care, either in an expectation that it makes them weaker, or that they don't need it. Men are expected to dress a certain way.
Men don't commit suicide _just_ because they're told to man up and deal with it. They do it because of a socially enforced dreadful lack of emotional comfort. A hug doesn't need words to comfort someone, not being judged or looked at wrongly for going away from the mold doesn't need words to comfort someone. That's why it's a social construct, not a verbal construct. It permeates everything around you.
No. It’s not that simple. Yes there is a legacy of cultural practices to contend with, but it isn’t this all encompassing reality you imagine.
Consider that levels of affection afforded to men (or harshness they are expected to endure) vary significantly across cultures and very much between subcultures in a modern nation like the US. It’s trivial to find groups of people who are very positive about affection vs people who are very traditional within a few miles of each other.
These groups speak very differently about their ideas of masculinity (since you introduced that example) and will make different arguments about what is right. Those arguments absolutely do inform group members and newcomers alike about what is considered acceptable.
Language is of course not everything - people do learn through mimicry, but you might be surprised how easy it is to use language to get someone to try something they didn’t think was for them. Advertisers do this all the time.
I don’t really see how someone can sit there with a straight face and say language doesn’t matter because of patriarchy.
Also patriarchy doesn’t ‘see’ anything because patriarchy isn’t a person and doesn’t have eyes. Patriarchy is an academic term for a set of ideas, not a mystical being.
Consider that levels of affection afforded to men (or harshness they are expected to endure) vary significantly across cultures and very much between subcultures in a modern nation like the US. It’s trivial to find groups of people who are very positive about affection vs people who are very traditional within a few miles of each other.
These groups speak very differently about their ideas of masculinity (since you introduced that example) and will make different arguments about what is right. Those arguments absolutely do inform group members and newcomers alike about what is considered acceptable.
Language is of course not everything - people do learn through mimicry, but you might be surprised how easy it is to use language to get someone to try something they didn’t think was for them. Advertisers do this all the time.
I don’t really see how someone can sit there with a straight face and say language doesn’t matter because of patriarchy.
Also patriarchy doesn’t ‘see’ anything because patriarchy isn’t a person and doesn’t have eyes. Patriarchy is an academic term for a set of ideas, not a mystical being.
> Language absolutely affects how we think, the brain makes links subconsciously and learns all the time from all inputs, so I don't think it's sensible to dismiss the idea of language making small differences to how we think.
This is true enough, the problem is going from the conclusion that these negative associations will have any real-world impact. Recent reviews of implicit association tests (IAT) suggest that they correlate with nothing but brain activity.
This is true enough, the problem is going from the conclusion that these negative associations will have any real-world impact. Recent reviews of implicit association tests (IAT) suggest that they correlate with nothing but brain activity.
If anything, it's possible that the powerful connotations of "white" and "black" influenced their application in a racial context in the first place.
I see this backwards sort of thinking elsewhere in the list. Someone once used "yellow" as a racial pejorative, but instead of simply condemning the slur they attempt to preserve it, by forbidding other, non-racialized uses of the word "yellow".
I see this backwards sort of thinking elsewhere in the list. Someone once used "yellow" as a racial pejorative, but instead of simply condemning the slur they attempt to preserve it, by forbidding other, non-racialized uses of the word "yellow".
I was surprised to learn about "grandfathered" here, too. But, frankly, I am skeptical of their explanation, after reading their incredibly specious reasoning for avoiding "tarball". Not to mention my skepticism over whether any serious numbers of black people would actually be offended by "grandfathered". But hey, I'm a white guy, so I could easily be wrong about that. (It's just that I feel like the majority of people who might jump down my throat for believing "grandfathered" isn't a big deal are more often than not likely to also be white people who don't actually know if the word is truly offensive, either.)
> but on the whole this list is basically just ‘try to be kind to others’. It’s disappointing to see it so badly received.
I think it's being so poorly received specifically because it doesn't come off as a "try to be kind to others" list. I do agree with quite a few of the things on their list, but many of the items are so out there and tenuous that it makes it seem like a list put together by some severely out-of-touch people who get off controlling others. Which, unfortunately, I suspect is actually the case. And I think overall it undermines the efforts of people who are trying to get others to stop using some of the legitimately harmful words on the list.
> but on the whole this list is basically just ‘try to be kind to others’. It’s disappointing to see it so badly received.
I think it's being so poorly received specifically because it doesn't come off as a "try to be kind to others" list. I do agree with quite a few of the things on their list, but many of the items are so out there and tenuous that it makes it seem like a list put together by some severely out-of-touch people who get off controlling others. Which, unfortunately, I suspect is actually the case. And I think overall it undermines the efforts of people who are trying to get others to stop using some of the legitimately harmful words on the list.
That might be the intent, but in a lot of ways it expresses the opposite. For at least half of the terms flagged by this page, one would have to construe the meaning uncharitably for it to be a problem. If I call someone a paraplegic, I only imply that the person cannot walk, not that the person cannot accomplish other great things. If you try to tell me that I meant that that person isn't a person at all, then you are the one being unkind, not me. It is not the case that "masters enslaved people" - some masters did, but some masters also served as teachers to an apprentice, and if you tell me that I meant the kind that enslaved people when I clearly meant the kind that taught apprentices, then you are the unkind one, not me.
But it's only ever people who come from the same history as I do (white upper-middle class) that are offended by them.
They're not even offended by this language.
They just want to appear progressive and sympathetic. It's virtue signalling.
Allowing these people to police language is mass insanity.
They just want to appear progressive and sympathetic. It's virtue signalling.
Allowing these people to police language is mass insanity.
Genuine question, because I hear this sentiment a lot.
Are they the only ones who tell you, a fellow white man, or are they the only ones who are offended? I strongly suspect (this is not meant to be insulting) that you may not have a relationship with the people who this language impacts. It takes an emotional toll to confide with someone that something is upsetting to hear, even with coworkers or casual friends, especially if you don't think they'd understand.
Also, language has the opportunity to shape and influence how we structure society, even unintentionally. Thats why there's a lot of emphasis on teaching children about what words are appropriate. Even if naming your git branch "master" won't realistically impact racism and the history of slavery, describing some bad event in your day a word that has an origin in describing people can lead to negative associations.
Are they the only ones who tell you, a fellow white man, or are they the only ones who are offended? I strongly suspect (this is not meant to be insulting) that you may not have a relationship with the people who this language impacts. It takes an emotional toll to confide with someone that something is upsetting to hear, even with coworkers or casual friends, especially if you don't think they'd understand.
Also, language has the opportunity to shape and influence how we structure society, even unintentionally. Thats why there's a lot of emphasis on teaching children about what words are appropriate. Even if naming your git branch "master" won't realistically impact racism and the history of slavery, describing some bad event in your day a word that has an origin in describing people can lead to negative associations.
Tons of black people where I come from, and I've talked to a lot. The idea that somehow that black people are afraid to tell white people what pisses them off is racist and incorrect. Again, comes only from upper class white people who don't actually talk to anyone other than other upper class white people. Here's a tip for you. Don't spout woke shit to minorities you meet IRL (as in outside of SV). It's cringe AF, and will make people dislike you. Just talk to them like normal people, which they are.
I mean, you do realize that 99% of black people have no idea where "grandfathered in" comes from, right? You do realize that going into etymology to find offense is something only snobby linguistics cunts that you would find at elite universities would do, right?
I mean, you do realize that 99% of black people have no idea where "grandfathered in" comes from, right? You do realize that going into etymology to find offense is something only snobby linguistics cunts that you would find at elite universities would do, right?
> I strongly suspect that you may not have a relationship with the people who this language impacts.
In society we have come to a collective understanding that “I’m not racist; some of my best friends are black” is an invalid dismissal of a person’s potential for racism.
Somehow, however, we have also decided that if someone does not have a sufficient quantity nor quality of relationships with black people, then that is a strong signal of racism.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
In society we have come to a collective understanding that “I’m not racist; some of my best friends are black” is an invalid dismissal of a person’s potential for racism.
Somehow, however, we have also decided that if someone does not have a sufficient quantity nor quality of relationships with black people, then that is a strong signal of racism.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
Brazil has started to try importing this US "harmful words" shenanigans, and most of the words they target are common vernacular among the supposedly harmed people
Labeling a word as harmful actually harms more, since most new generations are so removed from the word's origin that it carries none of the supposed harm
Labeling a word as harmful actually harms more, since most new generations are so removed from the word's origin that it carries none of the supposed harm
I really don’t think that’s true of the entire list.
There are exceptions, such as the handful of obvious slurs that they added (tar baby, hermaphrodite, etc) but the vast majority of the list is exactly like this.
Probably even things like policeman, man-in-the-middle etc are not offensive or patriarchal to the vast majority of women (especially since many such words are probably older than the current use of "man" to mean male person, and refer to the older sense of person, as in the US constitution).
Probably even things like policeman, man-in-the-middle etc are not offensive or patriarchal to the vast majority of women (especially since many such words are probably older than the current use of "man" to mean male person, and refer to the older sense of person, as in the US constitution).
> especially since many such words are probably older than the current use of "man" to mean male person, and refer to the older sense of person, as in the US constitution
I feel like that use is... complicated. Why, exactly, did "man" mean "person"? Why not "woman", then? It feels like using "man" to mean "person" -- including and especially in historic usage -- is itself patriarchal. Given the time period you reference -- the writing of the US Constitution -- I think it's even more stark, as it was written by men who were not inclined to allow women any sort of participation in the government (and I expect many of them did not feel that women were as entitled to many of the rights they were enumerating).
But really, the semantics aren't the primary issue. If a lot of women feel excluded by "man"-terms, then that's a problem. To be fair, though, I have never asked a female police officer or firefighter if she felt that "policeman" or "fireman" made her feel excluded, so I don't really know.
I think "excluded" is a better term than "offended" in some cases. "Offended" is a very squishy, subjective, imprecise, emotional term. What matters is why someone might feel offended by a particular term, and I could certainly sympathize with a woman who felt like "policeman" was implicitly telling her that she wasn't fit for the job, that women should be excluded from consideration for that job, or that women should intentionally exclude themselves from considering wanting that job.
As much as I disagree with a lot of the things on Stanford's list, I think calling words "harmful" is better and more descriptive than calling them "offensive".
I feel like that use is... complicated. Why, exactly, did "man" mean "person"? Why not "woman", then? It feels like using "man" to mean "person" -- including and especially in historic usage -- is itself patriarchal. Given the time period you reference -- the writing of the US Constitution -- I think it's even more stark, as it was written by men who were not inclined to allow women any sort of participation in the government (and I expect many of them did not feel that women were as entitled to many of the rights they were enumerating).
But really, the semantics aren't the primary issue. If a lot of women feel excluded by "man"-terms, then that's a problem. To be fair, though, I have never asked a female police officer or firefighter if she felt that "policeman" or "fireman" made her feel excluded, so I don't really know.
I think "excluded" is a better term than "offended" in some cases. "Offended" is a very squishy, subjective, imprecise, emotional term. What matters is why someone might feel offended by a particular term, and I could certainly sympathize with a woman who felt like "policeman" was implicitly telling her that she wasn't fit for the job, that women should be excluded from consideration for that job, or that women should intentionally exclude themselves from considering wanting that job.
As much as I disagree with a lot of the things on Stanford's list, I think calling words "harmful" is better and more descriptive than calling them "offensive".
Etymologically, in Old English, man used to mean person, and there were explicit terms for a (male) man and a woman - wer and wif. Wer fell out of use[0], and the generic "man" started referring both to all people, and to men (males) in particular.
This conflation found in early modern English uses of "man" started being seen as problematic in the early 20th century, and style guides started preferring other words to refer to people in general, thus relegating "man" to mean only male person somewhat artificially.
[0] the only remaining usage is in werewolf - though few would assume a werewolf has to be male.
[1] note that I am using "male person" only to make it clearer when I'm using the generic or specific meaning of "man". I'm not trying to conflate sex with gender or any other kind of subtle transphobia.
This conflation found in early modern English uses of "man" started being seen as problematic in the early 20th century, and style guides started preferring other words to refer to people in general, thus relegating "man" to mean only male person somewhat artificially.
[0] the only remaining usage is in werewolf - though few would assume a werewolf has to be male.
[1] note that I am using "male person" only to make it clearer when I'm using the generic or specific meaning of "man". I'm not trying to conflate sex with gender or any other kind of subtle transphobia.
It's amusing to try turning it round, makes you realise just quite how sexist it actually is:
"No, of course I'm not offended by being called a firewoman, why would I be? It's clearly referring to both women and men" - Jake Miller, Firewoman, Springfield Fire Department
"No, of course I'm not offended by being called a firewoman, why would I be? It's clearly referring to both women and men" - Jake Miller, Firewoman, Springfield Fire Department
You would probably feel differently if you had learned the term man and mankind also refer to all human beings and that usage had been normal and active for your entire life.
Of course saying womankind sounds funny now because we haven’t heard it used for our whole lives. The term mankind derives from Sanskrit meaning children of Manu (a god). It’s not a sexist term and we’ve gone 2000 years without people finding it offensive, it’s only one that people with no other issues in their life need something to be offended about and decide to make a war on words.
Of course saying womankind sounds funny now because we haven’t heard it used for our whole lives. The term mankind derives from Sanskrit meaning children of Manu (a god). It’s not a sexist term and we’ve gone 2000 years without people finding it offensive, it’s only one that people with no other issues in their life need something to be offended about and decide to make a war on words.
The words woman/women refer explicitly to a group where every single member is a woman (female).
The words man/men, at least historically, can refer either to a group of unknown composition OR to a group where every member is a man (male). Basically it is a homonym with two separate meanings, just like mouse (animal or input device) or chair (object or leader of a committee).
Point being, policeman being ambiguous doesn't mean that we would expect policewoman to be considered ambiguous as well, since woman is not a homonym.
The words man/men, at least historically, can refer either to a group of unknown composition OR to a group where every member is a man (male). Basically it is a homonym with two separate meanings, just like mouse (animal or input device) or chair (object or leader of a committee).
Point being, policeman being ambiguous doesn't mean that we would expect policewoman to be considered ambiguous as well, since woman is not a homonym.
I think this could be rewritten as “only white upper-middle class people complain about these things” which doesn’t mean they’re the only ones offended or upset
You should probably stop using language whatsoever, it was made by people who lived human lives.
Switch to something like Lojban.
Switch to something like Lojban.
I can't help but to think this is intentional. It's a thinly veiled attempt at shifting the Overton Window [0].
Nobody would use "Tranny" or "Jewed" in professional conversation. It's a non-issue. But a non-controversial term like "Tribal Knowledge"?
It really reminds me of the main vs master default branch controversy where some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none [1] [2]. Of course, someone would have to be technical to be able to find the source while whining on social media is available to anyone!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[1] https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441
[2] https://repo.or.cz/cogito.git/commit/3c4347c8b64fb516bc097ab...
Nobody would use "Tranny" or "Jewed" in professional conversation. It's a non-issue. But a non-controversial term like "Tribal Knowledge"?
It really reminds me of the main vs master default branch controversy where some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none [1] [2]. Of course, someone would have to be technical to be able to find the source while whining on social media is available to anyone!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[1] https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441
[2] https://repo.or.cz/cogito.git/commit/3c4347c8b64fb516bc097ab...
> some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none
This isn’t quite right. The term “master recording” itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that. Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams.
If “master branch” is to derive from “master recording”, it carries the same racial baggage.
This isn’t quite right. The term “master recording” itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that. Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams.
If “master branch” is to derive from “master recording”, it carries the same racial baggage.
> The term "master recording" itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that.
It doesn't. Audio or video mastering means to create a reference recording that's then down sampled and used as a reference when manufacturing records [0]. It has nothing to do with race. "Remastering" something means to re-release it with a higher audio quality (typically in a different medium) by using the uncompressed source material (the master) and newer sound processing technologies. It's the reason you can watch old movies in HD on Netflix.
The idea here is that the "master" would be what would be sent to manufacturing when producing a release. It's also why many SaaS use "master" to mean the exact version of the software that's in production, because it's assumed to be the one sent for distribution. It has nothing to do with race or the idea of owning human beings.
> Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams.
There's nothing to expose. When signing up with a producer or recording label, it's common practice to exchange a portion of the rights to the master produced in exchange for (advance) payment and promotion from the label. It's just like founders exchanging equity during fundraising. I'm surprised the practice is unknown or even controversial on a board centered around VC and startups. Black owned record labels [1][2] use the exact same deals when signing up artists.
Now, Pharrell Williams is notorious on his own. Does he need promotion from a label or an advance check for his music? Probably not. That's why he was able to re-negotiate his contracts to keep ownership of his masters. Same way a bootstrapped founder won't sell part of his equity for funding. It has nothing to do with race (but maybe Pharrell, having a large audience, tried making it about race to get leverage when negotiating...).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Row_Records
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc-A-Fella_Records
It doesn't. Audio or video mastering means to create a reference recording that's then down sampled and used as a reference when manufacturing records [0]. It has nothing to do with race. "Remastering" something means to re-release it with a higher audio quality (typically in a different medium) by using the uncompressed source material (the master) and newer sound processing technologies. It's the reason you can watch old movies in HD on Netflix.
The idea here is that the "master" would be what would be sent to manufacturing when producing a release. It's also why many SaaS use "master" to mean the exact version of the software that's in production, because it's assumed to be the one sent for distribution. It has nothing to do with race or the idea of owning human beings.
> Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams.
There's nothing to expose. When signing up with a producer or recording label, it's common practice to exchange a portion of the rights to the master produced in exchange for (advance) payment and promotion from the label. It's just like founders exchanging equity during fundraising. I'm surprised the practice is unknown or even controversial on a board centered around VC and startups. Black owned record labels [1][2] use the exact same deals when signing up artists.
Now, Pharrell Williams is notorious on his own. Does he need promotion from a label or an advance check for his music? Probably not. That's why he was able to re-negotiate his contracts to keep ownership of his masters. Same way a bootstrapped founder won't sell part of his equity for funding. It has nothing to do with race (but maybe Pharrell, having a large audience, tried making it about race to get leverage when negotiating...).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Row_Records
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc-A-Fella_Records
> It doesn't.
That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027
If what you say is true, that master recording has no relationship to a master/slave dichotomy, then why is there such a thing as a slave reel? Why do industry insiders refer to the dichotomy with a wink and nudge, as if it's a pun ("get it")? They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality".
> There's nothing to expose.
I said expose to popular culture. Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.
That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027
If what you say is true, that master recording has no relationship to a master/slave dichotomy, then why is there such a thing as a slave reel? Why do industry insiders refer to the dichotomy with a wink and nudge, as if it's a pun ("get it")? They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality".
> There's nothing to expose.
I said expose to popular culture. Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.
You seem to enjoy quoting yourself.
>They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality".
You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold.
>Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.
I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
>They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality".
You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold.
>Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.
I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
I’m not quoting myself I’m pointing you to links, which is exactly what you did for me. I just didn’t want to repaste them here.
> You seem to misunderstand
Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry:
> there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio)
Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”.
> a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold.
Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context.
> I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
> You seem to misunderstand
Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry:
> there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio)
Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”.
> a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold.
Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context.
> I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
> If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”.
I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik.
The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium).
> They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.
I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik.
The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium).
> They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.
> I've never heard the term "slave reels"
Well now you have, and I've shown you plenty of evidence that the term has been used even in "the analog days". You may keep insisting that the term is very much about quality, but the sources I've linked suggest the opposite. If you can provide some sources aside from the wiki on "Mastering (audio)" I'm willing to look at them and integrate them into my perspective. Otherwise it's your insistence against the references I've already found.
> and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik.
That's the whole point of this thread. The original contention was that a "master" branch is a reference to a master/slave dichotomy. The retort is that "no, it actually derives from the term "master recording" in the audio industry, which has nothing to do with a master/slave dichotomy." I've show references that in fact, the "master" in "master recording" is an explicit reference to the master/slave dichotomy.
> As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup.
VC funding is also a pretty dubious imo. But that's neither here nor there.
> This isn't a race thing.
I hear you saying that, but I've also heard others who've shown me evidence that it is. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to split the difference and accept it can be a little of both, but you can't hide from the term "slave reels". Even if you want to say it's very much about quality, it's clear there is a race component, and maybe you can admit that too? Either way I'll still be defaulting my repos to "main" and teaching my students that way.
Well now you have, and I've shown you plenty of evidence that the term has been used even in "the analog days". You may keep insisting that the term is very much about quality, but the sources I've linked suggest the opposite. If you can provide some sources aside from the wiki on "Mastering (audio)" I'm willing to look at them and integrate them into my perspective. Otherwise it's your insistence against the references I've already found.
> and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik.
That's the whole point of this thread. The original contention was that a "master" branch is a reference to a master/slave dichotomy. The retort is that "no, it actually derives from the term "master recording" in the audio industry, which has nothing to do with a master/slave dichotomy." I've show references that in fact, the "master" in "master recording" is an explicit reference to the master/slave dichotomy.
> As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup.
VC funding is also a pretty dubious imo. But that's neither here nor there.
> This isn't a race thing.
I hear you saying that, but I've also heard others who've shown me evidence that it is. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to split the difference and accept it can be a little of both, but you can't hide from the term "slave reels". Even if you want to say it's very much about quality, it's clear there is a race component, and maybe you can admit that too? Either way I'll still be defaulting my repos to "main" and teaching my students that way.
You conveniently ignored my question.
When you say "it's clear there is a race component", which race are you referring to?
I am white, and my white great-grandfather died as a slave in a concentration camp at the hands of white Nazi masters as a consequence of white-on-white ethnic persecution.
So do I understand correctly that when you say "it's clear there is a race component", you are referring to white people?
When you say "it's clear there is a race component", which race are you referring to?
I am white, and my white great-grandfather died as a slave in a concentration camp at the hands of white Nazi masters as a consequence of white-on-white ethnic persecution.
So do I understand correctly that when you say "it's clear there is a race component", you are referring to white people?
I ignored your comment because it didn't make sense to me. And since I'm flagged in this thread for having a contrary opinion to the groupthink in this thread, I'm rate limited to reply. I can only reply to like 3 posts before HN tells me to take a break, so I only responded to comments that made sense.
I'm sorry for your grandfather, mine died as well at the hands of Nazis.
By "race component" I'm making reference to racial relations in America, which to a large extent, revolve around the fallout from hundreds of years of chattel slavery of Black people. This country was built on the backs of black slaves, and that still has repercussions in society today. This conflict has deep roots, and many aspects of American life that may seem benign have a context in that history. If you don't know the history then you may not feel one way or another about it. If you do know the history, then it colors things differently (depending on who you are).
I'm sorry for your grandfather, mine died as well at the hands of Nazis.
By "race component" I'm making reference to racial relations in America, which to a large extent, revolve around the fallout from hundreds of years of chattel slavery of Black people. This country was built on the backs of black slaves, and that still has repercussions in society today. This conflict has deep roots, and many aspects of American life that may seem benign have a context in that history. If you don't know the history then you may not feel one way or another about it. If you do know the history, then it colors things differently (depending on who you are).
> it carries the same racial baggage.
Which race? You mean white people, right?
Which race? You mean white people, right?
> Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite"
Is there anything outdated if you talk about e.g. a hermaphroditic tree? I thought this was still the standard term in biology for species which practice sexual reproduction and normally or frequently have individuals with both kinds of reproductive organs, either simultaneously or alternately.
Is there anything outdated if you talk about e.g. a hermaphroditic tree? I thought this was still the standard term in biology for species which practice sexual reproduction and normally or frequently have individuals with both kinds of reproductive organs, either simultaneously or alternately.
Intersex is the current preferred term for non-binary biological sex but it is one meant for people.
Although if you had say, a cat with ambiguous genitalia it wouldn't be offense to reference them as intersex.
Although if you had say, a cat with ambiguous genitalia it wouldn't be offense to reference them as intersex.
They just don't want to be called "Karens" for imposing a speech code on the school. It's 100% illegal in CA to do this thanks to Leonard's Law.
One school district I worked for a long time ago used to label backup tapes with color codes. This is a bad idea in general, but the real issue was the official complaints:
Lemon — suggests that the system is of poor quality, or substandard.
Black — racist.
Brown — also racist.
Pink — too girlie for straight male staff.
And so on.
Eventually they had to change the system because this went all the way up to the minister of education.
”They’re just colors of the rainbow Karen! No, not the gay one!”
Lemon — suggests that the system is of poor quality, or substandard.
Black — racist.
Brown — also racist.
Pink — too girlie for straight male staff.
And so on.
Eventually they had to change the system because this went all the way up to the minister of education.
”They’re just colors of the rainbow Karen! No, not the gay one!”
I've been told I wasn't allowed to color code anything in a UI I worked on because "someone might be living with color vision deficiency".
Not that we have to also provide an alternative for people who can't use the color coding, but we can't use color coding at all.
The world is full of people with good intentions and bad ideas.
Not that we have to also provide an alternative for people who can't use the color coding, but we can't use color coding at all.
The world is full of people with good intentions and bad ideas.
> I've been told I wasn't allowed to color code anything in a UI I worked on because "someone might be living with color vision deficiency".
Refuse to do GUI at all - surely terminal is better for blind people.
Refuse to do GUI at all - surely terminal is better for blind people.
Refuse to write the program entirely. It's ableist against people too unintelligent to use computers.
> - Well-known slurs like "Jewed"
Homophones are next. "Hey Jude".
> - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
Slave comes from "slav"[0]. So speaking of "slaves" or "slavery" is racist.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave#etymonline_v_23653
Homophones are next. "Hey Jude".
> - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
Slave comes from "slav"[0]. So speaking of "slaves" or "slavery" is racist.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave#etymonline_v_23653
Homophones aren't even next, they're already in the list. They recommend against "tarball" on the grounds that it might sound like "tarbaby" which is apparently a racial slur (I'm only familiar with the Brer Rabbit story).
>> Homophones are next. "Hey Jude".
Rob : You're a total paranoid.
Alvy Singer : Well, how am I a para-? I pick up on those kind of things. You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, uh, "Did you eat yet or what?" and Tom Christie said, "No, didjew?" Not, "did you", "didjew eat?" Jew? No, not "did you eat", but "Jew eat"? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?
Rob : You're a total paranoid.
Alvy Singer : Well, how am I a para-? I pick up on those kind of things. You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, uh, "Did you eat yet or what?" and Tom Christie said, "No, didjew?" Not, "did you", "didjew eat?" Jew? No, not "did you eat", but "Jew eat"? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?
> - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
> "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.")
In both those cases, the problem is when it applies to a person, because enslaving someone or having someone submit by force is obviously bad, but there's equally no problem with enslaving a computer or submitting a form, even if you have to force it into a jammed letterbox.
The obvious next step is banning cut, kill, brand or maim, because that's what bad people did to innocent victims; never mind that you can cut paper, kill viruses, brand a product or describe an industrial accident.
> "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.")
In both those cases, the problem is when it applies to a person, because enslaving someone or having someone submit by force is obviously bad, but there's equally no problem with enslaving a computer or submitting a form, even if you have to force it into a jammed letterbox.
The obvious next step is banning cut, kill, brand or maim, because that's what bad people did to innocent victims; never mind that you can cut paper, kill viruses, brand a product or describe an industrial accident.
Kill considered harmful. Kill -9 doubly so.
We should also ban the word logic which is insensitive to woke humanities student who are incapable of.
Incapable of what?
This is one of the most amusing joke formats I have seen on this website.
There is no one-word replacement for something being "grandfathered". It's important to consider practicalities here.
Moving away from "slave" was reasonable (Buildbot got rid of it many years ago!), but led us down a very slippery slope.
I'll stick my head out and say "master" is fine actually.
Moving away from "slave" was reasonable (Buildbot got rid of it many years ago!), but led us down a very slippery slope.
I'll stick my head out and say "master" is fine actually.
> There is no one-word replacement for something being "grandfathered". It's important to consider practicalities here.
In fact, much of this list replaces a single-word term with a longer phrase.
"Bob survived the accident but is now a paraplegic" becomes
"Bob is a person who was impacted by an accident, and he is now a person with a spinal cord injury".
Less precise and much wordier.
In fact, much of this list replaces a single-word term with a longer phrase.
"Bob survived the accident but is now a paraplegic" becomes
"Bob is a person who was impacted by an accident, and he is now a person with a spinal cord injury".
Less precise and much wordier.
> Moving away from "slave" was reasonable
It wasn't, because it didn't make any sense. Using 'slave' as a metaphor doesn't imply slavery is good.
It wasn't, because it didn't make any sense. Using 'slave' as a metaphor doesn't imply slavery is good.
> Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite"
As far as I know, it describes a real state of things; for instance snails are hermaphrodite, and I don't think anyone ought to feel insulted by this banal fact.
The dumbest series of the list are those words containing "white" or "black" (from "blackballed" and "black hat" to "white-space") which supposedly now carry racial undertones (hint: they don't, and never did).
It looks almost like a plot by rich, progressive people to build a culture war with rich, right-wing people to prevent any serious debate on environmental collapse, class exploitation, plutocracy, etc. You could nearly believe that all those supposedly warring high-ranking people play a clever game together to actually keep the power structure as is, and make minuscule problems obfuscate real ones. Almost.
As far as I know, it describes a real state of things; for instance snails are hermaphrodite, and I don't think anyone ought to feel insulted by this banal fact.
The dumbest series of the list are those words containing "white" or "black" (from "blackballed" and "black hat" to "white-space") which supposedly now carry racial undertones (hint: they don't, and never did).
It looks almost like a plot by rich, progressive people to build a culture war with rich, right-wing people to prevent any serious debate on environmental collapse, class exploitation, plutocracy, etc. You could nearly believe that all those supposedly warring high-ranking people play a clever game together to actually keep the power structure as is, and make minuscule problems obfuscate real ones. Almost.
All these categories have something in common - their use can be seen as rude in a particular setting, the rest is bullshit. You can be rude using the most refined vocabulary.
You won't exterminate rudeness by banning a set of words, nor should you be trying to.
By giving people an option to be rude you can see people that choose not to. And then I'll rather choose a rude vulgar teacher who knows his stuff than a milquetoast who doesn't.
You won't exterminate rudeness by banning a set of words, nor should you be trying to.
By giving people an option to be rude you can see people that choose not to. And then I'll rather choose a rude vulgar teacher who knows his stuff than a milquetoast who doesn't.
Yes, it is a common misconception nowadays that there is a causal link between language and society. For example, in languages such as Spanish and German, feminists are seeking to introduce gender-neutral words in an attempt to facilitate equality. However, this is not the correct way around – language is shaped by society, with gender roles and stereotypes influencing the language rather than the other way round. Therefore, making changes to language is not only ineffective but rather counterproductive.
I noticed major failures to put language in context. For example, "whitespace" isn't racist: there are fundamental physical reasons for paper, vellum, papyrus etc. to be approximately white, and there's no reason to think it refers to people.
If so many words assign connotations to "white" and "black", indicating a deeply embedded metaphor, perhaps the solution is simply to stop using such loaded and inaccurate word to refer to skin color? They are trying to boil the ocean to preserve a silly convention that was probably racist to begin with.
Some further examples that stood out to me as being too far-fetched, fashion, and/or excessive to be part of any reasonable "Elimination of harmful language initiative" (explanations verbatim qouted from TFA):
> abusive relationship (The relationship doesn't commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.)
> rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.)
> trigger warning (The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.)
> no can do (Originated from stereotypes that mocked non-native English speakers.)
> yellow team ("Yellow" is often used disparagingly against people of Asian descent.)
> survivor (Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their experiences. If the person identifies with the term, then use it.)
> preferred pronouns (The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.)
> spirit animal
> calling a spade a spade (Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.)
Also not really a fan of forcing ethnical identity by institutionalizing "Black" or denying individuals to own their sexual/gender/whatever-the-appropriate-word-will-be-next-year identity as a choice ("preferred pronouns")
Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. While many of the entries make perfect sense and should be avoided for the sakes of inclusiveness, respect, and compassion, the content and format makes this have the exact opposite effect of the communicated intention...
> Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community
Yeah, no, they did not do their homework on the tarball I think. To paraphrase parents other comment: This could have been good but this is executed poorly enough to be completely counterproductive.
The one technical source they quote[0] is a blog post by former CISO of UW-Madison that comes across as fundamentally more leveled and reasonable to the point where I find they (apparently unintentionally) misrepresent it.
[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20221219233220/https://it.wisc.ed...
> abusive relationship (The relationship doesn't commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.)
> rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.)
> trigger warning (The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.)
> no can do (Originated from stereotypes that mocked non-native English speakers.)
> yellow team ("Yellow" is often used disparagingly against people of Asian descent.)
> survivor (Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their experiences. If the person identifies with the term, then use it.)
> preferred pronouns (The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.)
> spirit animal
> calling a spade a spade (Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.)
Also not really a fan of forcing ethnical identity by institutionalizing "Black" or denying individuals to own their sexual/gender/whatever-the-appropriate-word-will-be-next-year identity as a choice ("preferred pronouns")
Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. While many of the entries make perfect sense and should be avoided for the sakes of inclusiveness, respect, and compassion, the content and format makes this have the exact opposite effect of the communicated intention...
> Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community
Yeah, no, they did not do their homework on the tarball I think. To paraphrase parents other comment: This could have been good but this is executed poorly enough to be completely counterproductive.
The one technical source they quote[0] is a blog post by former CISO of UW-Madison that comes across as fundamentally more leveled and reasonable to the point where I find they (apparently unintentionally) misrepresent it.
[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20221219233220/https://it.wisc.ed...
> Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year.
Yeah, many of these feel extremely "fashionable" to me, in the sense that there was already a term intended to be thoughtful and compassionate, and the latest "preferred alternative" is driven by the latest academic framework to achieve popularity rather than any change in values or the preferences of the people being addressed.
In addition to "survivor", as you highlighted, I know and know of people who would certainly prefer "sex worker" to "prostitute" but would roll their eyes at "person who engages in sex work" - and point out that it actually carries more of an assumption of stigma, since nobody would say "person who engages in office work".
Yeah, many of these feel extremely "fashionable" to me, in the sense that there was already a term intended to be thoughtful and compassionate, and the latest "preferred alternative" is driven by the latest academic framework to achieve popularity rather than any change in values or the preferences of the people being addressed.
In addition to "survivor", as you highlighted, I know and know of people who would certainly prefer "sex worker" to "prostitute" but would roll their eyes at "person who engages in sex work" - and point out that it actually carries more of an assumption of stigma, since nobody would say "person who engages in office work".
In a much less extreme way, this sometimes reminds me of the cultural revolution where what was fully accepted as being non-bourgeois and non-capitalistic would then be banned the next year for being ignorant of class struggle. The reasoning seems to me to be the same, it's signalling of a subgroup's belief running amok where people end up competing as to who can be the more culturally sensitive person by denigrating terms that were previously seen as culturally sensitive.
At first, the initiative can easily be seen as good, after all who wouldn't want to give more consideration to disenfranchised people by making such a small effort to alter one's language but pushing this to extreme is more than a little problematic.
It's fascinating to see but it's very sad that an institution of higher learning is pushing this and ignoring logic, common sense and restraint.
At first, the initiative can easily be seen as good, after all who wouldn't want to give more consideration to disenfranchised people by making such a small effort to alter one's language but pushing this to extreme is more than a little problematic.
It's fascinating to see but it's very sad that an institution of higher learning is pushing this and ignoring logic, common sense and restraint.
What amazes me about this whole thing is how anyone can fail to see to the parallels with the cultural revolution, right on down to the ritualistic self-criticism you're required to perform when you sin against the orthodoxy.
Will it really take 10 years before everyone wakes up in a collective stupor and says, "well, that really went off the rails. How about we move on?"
Will it really take 10 years before everyone wakes up in a collective stupor and says, "well, that really went off the rails. How about we move on?"
> Will it really take 10 years
That's not going to happen, because these fascist nutjobs are teaching our children to think the way they do.
Democracy and freedom will die in a thunderous applause.
That's not going to happen, because these fascist nutjobs are teaching our children to think the way they do.
Democracy and freedom will die in a thunderous applause.
> That's not going to happen, because these fascist nutjobs are teaching our children to think the way they do.
Eh, that'd cause children to be innoculated to these if anything.
Eh, that'd cause children to be innoculated to these if anything.
In another world, I feel that being thoughtful about how we use language in this way could be a good thing. I might say something, and my counterpart could point out the history of the word and why it might be hurtful to someone, and I would walk away more aware and be more considerate in the future.
Sadly, the reality seems to be that the bleeding edge of sensitive language is more often wielded combatively to try to discredit someone.
Sadly, the reality seems to be that the bleeding edge of sensitive language is more often wielded combatively to try to discredit someone.
> rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.)
This is a myth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
This is a myth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
> How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years?
It's been interesting to watch The Guardian tie itself in knots over the acronym BAME (and later to some extent BIPOC), which was meant to be the new, inclusive, non-offensive to the minorities it sought to describe, term for non-white (particularly in the UK), which the newspaper was much in favour of but then seemed to decide was probably bad and might even be racist. And then keep using it all over the place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/22/black-...
In the mean time, outside of that particular bubble, I think most people either looked on with bemusement or had no idea of the existence of the term anyway.
It's been interesting to watch The Guardian tie itself in knots over the acronym BAME (and later to some extent BIPOC), which was meant to be the new, inclusive, non-offensive to the minorities it sought to describe, term for non-white (particularly in the UK), which the newspaper was much in favour of but then seemed to decide was probably bad and might even be racist. And then keep using it all over the place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/22/black-...
In the mean time, outside of that particular bubble, I think most people either looked on with bemusement or had no idea of the existence of the term anyway.
What always made me giggle about BIPOC and it’s usage by the guardian is it made no sense. The white British are by definition indigenous to the island and more over everyone is indigenous to somewhere by the terms very definition.
Curious question, what would be negative about spade? It's either a form of shovel or a card color? Fairly certain I am missing something here.
Edit: Because it is really fun, in a strange way, to go through the list: Isn't chief also used to address, e.g., a chief petty officer?
Edit 2: The list is just, well, strange. Ghetto for example, in the list it is mentioned as a non-white neighborhood. Historically, it was a jewish one. Let alone to speak about the Ghettos the Nazi's put in place. Karen, bad because it insults (?) people for their behaviour, this just stands out against all the other terms on list because of negative perception around what people are. Pretty lazy list, especially for an instituation like Stanford from which I would have expected better understanding of cultural and historic context...
Edit 3: No surpise, red team is on the list. But doesn't that come from military exercises, with red being the opfor? And blue being friendlies?
Edit 4: While some things are good advice, the majority of things on this list is just rediciulous edge cases. And, on top of that, some things are on the list because racists took it over, e.g. uppity. So basically, extremists, racists and whomever has to use a term for the rest of us normal people (also on the list for whatever reason) cannot use it anymore. That alone raises the question who is in charge of words here.
Edit: Because it is really fun, in a strange way, to go through the list: Isn't chief also used to address, e.g., a chief petty officer?
Edit 2: The list is just, well, strange. Ghetto for example, in the list it is mentioned as a non-white neighborhood. Historically, it was a jewish one. Let alone to speak about the Ghettos the Nazi's put in place. Karen, bad because it insults (?) people for their behaviour, this just stands out against all the other terms on list because of negative perception around what people are. Pretty lazy list, especially for an instituation like Stanford from which I would have expected better understanding of cultural and historic context...
Edit 3: No surpise, red team is on the list. But doesn't that come from military exercises, with red being the opfor? And blue being friendlies?
Edit 4: While some things are good advice, the majority of things on this list is just rediciulous edge cases. And, on top of that, some things are on the list because racists took it over, e.g. uppity. So basically, extremists, racists and whomever has to use a term for the rest of us normal people (also on the list for whatever reason) cannot use it anymore. That alone raises the question who is in charge of words here.
"Spade" can mean "black person". Although I'm not sure whether it's considered offensive and I've never heard anyone use it to mean "black person" in real life... was it more common in the past?
Edit: I just remembered one place I've heard it: in the lyrics to the song "Everyone has AIDS" from the movie Team America. "The gays and the straights and the whites and the spades / everyone has AIDS!"
Edit: I just remembered one place I've heard it: in the lyrics to the song "Everyone has AIDS" from the movie Team America. "The gays and the straights and the whites and the spades / everyone has AIDS!"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/spade
Meaning 3: "A black person"
Meaning 3: "A black person"
[deleted](1)
Yeah, once you get to "user" and "submit" it starts to appear as if these folks take offense to those words ever being defined in the first place. I refuse to apologize for useful words that exist not only in our language, but that are also deeply embedded in our minds. These people are demanding that we "forget" what we know is true, and replace it with something that is not true.
Misappropriating and subsequently weaponizing commonly used words is a trash move, imo, and it plainly exposes the lack of moral integrity of the persecutors. I find it very difficult to believe that such behavior is made in good faith.
Misappropriating and subsequently weaponizing commonly used words is a trash move, imo, and it plainly exposes the lack of moral integrity of the persecutors. I find it very difficult to believe that such behavior is made in good faith.
> - Words that have long since lost any stigmatizing meaning by virtue of the original use being so ancient ("lame", "dumb", "stupid")
If you've known someone with mobility issues (e.g., a limp from birth) long enough for them to be honest with you, then the term "lame" (as a slang term meaning "something shitty") that might still be a sore spot.
EDIT: you don't have to do anything. But it does mean something to some ppl, and some of these ppl do notice it being said or avoided. And after hearing that from someone you care about, if might make you want to notice more (once the surprise of realizing it's an actual concern fades away)
If you've known someone with mobility issues (e.g., a limp from birth) long enough for them to be honest with you, then the term "lame" (as a slang term meaning "something shitty") that might still be a sore spot.
EDIT: you don't have to do anything. But it does mean something to some ppl, and some of these ppl do notice it being said or avoided. And after hearing that from someone you care about, if might make you want to notice more (once the surprise of realizing it's an actual concern fades away)
> But it does mean something to some ppl, and some of these ppl do notice it being said or avoided
Yes, but that is very context-dependent. The rule of thumb is “don’t be stupid” and “don’t be a dick” (yes, offensive to eunuchs and people who think this excludes women; in which case replace with “twat”). The words you need to avoid to that effect depend on who you’re talking to and in which circumstances. Blanket bans based on lists of words someone is crusading against are counter-productive.
> And after hearing that from someone you care about
The first time can just be a mistake; people you care about do not have the exact same mindset you have. In that case, a short explanation should suffice, without implying malice. If it is a pattern, then the people you care about don’t care as much about you.
OTOH, it is unreasonable to expect a random stranger on the Internet to be aware of your sensitivities.
Yes, but that is very context-dependent. The rule of thumb is “don’t be stupid” and “don’t be a dick” (yes, offensive to eunuchs and people who think this excludes women; in which case replace with “twat”). The words you need to avoid to that effect depend on who you’re talking to and in which circumstances. Blanket bans based on lists of words someone is crusading against are counter-productive.
> And after hearing that from someone you care about
The first time can just be a mistake; people you care about do not have the exact same mindset you have. In that case, a short explanation should suffice, without implying malice. If it is a pattern, then the people you care about don’t care as much about you.
OTOH, it is unreasonable to expect a random stranger on the Internet to be aware of your sensitivities.
It’s make-work. Stanford has nearly as many administrators as students, and they have to justify their paychecks somehow. This is just a resume padding exercise for some unscrupulous ladder climber.
It's also intresting that some of these terms were, initially at least, meant to be anti-racist.
"Survivor" is on the list (as in, survivor of SA). So is "Karen" (which, IIRC, was popularized through videos of white people harassing black folks minding their own business).
I can't imagine this list should be used as anything more than an MLA style-guide type list of "these are outdated terms for formal writing"
"Survivor" is on the list (as in, survivor of SA). So is "Karen" (which, IIRC, was popularized through videos of white people harassing black folks minding their own business).
I can't imagine this list should be used as anything more than an MLA style-guide type list of "these are outdated terms for formal writing"
> Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica"
Why is that touchy? It doesn't make any value judgements about slavery. It's just referencing the concept. If referencing the concept is bad, then I guess schools shouldn't teach it anymore? Let's all pretend there never was any slavery!
I wonder when someone will find a problem with 'kill' command.
Why is that touchy? It doesn't make any value judgements about slavery. It's just referencing the concept. If referencing the concept is bad, then I guess schools shouldn't teach it anymore? Let's all pretend there never was any slavery!
I wonder when someone will find a problem with 'kill' command.
It’s very obviously not intended to imply that all the terms are equally offensive or inaccurate.
Why _wouldn’t_ I want to avoid using any but your last category?
Why _wouldn’t_ I want to avoid using any but your last category?
> Why _wouldn’t_ I want to avoid using any but your last category?
Thing is, _you_ are free to avoid anything you want for whatever reason you want. It is when someone else (e.g. myself) who doesn't want to have his language policed is faced with a prospect of being told to change his language, that he may become upset. After all, if you recognise that language is part of a person's identity, and that identity is important (as those who champion such linguistic changes almost invariably tend to claim), it is really inconsistent then to be demanding that people change the way they talk.
Thing is, _you_ are free to avoid anything you want for whatever reason you want. It is when someone else (e.g. myself) who doesn't want to have his language policed is faced with a prospect of being told to change his language, that he may become upset. After all, if you recognise that language is part of a person's identity, and that identity is important (as those who champion such linguistic changes almost invariably tend to claim), it is really inconsistent then to be demanding that people change the way they talk.
> it is really inconsistent then to be demanding that people change the way they talk.
Okay, but Stanford is not demanding that; this site is about words they don’t want used on their own websites and marketing materials. This isn’t a list of words they don’t want you to use, it’s a list of words they don’t want to use. The obvious solution if you don’t want to be policed by this word list is to not work at Stanford.
Okay, but Stanford is not demanding that; this site is about words they don’t want used on their own websites and marketing materials. This isn’t a list of words they don’t want you to use, it’s a list of words they don’t want to use. The obvious solution if you don’t want to be policed by this word list is to not work at Stanford.
> Okay, but Stanford is not demanding that; this site is about words they don’t want used on their own websites and marketing materials. This isn’t a list of words they don’t want you to use, it’s a list of words they don’t want to use. The obvious solution if you don’t want to be policed by this word list is to not work at Stanford.
I'm a little confused by the transition that happened within this paragraph. You start with a language used on websites and in marketing materials, and end by saying not to work at Stanford (which I don't :-) ). But there is a long range of cases that fall in between marketing materials and total strangers. Will professors, who are neither websites nor marketing materials, be obliged (or "advised") to abide by the code? Will the students? If someone working/studying at Stanford thinks that this is stupid, is he free to ignore the advice? Or does he have to leave? If someone associated with Stanford writes a book or a paper, will he need to have the language of his manuscript checked? What about a master's or a phd thesis? What about a talk? Lots of uncertainty there.
I'm a little confused by the transition that happened within this paragraph. You start with a language used on websites and in marketing materials, and end by saying not to work at Stanford (which I don't :-) ). But there is a long range of cases that fall in between marketing materials and total strangers. Will professors, who are neither websites nor marketing materials, be obliged (or "advised") to abide by the code? Will the students? If someone working/studying at Stanford thinks that this is stupid, is he free to ignore the advice? Or does he have to leave? If someone associated with Stanford writes a book or a paper, will he need to have the language of his manuscript checked? What about a master's or a phd thesis? What about a talk? Lots of uncertainty there.
> is he free to ignore the advice? Or does he have to leave?
are they free to ignore the advice? Or do they have to leave?
are they free to ignore the advice? Or do they have to leave?
That's exactly what I am talking about :-) In my idiolect, it's a he; in your idiolect, it's a they; our idiolects are perfectly understandable to both of us; and yet, instead of simply recognising a variation in my speech, you feel an urge to change my language.
Remarkably, it's exactly the opposite of the public attitude towards regional dialects. Where previously it was common to correct speakers of non-prestigious dialects, it is now required to be accepting and tolerant.
Remarkably, it's exactly the opposite of the public attitude towards regional dialects. Where previously it was common to correct speakers of non-prestigious dialects, it is now required to be accepting and tolerant.
I take issue with “perfectly understandable”.
I think many (most?) people hearing or reading that would make an assumption from your use of ‘he’ that you expect that professors and students are usually male. Perhaps that you believe they _should_ be male. If you really mean them to be gender-neutral, you are not communicating clearly. I would argue that this has always been true - but even if I’m wrong about that, it’s true for modern English usage.
I think many (most?) people hearing or reading that would make an assumption from your use of ‘he’ that you expect that professors and students are usually male. Perhaps that you believe they _should_ be male. If you really mean them to be gender-neutral, you are not communicating clearly. I would argue that this has always been true - but even if I’m wrong about that, it’s true for modern English usage.
The hypothetical "someone" in my sentence (a professor or a student) is indeed probably male if I look at him closely. I pass no comment on whether professors or students _should_ generally be male; but at the same time, have no qualms with imagining them as such. I understand that many think differently, and have seen plenty of texts where an imaginary character of unspecified sex is introduced with a third-person singular feminine pronoun (a random example: "For a Product Owner to properly adapt a product, she needs some empirical evidence, something to inspect", from "The Professional Product Owner" by Don McGreal and Ralph Jocham). My argument is that if should be perfectly fine for a writer to use the default gender that he is most comfortable with.
One would hope it isn't intended to imply that, but if not, it's doing an extremely poor job at it.
Here's two almost-adjacent entries:
> hip-hip hurray, hip hip hooray > This term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.
> Jewed > This term is based on a stereotype that people of Jewish descent are cheap and/or hoard money.
The latter is, as I said, a well-known slur that any Jew would find offensive. The former is an extremely commonplace expression which is allegedly offensive due to a history that I've never in my life heard of before, and which seems on a quick search to be quite dubiously evidenced.
Without knowing the actual context of these, one might very well be persuaded by this list that "hip, hip, hooray" was more offensive than "Jewed" - after all, a rallying cry for a genocide sounds more harmful than a mere ethnic stereotype!
Here's two almost-adjacent entries:
> hip-hip hurray, hip hip hooray > This term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.
> Jewed > This term is based on a stereotype that people of Jewish descent are cheap and/or hoard money.
The latter is, as I said, a well-known slur that any Jew would find offensive. The former is an extremely commonplace expression which is allegedly offensive due to a history that I've never in my life heard of before, and which seems on a quick search to be quite dubiously evidenced.
Without knowing the actual context of these, one might very well be persuaded by this list that "hip, hip, hooray" was more offensive than "Jewed" - after all, a rallying cry for a genocide sounds more harmful than a mere ethnic stereotype!
It seems that the etymology is actually mistaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hip_hip_hooray
I've heard the earlier theory (that it was an acronym for "Hierosolyma est perdita" which was supposed to have been a Crusader slogan), but Wiktionary thinks this is a false etymology.
I'm Ashkenazi Jewish and have never heard any Jewish or non-Jewish person claim to have personally associated the "hip hip hooray" cheer with antisemitism. Perhaps that association, even if it's etymologically incorrect, would have been top-of-mind for many Europeans in the 1820s, but I don't think that's so today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hep-Hep_riots
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hip_hip_hooray
I've heard the earlier theory (that it was an acronym for "Hierosolyma est perdita" which was supposed to have been a Crusader slogan), but Wiktionary thinks this is a false etymology.
I'm Ashkenazi Jewish and have never heard any Jewish or non-Jewish person claim to have personally associated the "hip hip hooray" cheer with antisemitism. Perhaps that association, even if it's etymologically incorrect, would have been top-of-mind for many Europeans in the 1820s, but I don't think that's so today.
Yes, the use of "hip hip hip hoorah" (with three "hips") in English predates the Hep Hep riots.
Most etymologies attributed to acronyms for words pre-20th century are usually false.
Most etymologies attributed to acronyms for words pre-20th century are usually false.
Moreover, the same "hip-hip hooray" rally cry was used by the Red Army, who (while not specifically siding with Jewish people) liberated quite a number of people from the death camps.
> the same "hip-hip hooray" rally cry was used by the Red Army
Which Red Army? Unless it's the Chinese Red Army (which I have no knowledge about), but rather the Russian (Soviet) Red Army, then, firstly, the battle cry of its soldiers was not "hip-hip hooray", but rather "ura" (cognate of the English "hurrah"); and, secondly, this battle cry is much older than the Red Army. It's an old word; almost certainly a borrowing into Russian; but in which century (seventeenth? sixteenth? older?), and from which language, I do not know.
Which Red Army? Unless it's the Chinese Red Army (which I have no knowledge about), but rather the Russian (Soviet) Red Army, then, firstly, the battle cry of its soldiers was not "hip-hip hooray", but rather "ura" (cognate of the English "hurrah"); and, secondly, this battle cry is much older than the Red Army. It's an old word; almost certainly a borrowing into Russian; but in which century (seventeenth? sixteenth? older?), and from which language, I do not know.
Well, this is the first time I hear "Hipp, hipp, Hurra" (the proper German version, since hurray is definetly not German) being linked to the Nazis and anti-semitism... And us Germans are rather sensitive about that
It says, at the top of the page:
The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We also are not attempting to address all informal uses of language.
This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology. Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.
The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We also are not attempting to address all informal uses of language.
This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology. Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.
I don't actually see how this is an argument against my point at all.
They say "we are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site", and then proceed to list a huge number of terms, some of which are almost universally viewed as discriminatory or harmful and some of which are almost universally viewed as _not_ discriminatory or harmful. They may not be explicitly claiming that these terms have equivalent negative impact, but the presentation does nothing to suggest otherwise, and in many cases neither do the explanations.
As I said in my original comment, it's an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" approach - as if someone had just given you a list saying "these things are illegal, don't do them" without noting that one of them can be punished by life in prison and another is so widely disregarded that it'll be viewed as odd if you never do it.
They say "we are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site", and then proceed to list a huge number of terms, some of which are almost universally viewed as discriminatory or harmful and some of which are almost universally viewed as _not_ discriminatory or harmful. They may not be explicitly claiming that these terms have equivalent negative impact, but the presentation does nothing to suggest otherwise, and in many cases neither do the explanations.
As I said in my original comment, it's an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" approach - as if someone had just given you a list saying "these things are illegal, don't do them" without noting that one of them can be punished by life in prison and another is so widely disregarded that it'll be viewed as odd if you never do it.
I think “We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site.” is quite pain in its meaning. Do you just object to the existence of the list? Or am I misunderstanding and you’re just saying it’s weird to list them all together, and not attempting to ascribe value (or lack thereof) to the list?
I still think my original question stands - why wouldn’t I want to avoid most of these terms? Isn’t the list useful if I would?
I still think my original question stands - why wouldn’t I want to avoid most of these terms? Isn’t the list useful if I would?
> Do you just object to the existence of the list?
I object to the existence of this particular list because I think it's extremely poorly done - to the point of being actively harmful to efforts to reduce offensive language - and would be incredibly confusing to anyone who didn't already have the fairly deep linguistic and cultural competence required to know which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore.
I don't object to the general existence of lists of this type, but I do think they're often subject to the same pathologies this one is.
> I still think my original question stands - why wouldn’t I want to avoid most of these terms? Isn’t the list useful if I would?
I think a huge section of this list is not helpful to anybody. "Red team", "yellow team", and "black box" have nothing to do with race whatsoever, for example, nor would a reasonable person think they did; eliminating them from your vocabulary would do no more to address racial injustice than eliminating "armadillo" would. And I do think there are costs to urging people to monitor their speech to greater and greater degrees for rapidly decreasing - and in many cases zero - benefit.
I object to the existence of this particular list because I think it's extremely poorly done - to the point of being actively harmful to efforts to reduce offensive language - and would be incredibly confusing to anyone who didn't already have the fairly deep linguistic and cultural competence required to know which parts to take seriously and which parts to ignore.
I don't object to the general existence of lists of this type, but I do think they're often subject to the same pathologies this one is.
> I still think my original question stands - why wouldn’t I want to avoid most of these terms? Isn’t the list useful if I would?
I think a huge section of this list is not helpful to anybody. "Red team", "yellow team", and "black box" have nothing to do with race whatsoever, for example, nor would a reasonable person think they did; eliminating them from your vocabulary would do no more to address racial injustice than eliminating "armadillo" would. And I do think there are costs to urging people to monitor their speech to greater and greater degrees for rapidly decreasing - and in many cases zero - benefit.
Thanks. I understand your position better now, and agree with more of it than I first thought. I don’t think our positions are so divergent as to be problematic in real life - though I suspect I will continue to monitor my speech a little more than I you think is advisable.
I wish online forums encouraged civil discussion like this more than they seem to. So much knee-jerk even here.
I wish online forums encouraged civil discussion like this more than they seem to. So much knee-jerk even here.
I see a list like this potentially being more harmful than helpful in a few respects:
1. By saying certain phrases could be understood to be harmful, even when they aren't commonly understood to be and explicitly don't have racist or sexist etymologies, the list is actually reinforcing the threads of harmful stereotypes in our language. Black box is not a racist term; adding it to a list like this just associates black=bad, which is not something we should want at all.
2. Lists like this encourage black-and-white thinking about language that ignores context. It's the same sort of thinking that leads to your white uncle complaining that rappers use the n word, so why can't he? Words don't hurt; how words are used hurt.
3. Lists like this are ripe for abuse. While I have heard interesting discussions about how certain language can be harmful (The Allusionist podcast recently had an interesting discussion over terms like neuro-divergent, neuro-typical, autism and so on), it is often used in a bullying way to dismiss and discredit someone who is trying to engage in good faith rather than to educate. Consider "rule of thumb". The etymology presented is wrong, but wide spread. Maybe the fact that many people believe this is enough to avoid it, but the list doesn't present this nuance and instead perpetuates the myth.
1. By saying certain phrases could be understood to be harmful, even when they aren't commonly understood to be and explicitly don't have racist or sexist etymologies, the list is actually reinforcing the threads of harmful stereotypes in our language. Black box is not a racist term; adding it to a list like this just associates black=bad, which is not something we should want at all.
2. Lists like this encourage black-and-white thinking about language that ignores context. It's the same sort of thinking that leads to your white uncle complaining that rappers use the n word, so why can't he? Words don't hurt; how words are used hurt.
3. Lists like this are ripe for abuse. While I have heard interesting discussions about how certain language can be harmful (The Allusionist podcast recently had an interesting discussion over terms like neuro-divergent, neuro-typical, autism and so on), it is often used in a bullying way to dismiss and discredit someone who is trying to engage in good faith rather than to educate. Consider "rule of thumb". The etymology presented is wrong, but wide spread. Maybe the fact that many people believe this is enough to avoid it, but the list doesn't present this nuance and instead perpetuates the myth.
I see it quite opposite.
"We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site" means literally nothing but "we shouldn't be held accountable for intermingling actual racial slurs with misinterpreted Wikipedia articles".
I don't see how trying to cover your ass at the start of an article somehow invalidates the content of the article.
"We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site" means literally nothing but "we shouldn't be held accountable for intermingling actual racial slurs with misinterpreted Wikipedia articles".
I don't see how trying to cover your ass at the start of an article somehow invalidates the content of the article.
> term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.
Hmm, I bet they also drank water after hunting down Jews. Drinking water literally makes you a Nazi!
Seriously though, where does this stop? Don't they see the absurdity? It almost feels like absurdity is the goal.
Hmm, I bet they also drank water after hunting down Jews. Drinking water literally makes you a Nazi!
Seriously though, where does this stop? Don't they see the absurdity? It almost feels like absurdity is the goal.
It stops when they reach the end of the euphemism treadmill. There is no goal here, only the desire to be seen to be doing something. When you reward people for catching rats, they don't kill all the rats, as then there won't be any rats to catch next season.
Except that 'treadmills' were used as punishment devices in prisons, so the preferred alternative is 'euphemism exercise machine'. Except that "exercise" is ableist and so the real preferred alternative is...
Except that 'treadmills' were used as punishment devices in prisons, so the preferred alternative is 'euphemism exercise machine'. Except that "exercise" is ableist and so the real preferred alternative is...
> The latter is, as I said, a well-known slur that any Jew would find offensive.
You'd be incorrect, as I happen to know a Jew who some might consider "based" and knowingly says things like "...so I Jewed it..." and so on. Like, he literally just comes out and says these things in casual conversation and humour.
You'd be incorrect, as I happen to know a Jew who some might consider "based" and knowingly says things like "...so I Jewed it..." and so on. Like, he literally just comes out and says these things in casual conversation and humour.
Not sure what you're meaning here. Slurs aren't slurs without the context of hatred or disdain, and an obvious example of self deprecating humor doesn't mean that your friend would enjoy a stranger directing that word towards him.
Pretty much no one would claim the n-word is not a slur just because some black people use it amongst each other.
Pretty much no one would claim the n-word is not a slur just because some black people use it amongst each other.
As we know, music created by artists who identify as "black" has never had racial slurs against that same group included.
"Finding something offensive" is not mutually exclusive with "doing that thing yourself".
"Finding something offensive" is not mutually exclusive with "doing that thing yourself".
[deleted]
How does it “conflate” them?
If you were trying to help people be more inclusive with their language, categorizing them like this seems counter to your goals
Your own list seems to say that exclusionary language about someone's medical condition (lame) is more acceptable than other exclusionary language, because that stigma has a different history? Or because that language is more common?
Those words can still do real harm to real people, even if they're lower down in your ranking of these words
Your own list seems to say that exclusionary language about someone's medical condition (lame) is more acceptable than other exclusionary language, because that stigma has a different history? Or because that language is more common?
Those words can still do real harm to real people, even if they're lower down in your ranking of these words
> Those words can still do real harm to real people
Pretty much anything you can say that has any form of content can do harm to someone. If we want to never ever accidentally hurt someone's feelings, we need to stop talking about:
- Having kids. It's quite painful to those who can't.
- Parents. It's painful to those who don't have any, or have abusive ones.
- War. It's painful to veterans or people who fled war.
- Anything medical. It might hurt someone who's dealing with a medical issue in one way or another.
- Pets. It might be a sensitive subject to someone who just lost a pet.
- Stop asking people how they're doing. It's a sensitive subject to people dealing with burn-out or depression.
Where do we draw the line?
I've been personally affected, many times, by multiple things in my examples above, so please don't say I'm exaggerating with those examples. However, I really don't want to live in a world where we need to watch every word because it might make someone feel bad.
If anything, this type of thinking might even affect people negatively, because it pushes the idea that feelings should be repressed, in stead of dealt with.
Pretty much anything you can say that has any form of content can do harm to someone. If we want to never ever accidentally hurt someone's feelings, we need to stop talking about:
- Having kids. It's quite painful to those who can't.
- Parents. It's painful to those who don't have any, or have abusive ones.
- War. It's painful to veterans or people who fled war.
- Anything medical. It might hurt someone who's dealing with a medical issue in one way or another.
- Pets. It might be a sensitive subject to someone who just lost a pet.
- Stop asking people how they're doing. It's a sensitive subject to people dealing with burn-out or depression.
Where do we draw the line?
I've been personally affected, many times, by multiple things in my examples above, so please don't say I'm exaggerating with those examples. However, I really don't want to live in a world where we need to watch every word because it might make someone feel bad.
If anything, this type of thinking might even affect people negatively, because it pushes the idea that feelings should be repressed, in stead of dealt with.
This is why we almost universally resort to talking about the weather when speaking with relative strangers. It's hard to be offended by overcast weather.
I can see a future where we can't do that anymore either, because climate change will displace many people and weather will also become a topic that might hurt some people's feelings.
While typing this, I realized we're there already. During summer, when talking about the temperature, people already feel the need to add their opinion about climate change to the discussion, which then becomes political.
While typing this, I realized we're there already. During summer, when talking about the temperature, people already feel the need to add their opinion about climate change to the discussion, which then becomes political.
> While typing this, I realized we're there already.
We definitely are there already. I can't comfortably talk about weather anymore, because after either side mentions anything interesting - such as it being surprisingly cold, or hot, or snowy, or windy - I feel tempted to say something about climate change. Being risk averse, I stop myself and say nothing, but this creates an awkward pause and ends the conversation.
We definitely are there already. I can't comfortably talk about weather anymore, because after either side mentions anything interesting - such as it being surprisingly cold, or hot, or snowy, or windy - I feel tempted to say something about climate change. Being risk averse, I stop myself and say nothing, but this creates an awkward pause and ends the conversation.
Yes, the author is being a real tarball about the whole thing by compressing these things all together.
What does "real harm" even mean in this context? Someone will be offended? Their feelings will be hurt? Is that something we need to avoid at all cost in society?
And isn't there in implicit insult in that? That an entire group is so fragile, that seeing a mere word on paper, in a completely different context, will somehow reduce them to emotional rubble?
Aren't many of these making things worse, e.g. "calling a spade a spade" or "blackbox" by implying that any distant possible connection to 'black' makes something so horrible that its use must be suppressed? What does that imply about that color?
These lists are actively harmful, not to mention wasteful, but I guess they are good at creating demand for DEI officers and giving them work to do.
Aren't many of these making things worse, e.g. "calling a spade a spade" or "blackbox" by implying that any distant possible connection to 'black' makes something so horrible that its use must be suppressed? What does that imply about that color?
These lists are actively harmful, not to mention wasteful, but I guess they are good at creating demand for DEI officers and giving them work to do.
I don't read it as conflating, they just say these are all harmful, not that they are equally harmful. A hangnail is harmful and a car crash is harmful, I try to avoid both. I'm less put out by a hangnail and I go to great lengths to avoid a car crash.
Any list like this should be read as: "you are causing harm somewhere between a paper cut and a gunshot wound, you may not realize it. Be advised you might be causing that harm, in case knowing that would cause you to take a different course of action"
Any list like this should be read as: "you are causing harm somewhere between a paper cut and a gunshot wound, you may not realize it. Be advised you might be causing that harm, in case knowing that would cause you to take a different course of action"
Surely it matters the extent of the harm, though? If I'm doing home wiring, it is not at all helpful to know "this could result in a slight tingle or kill you and burn your house down."
Ambiguity means I can wave off your complaints because clearly what you're complaining about is a hangnail. Ambiguity means I can punish you brutally, because how dare you not take my car crash seriously.
Ambiguity means I can wave off your complaints because clearly what you're complaining about is a hangnail. Ambiguity means I can punish you brutally, because how dare you not take my car crash seriously.
Stairs are really hard for people in a wheelchair, signage is really hard for someone blind, and fire alarms are really hard for someone deaf. Missing any of those ADA adaptions is more harmful to one group than another.
Harm can vary based on the person, so doing something "harmful" is person dependent. The goal is to recognize the harmful history of language when choosing words, because, thankfully all spoken words are newly spoken, so you can pick fresh each time.
Harm can vary based on the person, so doing something "harmful" is person dependent. The goal is to recognize the harmful history of language when choosing words, because, thankfully all spoken words are newly spoken, so you can pick fresh each time.
In a huge portion of these cases the only harmful history is in the imagination of the author. "Tarball"? "Red team"? "Submit"? "White paper"?
All of these have very clear etymologies that don't have any offensive history whatsoever. The idea that we should avoid any term that uses the words "white", "black", "red", or "yellow" on the grounds that they once were used in some contexts to refer to people is absurd.
All of these have very clear etymologies that don't have any offensive history whatsoever. The idea that we should avoid any term that uses the words "white", "black", "red", or "yellow" on the grounds that they once were used in some contexts to refer to people is absurd.
User is a prime example of one I appreciate being on this list. Lists like this do a good job of making people think, and causing discussion. Some of that discussion might be posts like yours.
So to discuss user. User is quite often used in a slightly pejorative way, by power user, sys admin, programmer, support crowds. You can almost always replace it with the word person or someone. I take it more as a challenge, when I am about to say it, to try and find a better way to say what I was going to say. Most often than not, I can avoid the word user.
The same goes for lame. I just try not to use it, because I do use it, and I take it as a challenge to erase it from my vocabulary and use better words.
So to discuss user. User is quite often used in a slightly pejorative way, by power user, sys admin, programmer, support crowds. You can almost always replace it with the word person or someone. I take it more as a challenge, when I am about to say it, to try and find a better way to say what I was going to say. Most often than not, I can avoid the word user.
The same goes for lame. I just try not to use it, because I do use it, and I take it as a challenge to erase it from my vocabulary and use better words.
Well, first, their explanation for why "user" might be problematic has nothing to do with that pejorative use. It's
> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
which seems to bizarrely ignore the fact that common words have many different meanings that are distinguished by context.
Second, I would actually argue that the techie pejorative usage of "user" is a good example of the shortcomings of this "words to watch out for" approach. "User" has an extremely common neutral meaning, and also some people who design or operate systems use it contemptuously - without even really changing what it means, just with the implication that most users aren't very smart! The problem there is not with the word at all, it's the attitude with which it's used.
> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
which seems to bizarrely ignore the fact that common words have many different meanings that are distinguished by context.
Second, I would actually argue that the techie pejorative usage of "user" is a good example of the shortcomings of this "words to watch out for" approach. "User" has an extremely common neutral meaning, and also some people who design or operate systems use it contemptuously - without even really changing what it means, just with the implication that most users aren't very smart! The problem there is not with the word at all, it's the attitude with which it's used.
I know this crowd leans anti censorship and anti pc, but all I'm saying is that I appreciate being made to think by opposing viewpoints, hence I find value in lists like this.
I personally have made effort to not use the word user. I decided I don't like it. For me. I'm not lecturing other people not to use it.
In my experience, user has become a fill in word, when better words exist. And its pejorative use is, in my opinion, closer to the substance abuse meaning than it appears at first glance. Both basically describe someone who uses and takes advantage of something, without either mastery or self control. "Passive use" if you will. When I think of it in that context, I dont like the word.
I personally have made effort to not use the word user. I decided I don't like it. For me. I'm not lecturing other people not to use it.
In my experience, user has become a fill in word, when better words exist. And its pejorative use is, in my opinion, closer to the substance abuse meaning than it appears at first glance. Both basically describe someone who uses and takes advantage of something, without either mastery or self control. "Passive use" if you will. When I think of it in that context, I dont like the word.
Well yea, but this is an "opposing viewpoints that makes you think" in the same way asking an 8 year old their opinion on geopolitics is "an opposing viewpoints that makes you think".
I think your attitude around the word "user" is putting the cart before the horse, which is what the user above was getting at. The problem isn't that we use language that infantilizes users, the problem is that infantilizing users is how you get the largest market share. Google isn't going to shift their design philosophy away from "ease-of-use" because of language use, the language use would shift with the design philosophy.
I think your attitude around the word "user" is putting the cart before the horse, which is what the user above was getting at. The problem isn't that we use language that infantilizes users, the problem is that infantilizing users is how you get the largest market share. Google isn't going to shift their design philosophy away from "ease-of-use" because of language use, the language use would shift with the design philosophy.
By your logic, no computer can be a user of your service. Then you'll use consumer, but the user also consumes...
They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language:
I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bike from speeding cars on my street. Language isn't going to fill the dams in a drier and drier California. Language isn't going to do jackshit about 400+ ppm CO2 levels. And on and on.
These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
How do we close this Pandora's box? How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bike from speeding cars on my street. Language isn't going to fill the dams in a drier and drier California. Language isn't going to do jackshit about 400+ ppm CO2 levels. And on and on.
These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
How do we close this Pandora's box? How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control.
Becoming able to control someone's thoughts is very, very powerful and sought after, and what are thoughts composed of? Language. Define the language and you define how people think.
Define people of latin origin should be referred to by "latinx" and nothing else and congratulations: An entire collection of cultures was removed of their identity and subjugated.
Define all environmental concerns as "global warming" and later "climate change" and congratulations: You just invalidated swaths of inventions and solutions created by our forefathers and turned entire fields of science into a handy little political tool to fling around for profit.
Define science as something to be unconditionally trusted and congratulations: You just turned science into a religion and gained one of the biggest religious forces known to man to use for profit.
The people behind all this are very ingenious and very dangerous; he who controls language owns the human world.
Becoming able to control someone's thoughts is very, very powerful and sought after, and what are thoughts composed of? Language. Define the language and you define how people think.
Define people of latin origin should be referred to by "latinx" and nothing else and congratulations: An entire collection of cultures was removed of their identity and subjugated.
Define all environmental concerns as "global warming" and later "climate change" and congratulations: You just invalidated swaths of inventions and solutions created by our forefathers and turned entire fields of science into a handy little political tool to fling around for profit.
Define science as something to be unconditionally trusted and congratulations: You just turned science into a religion and gained one of the biggest religious forces known to man to use for profit.
The people behind all this are very ingenious and very dangerous; he who controls language owns the human world.
Hanlon's razor applies. I don't believe that most of the people doing this are motivated by malign intent. Some are, some people really get off on telling others what to do, getting people fired, etc. But most truly believe they they are doing a service to minority groups.
In your example of "Latinx" for example, if you are a white person who doesn't speak Spanish but you really want to help improve society, it probably sounds like a great idea! Put women and men on an equal footing. It's very easy to walk through a field of landmines if you don't know there's any landmines there. It's very easy to be an activist if you don't know anything at all about the world.
It's better to attack the idea than the people. Push back on that Overton window. Rename your main branch to master. Call someone a Karen.
In your example of "Latinx" for example, if you are a white person who doesn't speak Spanish but you really want to help improve society, it probably sounds like a great idea! Put women and men on an equal footing. It's very easy to walk through a field of landmines if you don't know there's any landmines there. It's very easy to be an activist if you don't know anything at all about the world.
It's better to attack the idea than the people. Push back on that Overton window. Rename your main branch to master. Call someone a Karen.
I think that the rationalization to self is indeed about goodwill. But the monkeybrain does love to elevate self above others, and I find that the people who write these are, to some degree, incapable of separating the motivations of true societal benefit and oneselves' lust for moral superiority from each other. This power motivation is so strongly encoded within us that if you're not explicitly aware of how its guiding your actions you WILL fall prey to it.
I agree.
My generous take is that whoever wants to go this deep towards language policing has experienced real trauma that has debilitated them. That's something I can view compassionately.
But perhaps in having been traumatized and victimized, they view their identity as primarily a victim, because they don't know how to move on from or get over or heal from the trauma. And in an attempt to "redeem" their past, they want to create a landscape in which they can use their victimhood to accrue, wield, and exercise power, via guilt-tripping others, shaming others, and using their traumas and sufferings (again, something I can relate and sympathize and empathize with) as "street-cred" to flex on others who are all part of those who are "contributing to the traumatic systems that have harmed people like them."
On the flipside, though, are people who refuse to acknowledge their traumas, because they've bought into a false belief system that to be hurt by life means you're weak, and to be weak means you don't deserve respect and the rewards of society and that you're somehow inferior to those who haven't been traumatized or taken advantage of, etc.
I feel like both are two sides of the same coin. One becomes all-consumed with their traumas. The other sticks their head in the sand. The former wants to police and control everyone by using their traumas as a means to jockey for power over others. The latter often shits on people who talk about any and all trauma – even in healthy ways – because to admit it in themselves means they're somehow lesser-than and inferior, weak and unworthy.
That seems to be the extreme ends of this whole thing. But healing from traumas seems to be kind of the third way, so to speak, and an uncomfortable journey that upends both extremes, without being a "meeting in the middle" type of proposed solution.
Just sharing some thoughts.
My generous take is that whoever wants to go this deep towards language policing has experienced real trauma that has debilitated them. That's something I can view compassionately.
But perhaps in having been traumatized and victimized, they view their identity as primarily a victim, because they don't know how to move on from or get over or heal from the trauma. And in an attempt to "redeem" their past, they want to create a landscape in which they can use their victimhood to accrue, wield, and exercise power, via guilt-tripping others, shaming others, and using their traumas and sufferings (again, something I can relate and sympathize and empathize with) as "street-cred" to flex on others who are all part of those who are "contributing to the traumatic systems that have harmed people like them."
On the flipside, though, are people who refuse to acknowledge their traumas, because they've bought into a false belief system that to be hurt by life means you're weak, and to be weak means you don't deserve respect and the rewards of society and that you're somehow inferior to those who haven't been traumatized or taken advantage of, etc.
I feel like both are two sides of the same coin. One becomes all-consumed with their traumas. The other sticks their head in the sand. The former wants to police and control everyone by using their traumas as a means to jockey for power over others. The latter often shits on people who talk about any and all trauma – even in healthy ways – because to admit it in themselves means they're somehow lesser-than and inferior, weak and unworthy.
That seems to be the extreme ends of this whole thing. But healing from traumas seems to be kind of the third way, so to speak, and an uncomfortable journey that upends both extremes, without being a "meeting in the middle" type of proposed solution.
Just sharing some thoughts.
I would say that McCarthy and his acolytes, was also motivated to do good (protect America).
The villagers burning 'witches' were motivated to do good (protect the village, and incidentally get their neighbours lands / jobs ... hmmm)
The students in the Cultural Revolution in China were motivated to do good (bring us forward into the utopia ... hmmm).
There is a nice saying, present in many languages: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
And while I think intention does actually matter (vs. the a frequent claim by the woke), results matter more. (Intention matters because, e.g., it influences how you treat the action.)
The villagers burning 'witches' were motivated to do good (protect the village, and incidentally get their neighbours lands / jobs ... hmmm)
The students in the Cultural Revolution in China were motivated to do good (bring us forward into the utopia ... hmmm).
There is a nice saying, present in many languages: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
And while I think intention does actually matter (vs. the a frequent claim by the woke), results matter more. (Intention matters because, e.g., it influences how you treat the action.)
> all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
- https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784
- https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784
First, quoting a poorly formatted tweet as if it was something OP said is annoying. Second, arguments about "science skepticism" have little to do with the language experiment shown in the submission.
> The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control.
Precisely.
It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.
I can't remember the book it came from, but there was an author who wrote about his time growing up in an Eastern European communist country. During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.
If he refused, he's be on the "naughty list" with the authorities which could impact his employment, his housing, his kids schooling.
Putting the flag in the window was never the goal of the government. The goal was to show citizens they had no choice. The author talks about how capitulating the demand was dehumanizing and just ground down any resistance to authority that may have existed. "If I don't have the choice as to fly a flag or not, what choice did I have with more important aspects of my life?"
It's like putting stars of David on Jews in Germany. It wasn't just to identify them in public (though that was a goal) it was also to show them "who was in charge".
Precisely.
It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.
I can't remember the book it came from, but there was an author who wrote about his time growing up in an Eastern European communist country. During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.
If he refused, he's be on the "naughty list" with the authorities which could impact his employment, his housing, his kids schooling.
Putting the flag in the window was never the goal of the government. The goal was to show citizens they had no choice. The author talks about how capitulating the demand was dehumanizing and just ground down any resistance to authority that may have existed. "If I don't have the choice as to fly a flag or not, what choice did I have with more important aspects of my life?"
It's like putting stars of David on Jews in Germany. It wasn't just to identify them in public (though that was a goal) it was also to show them "who was in charge".
> During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.
That seems like the greengrocer from V. Havel's essay 'The Power of the Powerless': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless
That seems like the greengrocer from V. Havel's essay 'The Power of the Powerless': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless
Václav Havel is really an incredible figure. From a political dissident repeatedly imprisoned for his writings and advocacy, to first President of Czechoslovakia after the fall of communism and the country’s first free elections.
That would be it! I got the story slightly wrong, but that's the one I thinking of.
> It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.
Nicely put. Living in a Eastern European country we've just swapped a word "communism/socialism" with "democracy", so in effect very little changed. Ironically, not putting the flag out in towns an villages will now brand you as a anti-Croat and a communist sympathizer which can have very serious consequences if you ever want to get employed by the local government (usually the only source of employment in a lot of places).
Slightly related to the control of languange. One of the first editions of the National Geographic Magazine in Croatia (in Croatian language) featured a big article about a deadly disease spreading mostly in Africa, and how you could be born infected and it was terrible and everything. I've read that article and the disease was called "kopnica". I've never heard about it before, but it sure did seem nasty.
A month later (or could be two, doesn't matter), there was an angry letter to the editor which accused the magazine's proofreader of inventing a new word for AIDS (a word which everyone on the planet knows about). That proofreader in the reply thinly accused the reader of harbouring anti-national thoughts and some other horrible sentiments. I was shocked and wowed never to buy NGM in Croatia ever again.
Similar thing happened in IT magazines over here which started to "translate" English words by means of just inventing Croatian sounding ones. That made no sense to me, but it did make some proofreader's and academia careers.
Once I was on a public consultation "conference" about drone regulation in my country and had some polite technical questions on the end of one talk. The government official berated me for "using foreign words [english] when we have such nice [newly invented] Croatian words" and then didn't bother to answer any of my questions. Half of the audience laughed how clever the official sounded. Also it was a bit sad that consultation was just a formality, but thats a different story.
So you're completely right. Language can be molded into small hoops for your enemy to jump through first. In general, a set of rules you create, and your enemy has to abide with making the communication asymetrical easing the control one has over the other.
Nicely put. Living in a Eastern European country we've just swapped a word "communism/socialism" with "democracy", so in effect very little changed. Ironically, not putting the flag out in towns an villages will now brand you as a anti-Croat and a communist sympathizer which can have very serious consequences if you ever want to get employed by the local government (usually the only source of employment in a lot of places).
Slightly related to the control of languange. One of the first editions of the National Geographic Magazine in Croatia (in Croatian language) featured a big article about a deadly disease spreading mostly in Africa, and how you could be born infected and it was terrible and everything. I've read that article and the disease was called "kopnica". I've never heard about it before, but it sure did seem nasty.
A month later (or could be two, doesn't matter), there was an angry letter to the editor which accused the magazine's proofreader of inventing a new word for AIDS (a word which everyone on the planet knows about). That proofreader in the reply thinly accused the reader of harbouring anti-national thoughts and some other horrible sentiments. I was shocked and wowed never to buy NGM in Croatia ever again.
Similar thing happened in IT magazines over here which started to "translate" English words by means of just inventing Croatian sounding ones. That made no sense to me, but it did make some proofreader's and academia careers.
Once I was on a public consultation "conference" about drone regulation in my country and had some polite technical questions on the end of one talk. The government official berated me for "using foreign words [english] when we have such nice [newly invented] Croatian words" and then didn't bother to answer any of my questions. Half of the audience laughed how clever the official sounded. Also it was a bit sad that consultation was just a formality, but thats a different story.
So you're completely right. Language can be molded into small hoops for your enemy to jump through first. In general, a set of rules you create, and your enemy has to abide with making the communication asymetrical easing the control one has over the other.
> people who menstruate
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - Orwell
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - Orwell
And it's a vicious cycle which generates support. If you can pressure a neutral to adopt your 'language', they are likely to eventually convince themselves that they support your ideals, since why else would they go through the trouble of adjusting how they speak?
More than a dozen replies join a chorus of agreement here.
I wonder if there’s another framing for this. One of the top educational institutions in the world is formalising a communications approach that doesn’t casually evoke, reference, and cause suffering. This dynamic might only be present in a small percentage of their audience—in fact it affects quite a significant majority—but in either case it’s a win worth pursuing on the scale of their operations.
The antidote to the fear and hysteria of change is transparency — and what a marvellous gesture of transparency here, from Stanford. (Remember the Byzantine episode from ICLR?)
Context matters. Each of the guidelines linked here has some. It’s a gift: you can now use that language more precisely.
And he who better controls his own language, better controls his world.
I wonder if there’s another framing for this. One of the top educational institutions in the world is formalising a communications approach that doesn’t casually evoke, reference, and cause suffering. This dynamic might only be present in a small percentage of their audience—in fact it affects quite a significant majority—but in either case it’s a win worth pursuing on the scale of their operations.
The antidote to the fear and hysteria of change is transparency — and what a marvellous gesture of transparency here, from Stanford. (Remember the Byzantine episode from ICLR?)
Context matters. Each of the guidelines linked here has some. It’s a gift: you can now use that language more precisely.
And he who better controls his own language, better controls his world.
It must be really fun to act so scared all the time.
> These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
This is spot on. They are cultural parasites who siphon resources and attention from their host.
This is spot on. They are cultural parasites who siphon resources and attention from their host.
> How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
By refusing to placate emotional cripples and authoritarians. By refusing to accept the false assertion that everyone is innately entitled to respect. Respect is something that is earned. Those who seek to police our language due to imaginary harms that they assert someone may suffer are not entitled to respect - quite the opposite. It is long past time we as a society started actively disrespecting these people. We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society. We should actively disrespect the self-appointed hall monitors that claim the power to decide the acceptable parameters of public discourse. The fact that such petty, small-minded people have filled the halls of power in most of most powerful institutions, from academia to government, is a withering indictment on our society.
By refusing to placate emotional cripples and authoritarians. By refusing to accept the false assertion that everyone is innately entitled to respect. Respect is something that is earned. Those who seek to police our language due to imaginary harms that they assert someone may suffer are not entitled to respect - quite the opposite. It is long past time we as a society started actively disrespecting these people. We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society. We should actively disrespect the self-appointed hall monitors that claim the power to decide the acceptable parameters of public discourse. The fact that such petty, small-minded people have filled the halls of power in most of most powerful institutions, from academia to government, is a withering indictment on our society.
> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.
Let's put things in perspective. Stanford, on its own website, behind a Stanford login, posted a list of words they want to try to avoid using on their own websites and code. That's it. For this great offense, you suggest:
> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.
Really. To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them. And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level? You suppose they are the authoritarians, though? You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Your comment is very dissonant for me, because it seems to be anti-woke, yet pro cancel culture. I feel like this must be evidence for Horseshoe Theory.
Let's put things in perspective. Stanford, on its own website, behind a Stanford login, posted a list of words they want to try to avoid using on their own websites and code. That's it. For this great offense, you suggest:
> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.
Really. To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them. And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level? You suppose they are the authoritarians, though? You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Your comment is very dissonant for me, because it seems to be anti-woke, yet pro cancel culture. I feel like this must be evidence for Horseshoe Theory.
> behind a Stanford login
It was only put behind a login wall after this made the rounds on social media on Monday, according to the WSJ. [1]
1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptabl...
It was only put behind a login wall after this made the rounds on social media on Monday, according to the WSJ. [1]
1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptabl...
Which reinforces the point that it was meant for internal Stanford use.
The list is deserving of scorn and ridicule, precisely because it precisely is ridiculous. The language will be enforced onto professors as they routinely crawl and scan their own domains [1]. American students are taking on enormous debts to pay for an ever increasingly size of administrative busy bodies who come up with nonsense like this to justify their existence.
[1]: https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...
[1]: https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...
> American students are taking on enormous debts to pay for an ever increasingly size of administrative busy bodies who come up with nonsense like this to justify their existence.
Now also taxpayers, because of debt cancellation. It's subsidized now.
Now also taxpayers, because of debt cancellation. It's subsidized now.
> The language will be enforced onto professors as they routinely crawl and scan their own domains [1].
You don't seem to understand how academic departments are organized. I can't see any content on the link you provided (it just has a header that reads "News"), but faculty are not subject to the style guidelines of the IT department, especially if they are tenured. Faculty hire/fire decisions are made by the Chair and Dean of the respective departments, and they aren't bound by these kinds of lists either.
Feel free to criticize and ridicule as much as you want, using whatever words you want. No one will stop you, especially Stanford. But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
You don't seem to understand how academic departments are organized. I can't see any content on the link you provided (it just has a header that reads "News"), but faculty are not subject to the style guidelines of the IT department, especially if they are tenured. Faculty hire/fire decisions are made by the Chair and Dean of the respective departments, and they aren't bound by these kinds of lists either.
Feel free to criticize and ridicule as much as you want, using whatever words you want. No one will stop you, especially Stanford. But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
> I can't see any content on the link you provided (it just has a header that reads "News"), but faculty are not subject to the style guidelines of the IT department, especially if they are tenured.
The url indeed seems to be dead right now but it originally had described an initiative which would periodically scan everything which is hosted on Stanford domains, which naturally would include faculty pages. It previously stated as follows:
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
> But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
It absolutely is not. The coded language of "Harmful Language" which is constantly morphing and changing to continuously include more and more benign words such as "User" and "American" will absolutely be used to full effect against Faculty.
The url indeed seems to be dead right now but it originally had described an initiative which would periodically scan everything which is hosted on Stanford domains, which naturally would include faculty pages. It previously stated as follows:
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
> But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
It absolutely is not. The coded language of "Harmful Language" which is constantly morphing and changing to continuously include more and more benign words such as "User" and "American" will absolutely be used to full effect against Faculty.
I guess we will see, but my experience with these kinds of things tells me that 0 professors will be disciplined at Stanford for using the words “user” or “American” on their Stanford owned properties. IMO you’re being hyperbolic and pushing baseless FUD to bolster your own preconceived notions, notions which aren’t supported by either the word list nor the link you’ve provided.
Indeed, the content from the link which is dead doesn’t support your point. They said they scanned for content and found egregiously harmful examples, along with many “false positives”, meaning there is a process here. So it’s not just “you used the word American, therefore you’re disciplined.” No, it’s nothing like that whatsoever.
It’s more like you posted the word “jewed” somewhere on your personal faculty page and they’d prefer to get rid of that. But if you posted “jewed” in an academic context, there’s obviously nothing wrong with that usage.
I don’t think I need to explain why Stanford doesn’t need a list of words or scanning tools to discipline employees for using racial slurs on company property, so what’s the problem?
Indeed, the content from the link which is dead doesn’t support your point. They said they scanned for content and found egregiously harmful examples, along with many “false positives”, meaning there is a process here. So it’s not just “you used the word American, therefore you’re disciplined.” No, it’s nothing like that whatsoever.
It’s more like you posted the word “jewed” somewhere on your personal faculty page and they’d prefer to get rid of that. But if you posted “jewed” in an academic context, there’s obviously nothing wrong with that usage.
I don’t think I need to explain why Stanford doesn’t need a list of words or scanning tools to discipline employees for using racial slurs on company property, so what’s the problem?
The link is now alive again, so you could see it yourself.
As for the list, the problem is the clear attempts to obfuscate and grow the number of wrong think words wile trying to equate their usage as harmful. Purposeful and clearly overtly racist words such as "jewed" are right along side words like "grandfathered", "user", is a pretty clear attempt to mix the two. There certainly will be a process, but your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
As for the list, the problem is the clear attempts to obfuscate and grow the number of wrong think words wile trying to equate their usage as harmful. Purposeful and clearly overtly racist words such as "jewed" are right along side words like "grandfathered", "user", is a pretty clear attempt to mix the two. There certainly will be a process, but your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
Okay I hear what you are saying. If I would improve this list, I would separate it into "overtly racist words" and "words and phrases that have meanings or origins which aren't well known and that may be problematic in some circumstances". Would that help assuage some of your concerns?
> your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
And you're kidding yourself if you think academics will care. Wake me when something actually happens.
> your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
And you're kidding yourself if you think academics will care. Wake me when something actually happens.
Isn't it Berkeley where 80% of applications for faculty positions are filtered on their diversity statement (even for things like particle physics)? Or consider Stuart Reges being disciplined by UW for not putting the boilerplate land acknowledgement on his course's syllabus.
You are woefully uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting things if you don't think using such lists to punish people aren't already being used today. It's not harmless, and it seems dishonest to me to paint it as such.
You are woefully uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting things if you don't think using such lists to punish people aren't already being used today. It's not harmless, and it seems dishonest to me to paint it as such.
I'm not the one misrepresenting things. The entire nature of Stanford's word list has been misrepresented up and down this thread by those freaking out that it's some sort of blacklist of "forbidden words" (as one poster put it).
Also I'm in academia so I'm not woefully uninformed about what goes on in academia and how it works. I think the SV tech workers here on HN are the ones who are uninformed about how academia works.
> Isn't it Berkeley where 80% of applications for faculty positions are filtered on their diversity statement
Have you ever read such a statement? They are very important for academia, because classrooms are very diverse. It's important for applicants to state their philosophy on teaching people with different (dis)abilities, because that's the nature of the job. As an instructor, you will face the range of disabilities in students from mild dyslexia all the way to students who are bound to a wheelchair and communicate through a computer voice system. How does the instructor handle those situations? What techniques or practices do they employ?
Also, classroom conflicts do exist. For CS there aren't so many, but in other classes that touch on contentious issues, the question for the instructor is: how do they balance the views of all students in a constructive way that is conducive to learning? It's not easy, and so requires some explanation on the part of the applicant.
Filtering on diversity statements means advancing candidates who have put genuine thought into these issues, because again, they are important for the job.
The other part of the diversity statement plays is that is forces the candidate to reflect on their community service work. Did you know that service is part of the job description of a professor? The job is research, teaching, and service. We ask them for a research and a teaching statement, so what's wrong with asking for a diversity statement? Would you rather it be called a "service" statement?
The filtering process selects for candidates who are serious about service and who have thought deeply about how to teach a diverse classroom (because that's the job). I don't see a problem with that; even if you disagree with DEI initiatives, you still have to teach a diverse classroom. This whole idea that we can't ask job candidates how they handle situations which will arise on the job to which they're applying is strange to me.
> Or consider Stuart Reges being disciplined by UW for not putting the boilerplate land acknowledgement on his course's syllabus.
This is a misrepresentation. The land acknowledgement for UW is in fact optional on the course syllabus. What Stuart Reges did was put his own land acknowledgement statement on the syllabus which veered from factual statements and was a political statement.
So he was using his platform in an engineering course to push his own personal political agenda. A syllabus in particular is regarded as a contract, sometimes binding, between student and professor. It's not the place for off-the-cuff political statements. If Stuart Reges is allowed to put his political statements on his syllabus, that opens up the door for all professors, which makes the syllabus a political platform. Apparently he was very vocal about the land statements outside of the syllabus and that is fine for UW, but it just didn't belong in the syllabus.
I don't see a problem with that, do you? If you want to include the UW land statement, that's fine. If you don't want to include the statement, that's fine. But what's not fine including your own statement because you're personally politically against land statements or what the UW statement has to say. I mean, if you take a course, do you care to see it colored with political statements from your instructor that are wholly unrelated to the course content?
As for how he was disciplined... what happened to him exactly? They asked him to take down the statement, he refused. Yet his salary was uninterrupted and he still works at UW to this day: https://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/reges. So the sum total of his discipline was what, exactly?
According to the lawsuit Reges filed, he didn't even claim material damages. His lawsuit was about being butthurt because he felt like a pariah, which reading the situation, is as much his fault as anyone else's. In fact, the party that was materially impacted was the department; they had to open another section of the course because he was so acerbic to the students. That costs serious money and time from all of his colleagues. Honestly for that alone I would have fired him, but I guess UW is more forgiving than me.
Also I'm in academia so I'm not woefully uninformed about what goes on in academia and how it works. I think the SV tech workers here on HN are the ones who are uninformed about how academia works.
> Isn't it Berkeley where 80% of applications for faculty positions are filtered on their diversity statement
Have you ever read such a statement? They are very important for academia, because classrooms are very diverse. It's important for applicants to state their philosophy on teaching people with different (dis)abilities, because that's the nature of the job. As an instructor, you will face the range of disabilities in students from mild dyslexia all the way to students who are bound to a wheelchair and communicate through a computer voice system. How does the instructor handle those situations? What techniques or practices do they employ?
Also, classroom conflicts do exist. For CS there aren't so many, but in other classes that touch on contentious issues, the question for the instructor is: how do they balance the views of all students in a constructive way that is conducive to learning? It's not easy, and so requires some explanation on the part of the applicant.
Filtering on diversity statements means advancing candidates who have put genuine thought into these issues, because again, they are important for the job.
The other part of the diversity statement plays is that is forces the candidate to reflect on their community service work. Did you know that service is part of the job description of a professor? The job is research, teaching, and service. We ask them for a research and a teaching statement, so what's wrong with asking for a diversity statement? Would you rather it be called a "service" statement?
The filtering process selects for candidates who are serious about service and who have thought deeply about how to teach a diverse classroom (because that's the job). I don't see a problem with that; even if you disagree with DEI initiatives, you still have to teach a diverse classroom. This whole idea that we can't ask job candidates how they handle situations which will arise on the job to which they're applying is strange to me.
> Or consider Stuart Reges being disciplined by UW for not putting the boilerplate land acknowledgement on his course's syllabus.
This is a misrepresentation. The land acknowledgement for UW is in fact optional on the course syllabus. What Stuart Reges did was put his own land acknowledgement statement on the syllabus which veered from factual statements and was a political statement.
So he was using his platform in an engineering course to push his own personal political agenda. A syllabus in particular is regarded as a contract, sometimes binding, between student and professor. It's not the place for off-the-cuff political statements. If Stuart Reges is allowed to put his political statements on his syllabus, that opens up the door for all professors, which makes the syllabus a political platform. Apparently he was very vocal about the land statements outside of the syllabus and that is fine for UW, but it just didn't belong in the syllabus.
I don't see a problem with that, do you? If you want to include the UW land statement, that's fine. If you don't want to include the statement, that's fine. But what's not fine including your own statement because you're personally politically against land statements or what the UW statement has to say. I mean, if you take a course, do you care to see it colored with political statements from your instructor that are wholly unrelated to the course content?
As for how he was disciplined... what happened to him exactly? They asked him to take down the statement, he refused. Yet his salary was uninterrupted and he still works at UW to this day: https://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/reges. So the sum total of his discipline was what, exactly?
According to the lawsuit Reges filed, he didn't even claim material damages. His lawsuit was about being butthurt because he felt like a pariah, which reading the situation, is as much his fault as anyone else's. In fact, the party that was materially impacted was the department; they had to open another section of the course because he was so acerbic to the students. That costs serious money and time from all of his colleagues. Honestly for that alone I would have fired him, but I guess UW is more forgiving than me.
Stanford holds a lot of influence, not only in academic circles. This is just the beginning…
>To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them.
So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those young people who they seek to indoctrinate into their "ethos", that is okay, as long as it is "just for them" and they don't try to impose it on society at large?
>And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level?
Yes.
> You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Just like Neo-Nazis and self-appointed cultural hall-monitors at Stanford are free to do whatever they want. And the rest of us are free to drive these worthless people out of decent society because they have no place here and are detrimental to free and open discourse among decent, reasonable people.
So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those young people who they seek to indoctrinate into their "ethos", that is okay, as long as it is "just for them" and they don't try to impose it on society at large?
>And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level?
Yes.
> You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Just like Neo-Nazis and self-appointed cultural hall-monitors at Stanford are free to do whatever they want. And the rest of us are free to drive these worthless people out of decent society because they have no place here and are detrimental to free and open discourse among decent, reasonable people.
> So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those
Yea, I’m supportive of the first amendment rights afforded to all Americans, including neo-Nazis, with whom I disagree. Crucially, they already do this. Use too many words that neo-Nazis don’t like to hear and they’re likely to reject you from their group, which is also their right.
> Yes.
Great, thank you for admitting you are in fact an authoritarian in this context. It clarifies the rest of your comment.
Yea, I’m supportive of the first amendment rights afforded to all Americans, including neo-Nazis, with whom I disagree. Crucially, they already do this. Use too many words that neo-Nazis don’t like to hear and they’re likely to reject you from their group, which is also their right.
> Yes.
Great, thank you for admitting you are in fact an authoritarian in this context. It clarifies the rest of your comment.
We close the box by mercilessly mocking these ninnies and refusing to give money or influence to institutions that engage in this sort of chicanery. Don't send your kids to Stanford. Say whatever words you want.
[deleted]
Fashions will change and fade, and find fault with every word like grasping at straws to find something to be offended over.
I'm sorry, that term is now racist: grasping at threads.
I'm sorry, that term is now sexist: grasping at leaves.
Ad infinium.
I'm sorry, that term is now racist: grasping at threads.
I'm sorry, that term is now sexist: grasping at leaves.
Ad infinium.
I believe a large fraction of the words they label offensive were previously replacements for other words considered offensive.
The need for express the category doesn't go away with the word, so new words replace the category, and banning the word does nothing to the underlying category
Best seen with the transformation of terms around disability, where even transformations as late as differently abled are now derogatory and to be avoided.
Best seen with the transformation of terms around disability, where even transformations as late as differently abled are now derogatory and to be avoided.
I had that very thought reading the entry for "abort". so what happens when we nuke that word? "I've had a cancellation". well, now we're calling it that, and the argument is now about that, and round and round we go.
I'm not against changing how we use language, but perhaps there are deeper issues that could be dealt with to avoid having to retcon our dictionary in the first place.
I'm not against changing how we use language, but perhaps there are deeper issues that could be dealt with to avoid having to retcon our dictionary in the first place.
besides the nature of offensivene of language come with intent, people are perfectly able to come up with mean sentences out of menial words (your brain is as big as a pea) all the while if you go to a supermarket in spain all dark chocholate is hard r n-word and life goes on as normal.
we kinda have lost the plot when calling out people for being intentionally disrespectful became calling out any form of language that the disrespectful people used, in a form of guilty-by-association game.
if we could be back calling out specific instances of offensiveness and evaluate it case by case it be grand. it doesn't scale, but justice never was intended to be scalable -by design-
we kinda have lost the plot when calling out people for being intentionally disrespectful became calling out any form of language that the disrespectful people used, in a form of guilty-by-association game.
if we could be back calling out specific instances of offensiveness and evaluate it case by case it be grand. it doesn't scale, but justice never was intended to be scalable -by design-
Relevant: George Carlin on euphemisms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
[deleted]
'Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the "euphemism cycle" in 1974, also frequently referred to as the "euphemism treadmill"'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism
We just have to up the pejoration rate so much that the euphemism cycle is so short that they stop attempting to police it
Language policing is a great tool to control society. There is always some “flaw” in your language. So you have always something for people to “struggle session” about, in order to become better communi… I mean woke. Ideologies based of group identity have been using this since the early days.
> How do we close this Pandora's box?
We can't right now. We could have done it 15 years ago, as I remember being able to openly talk about it at work (master vs main) but everybody who agreed with me could not be bothered to take a stand. Right now I would be terminated instantly for arguing "tarball" can not be harmful, such is the environment.
We can't right now. We could have done it 15 years ago, as I remember being able to openly talk about it at work (master vs main) but everybody who agreed with me could not be bothered to take a stand. Right now I would be terminated instantly for arguing "tarball" can not be harmful, such is the environment.
That's the clever thing about this setup. You can't stop it because any pushback makes you a "fascist" or any other "ist". It's shielded from any type of criticism by shame and mob justice.
You can't tweak this nor will they self-correct. This is a monster to forcefully remove, but nobody dares to do that.
You can't tweak this nor will they self-correct. This is a monster to forcefully remove, but nobody dares to do that.
> How do we close this Pandora's box?
I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.
I don't think this guide is meant to prevent harm. It almost seems like this kind of language policing is like a shibboleth to identify the in from the out group. It forces you to join the in group or suffer the immediate consequences of being in the out group. So like instant career suicide if you disobey the rules. If you don't comply, you are now in the same camp as the most evil people on the planet. No one wants that association so they comply. It's extremely effective. So I don't see it going away.
I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.
I don't think this guide is meant to prevent harm. It almost seems like this kind of language policing is like a shibboleth to identify the in from the out group. It forces you to join the in group or suffer the immediate consequences of being in the out group. So like instant career suicide if you disobey the rules. If you don't comply, you are now in the same camp as the most evil people on the planet. No one wants that association so they comply. It's extremely effective. So I don't see it going away.
There must be something from the past we can learn from. The Salem witch trials come to mind. The Puritans in their towns believed witches to be real. That they existed among them. That they were evil and harmful to their well being. This lead members to believe sightings of behavior to be witchery. But most concerning is the social mechanisms you describe. Where the risk of ostracization outweighed truth. Why risk questioning the claim of a witch when it can cost you your life? The panic grows and eventually takes hold of the town. Everyone is complicit in the behavior, regardless if everyone actually believes it or not.
This story is not unique. We've seen it in WWII Germany and communist regimes around thew world. This language list by Stanford is just a modern reincarnation of the same thing. The language list isn't actually about making people feel safer. It's a means of power and control.
The founding fathers of the United States were well aware of this human behavior. The freedom of speech. The presumption of innocence. Right to a jury. Right to privacy. Are all principles enshrined into law to serve as a countermeasure to our proclivities of mob rule and hysteria. These are all effective. But we now live in an age of social media. Mob rule has returned. But it's now all virtual. Do we need to formulate a new list of rights to counteract virtual mob rule?
This story is not unique. We've seen it in WWII Germany and communist regimes around thew world. This language list by Stanford is just a modern reincarnation of the same thing. The language list isn't actually about making people feel safer. It's a means of power and control.
The founding fathers of the United States were well aware of this human behavior. The freedom of speech. The presumption of innocence. Right to a jury. Right to privacy. Are all principles enshrined into law to serve as a countermeasure to our proclivities of mob rule and hysteria. These are all effective. But we now live in an age of social media. Mob rule has returned. But it's now all virtual. Do we need to formulate a new list of rights to counteract virtual mob rule?
> I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.
Well, they do this thing where they form a mob and harass people.
The thing is, their ingroup is relatively small, about 8%. If sizeable chunk of the outgroup started using their tactics against them...
Well, they do this thing where they form a mob and harass people.
The thing is, their ingroup is relatively small, about 8%. If sizeable chunk of the outgroup started using their tactics against them...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” (err, sorry “wild”). The more important lesson here is that the bloat in academic institutions has gotten so outrageous that people start bullshit time-consuming initiatives to justify their positions and the positions of their reports.
Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on their performance review that they removed exclusive language from Stanford web pages.
Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on their performance review that they removed exclusive language from Stanford web pages.
Oh but they will.
Words like whitelist and blacklist have been banned by woke theater fiat at the bigco I work at, although I have seen no evidence they actually have anything to do with racism. I suspect our banned words list has a lot of overlap with Stanford's.
Rabblerousers like to rabblerouse, and nobody wants to be the voice of reason when the people who decide your paycheck make stupid political decisions.
Words like whitelist and blacklist have been banned by woke theater fiat at the bigco I work at, although I have seen no evidence they actually have anything to do with racism. I suspect our banned words list has a lot of overlap with Stanford's.
Rabblerousers like to rabblerouse, and nobody wants to be the voice of reason when the people who decide your paycheck make stupid political decisions.
I actually hate whitelist and blacklist for completely non-woke reasons. I find the terms confusing, and often misleading in operational contexts. I can't tell you the number of situations I've been in when one person's "IP whitelist" was a whitelist to block IPs and another's was to specifically let IPs in. I always insist at $WORK that we use descriptive terms (an IP blocklist, an account allowlist) simply to ensure there are no mistakes and that everyone agrees on what's going on.
That makes sense, but it is not the reason why these terms were removed, and reasoning really does matter. Bad logic can lead to good conclusions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is bad.
In particular, this idea that giving a negative connotation to the color black and darkness in general, and a positive connotation to the color white and lightness in general, implies some kid of racial bias is absurd, ahistorical, and frankly disturbing (since it creates controversy retroactively out of nothing).
In particular, this idea that giving a negative connotation to the color black and darkness in general, and a positive connotation to the color white and lightness in general, implies some kid of racial bias is absurd, ahistorical, and frankly disturbing (since it creates controversy retroactively out of nothing).
I too personally find the terminology itself a bit confusing. I have some cognitive overhead on trying to remember what "whitelist" and "blacklist" actually means. But it's minor. Allow-list and block-list is intuitive. I _would_ be in inclined to update my terminology for the sake of clarity and practicality, but given the current context of the culture war we are currently in, I have consciously decided not to change my language. The language list that is on Stanford's site has infiltrated my employer (a major tech company) as well. The ELT and HR has made it clear they want everyone in the company to abide by it. Sure, making this small change for this specific example will result in slightly improved productivity, but it will come at the cost of emitting a social signal that the words "whitelist" and "blacklist" are bad, which they very well are not. This is a trade I not willing to make.
This is an interesting emotional phenomenon; the more people claim I'm being "racist" by using "blacklist" or "master" the more I'm inclined to keep on using it, as a kind of "fuck you and your accusations".
It's not even that I mind adjusting my language if people object to it; but there's a world of difference between "I really don't like it when you use the phrase [...]" and "you're being racist when you use the phrase [...]".
It's not even that I mind adjusting my language if people object to it; but there's a world of difference between "I really don't like it when you use the phrase [...]" and "you're being racist when you use the phrase [...]".
while "Allowlist" and "Blocklist" are certainly better for being more self-documenting, whoever is in a position to create a whitelist and get it backwards obviously has a deeper problem re:RTFM
> whoever is in a position to create a whitelist and get it backwards obviously has a deeper problem re:RTFM
This is true, but also probably an indication that the term "whitelist" isn't as universally understood [by developers] as the "how dare you suggest using allowlist!" crowd suggest...
This is true, but also probably an indication that the term "whitelist" isn't as universally understood [by developers] as the "how dare you suggest using allowlist!" crowd suggest...
The difference is in the expected response when you use the "wrong" term. If I started talking about a blacklist someone could ask "Maybe we could use the term 'blocklist' in the documentation because its clearer to someone not as familiar with the technical terms?". They could also respond with "Why are you using such a loaded and out of date term? It is suspicious and sets a dangerous precedent, and doesn't belong in a place of work. You are getting a verbal warning."
Seems to me that this could happen just as well with allowlist and blocklist
Recently got an oncall task, somebody was complaining about such a word occurring in an internal tool. Some people are quite zealous about this. Of course you don't want to be the one arguing about this...
do people understand that light / darkness is the most primitive dichotomy there might be. I guess all organisms are working in day / night cycle, most of religions have / had god of light. America (sic) please get your act together. You are the biggest exporter of wokeism in the world
In my childhood, one of the lighter-colored classmate justified the reason for supremacy of lighter-colored people providing black/white-based language as an evidence. These included the words black-list and white-list. Because of these rhetoric that is ingrained in children (who might later grow up without challenging them), I have always supported getting rid of these kinds of language.
Context: I am from a place where both darker-colored people and lighter-colored people exist. Here in my country, lighter-colored people are considered better than darker-colored people. I am a darker-skinned person.
Context: I am from a place where both darker-colored people and lighter-colored people exist. Here in my country, lighter-colored people are considered better than darker-colored people. I am a darker-skinned person.
[deleted]
You say this, and yet much of the tech industry has taken to removing words like blacklist and whitelist already, even though they have no racial undertones whatsoever. Similarly, the master branch of many projects has been renamed to main, even though it had nothing to do with slavery, and master remains an extremely common term.
I always think of "master branch" in the same way as "master copy", and never associated it with "slave branches" or whatever. Renaming all the branches seems like needless busywork and frankly, people who would be offended by any use of the term "master", including ones like this, will need to understand the context and motivation of the use of a term as part of growing up and participating in a society with lots of other people. If everyone's right to not be offended were taken to a logical extreme, you end up with this minefield where literally no one is free to speak their mind and has to defend against every possible offended take. You can't even use a word that has a specific meaning if it also has some other meaning. It's just blasting holes in language and thinking and conversations.
I've had luck pushing back against it. I'm not sure if it's because I'm in Japan which doesn't buy into woke culture or if the people around me had just had a gutsful too. It doesn't hurt to try.
It's good to hear there's some places that don't buy in to the rampant silliness. You'd think a bastion of free speech like the USA would be one of those, but apparently the political polarization has caused people to lose their minds.
Whenever the master branch and slave branch thing comes up people say that it's fine because it has nothing to do with slavery.
The thing I don't understand is, even if it had something to do with slavery, why is that harmlful?
The thing I don't understand is, even if it had something to do with slavery, why is that harmlful?
Honestly I've been fine with main branch. It's shorter. My problem is it's not consistent because it takes forever for a bigcorp to do something. So now we have repos with a main branch (the current branch) and a master branch (hasn't been touched in the year and half since the switch).
I don't have a particular problem with main, I was in fact more used to it as it was the default in P4.
However, the arguments for this renaming are absurd, and i think that absolutely matters.
And note that I actually think renouncing the use of master/slave in favor of primary/secondary or something similar is actually warranted. But extending this to master branch, when many of the people doing the change had a Master of Science title probably, is annoying and arbitrary.
However, the arguments for this renaming are absurd, and i think that absolutely matters.
And note that I actually think renouncing the use of master/slave in favor of primary/secondary or something similar is actually warranted. But extending this to master branch, when many of the people doing the change had a Master of Science title probably, is annoying and arbitrary.
Trunk is a much better term IMHO
> Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy”
Perhaps not, but every year this rhetoric grows more and more aggressive - and thanks to social media - is now leaking into our everyday vernacular.
At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?
Perhaps not, but every year this rhetoric grows more and more aggressive - and thanks to social media - is now leaking into our everyday vernacular.
At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?
It never is enough. There's entire armies of staff now for which this nonsense is their job. Just like a DEI department will always fabricate new types of division. It's their business model.
>At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?
That point will never happen, because those who stand up will be righteously cut down. An acquaintance is seeking a faculty position and they are being asked ideologically filtering questions in interviews, with the pretty overt suggestion that the wrong answer to any would disqualify them as a candidate.
That point will never happen, because those who stand up will be righteously cut down. An acquaintance is seeking a faculty position and they are being asked ideologically filtering questions in interviews, with the pretty overt suggestion that the wrong answer to any would disqualify them as a candidate.
The point was well past when a git branch name became offensive (allegedly).
> At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?
There will never be enough, because "enough" has not been defined. They have no interest in doing so. Even if they did, the "end goal" would never be reached, because they have too much of a seated interest in preserving their grievances.
There will never be enough, because "enough" has not been defined. They have no interest in doing so. Even if they did, the "end goal" would never be reached, because they have too much of a seated interest in preserving their grievances.
It is quite a risky tactic to confront a bureaucracy with an "absolutely no one will take this seriously" attitude.
Particularly stuff like this, they are demarcating an in-group and an out group. The primary reason people come up with this sort of silly list of magic words is to start discriminating against the out-group.
Particularly stuff like this, they are demarcating an in-group and an out group. The primary reason people come up with this sort of silly list of magic words is to start discriminating against the out-group.
I definitely see your point and believe this happens often. In this particular instance, I believe adherence to this list will end up being a mark of shame even in academic circles. Using some of these terms is so brainless that people can tell who mindlessly follows bullshit like this.
It's not that I'm dismissing the possibility of sinister cultural signifiers. It's just this one attempt to establish them inorganically seems to me like it will obviously fail.
It's not that I'm dismissing the possibility of sinister cultural signifiers. It's just this one attempt to establish them inorganically seems to me like it will obviously fail.
Maybe its like the defence industry after the war: They have the capacity to wage war but the war has been won so what to do now? Disband all that or find wars to fight?
I actually subscribe to the idea that the words of choice can be harmful but this practice of constantly trying hard find words to ban is ridiculous. When the culture evolves and certain words start hurting people, sure let's be more careful about it. No need for an institutional directive for word, people themselves change their language as the culture changes.
At current stage it definitely feels like someone who doesn't have something to do invents a job.
I actually subscribe to the idea that the words of choice can be harmful but this practice of constantly trying hard find words to ban is ridiculous. When the culture evolves and certain words start hurting people, sure let's be more careful about it. No need for an institutional directive for word, people themselves change their language as the culture changes.
At current stage it definitely feels like someone who doesn't have something to do invents a job.
You seem to assume that this is applied against the will of the academic staff. It seems to me that most of the professors are fully on board with this program.
In the end it will be all self correcting. Those woke universities reputation is melting like ice cream in the sun. I remember Brian Armstrong mentioning in an interview that he starts to see companies adding basic skill tests in their recrutment as they don't really trust those universities selection process anymore. I certainly lost any respect for those universities, and I graduated from one of those.
In the end it will be all self correcting. Those woke universities reputation is melting like ice cream in the sun. I remember Brian Armstrong mentioning in an interview that he starts to see companies adding basic skill tests in their recrutment as they don't really trust those universities selection process anymore. I certainly lost any respect for those universities, and I graduated from one of those.
> It seems to me that most of the professors are fully on board with this program.
I wonder. Could be that they don't want to be ostracised.
This happens in companies as well. In mine, we have a similar list of words to avoid. I'm pretty sure 95% of my colleagues think it's bullshit but we never discuss it openly. Mostly it's a thing from the US youth, some of them seem to be actively tracking anything that could be remotely considered unfair to minorities and are very vocal about it.
I wonder. Could be that they don't want to be ostracised.
This happens in companies as well. In mine, we have a similar list of words to avoid. I'm pretty sure 95% of my colleagues think it's bullshit but we never discuss it openly. Mostly it's a thing from the US youth, some of them seem to be actively tracking anything that could be remotely considered unfair to minorities and are very vocal about it.
[deleted]
We do have to take it seriously. We, collectively, all people who find this paper to be shocking and foolish, need to loudly declare it as such and ridicule the notion.
If this kind of thinking is tolerated without pushback, it will become the default. Advocates of this thinking are dedicated radicals who care more about implementing it than most people like you (not meaning offense) who would just chuckle and do nothing, thinking it is silly.
This is Stanford University. This is a prestigious engineering university, not UMass Amherst.
---
edit to add: The thing that absolutists don't appreciate, whether they are far-woke speech warriors like this submission, or far-right conservatives worried about any shift in the status-quo, is that *there is a line, somewhere in the middle, for all things*. We need to be thoughtful about some speech, but this list is the logical extreme of it. We need to understand systemic racism exists in the US, but we don't need to make every single aspect of society revolve around race. We need to support the poor and the uneducated and the unemployed more than we do today, but we don't need to give them blank checks or have completely open borders.
In American discussion today, there seems to be little room for nuance like this, for "practical lines" like this, because each side either wants or is afraid of an idea being taken to its logical extreme.
It is up to people who agree with this to understand that there is a line, and as such, one needs to *hold that line*. Radicals will try to push it too far, and we need to stop them vocally. "c"onservatives will try never to move the line, and we need to make them budge.
It is not feasible to "just ignore" any large organization looking to move the line too far. It has to be actively challenged.
If this kind of thinking is tolerated without pushback, it will become the default. Advocates of this thinking are dedicated radicals who care more about implementing it than most people like you (not meaning offense) who would just chuckle and do nothing, thinking it is silly.
This is Stanford University. This is a prestigious engineering university, not UMass Amherst.
---
edit to add: The thing that absolutists don't appreciate, whether they are far-woke speech warriors like this submission, or far-right conservatives worried about any shift in the status-quo, is that *there is a line, somewhere in the middle, for all things*. We need to be thoughtful about some speech, but this list is the logical extreme of it. We need to understand systemic racism exists in the US, but we don't need to make every single aspect of society revolve around race. We need to support the poor and the uneducated and the unemployed more than we do today, but we don't need to give them blank checks or have completely open borders.
In American discussion today, there seems to be little room for nuance like this, for "practical lines" like this, because each side either wants or is afraid of an idea being taken to its logical extreme.
It is up to people who agree with this to understand that there is a line, and as such, one needs to *hold that line*. Radicals will try to push it too far, and we need to stop them vocally. "c"onservatives will try never to move the line, and we need to make them budge.
It is not feasible to "just ignore" any large organization looking to move the line too far. It has to be actively challenged.
I agree with part of what you are saying on the subject of bloat, but looking at what has happened in the recent past, I think it's naive to believe this is not going to be implemented.
It will, like banning "master" repositories, and other examples have already happened.
Quoting Orwell in all irony: "It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
It will, like banning "master" repositories, and other examples have already happened.
Quoting Orwell in all irony: "It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
I guarantee you that things like this are being driven by the attitudes / beliefs of the wider student population. Even if this particular initiative does not explicitly involve any specific student groups.
That is, the attitudes of the staff are downstream of the students.
This is also reinforced by the fact that (entry-level) staff at universities are often recent humanities graduates from that university.
That is, the attitudes of the staff are downstream of the students.
This is also reinforced by the fact that (entry-level) staff at universities are often recent humanities graduates from that university.
I disagree. In my experience, these attitudes start with a _very specific_ group of students, by no means representative of the larger student body. I've actually experienced far more dissent to rules like this on campus then agreement, even accounting for silence. You stated yourself that these staff are usually recent humanities graduates. Even in the workplace, where I've experienced the big co commandment list handed down from on high, that list was by far a minority decision in terms of actual workforce engagement. At least where I am, students are not asking for things like this, employees are not asking for things like this, small task forces of motivated people are creating these rules and enforcing them globally through the fear of their supervisors.
> no one will take this seriously
But git branch names now say "main".
But git branch names now say "main".
I think the argument that calling git branches "master" hurts people is ridiculous, but I also think that "main" makes more sense. The master/main branch doesn't have any power over other branches - it's just the one that you happen to use primarily. "Main" describes that better.
It's master in the sense of master record (used in the recording industry) and isn't about power/control.
But thanks for supporting the people who ruined years of muscle memory for typing "git push origin master" over imagined and non-existent harms.
But thanks for supporting the people who ruined years of muscle memory for typing "git push origin master" over imagined and non-existent harms.
[deleted]
That's what shell aliases are for. I use "gpm" for that exact command.
I sometimes regret having built up tons of Bash aliases, because in the long term it ends up with me not really knowing half the tools I use, just my little cryptic vocabulary.
In my view, it’s a bit more nuanced. In modern development at companies, most of the time trunk-based version management is used and having it called “main” makes sense, but earlier, when got was one of the few VCSs out there for open source development, I think master may have conveyed a different meaning. Generally, with the highly-distributed nature of systems like Linux, you need to know which remote and branch the version you are updating or referencing was mastered in for the remote you are submitting a patch to, for example. I think of it as coming from the term master copy—not because it has power over other branches but because it’s the canonical authoritative source for that remote.
Sure it is better. But changing things comes with a cost. Tons of git tooling which could previously just ASSUME master was the primary branch must now figure out what the branch is, instead.
The amount of time people have spent on this change fixing broken tools and workflows makes it a stupid change all by itself.
The amount of time people have spent on this change fixing broken tools and workflows makes it a stupid change all by itself.
Why do people here have this complete sense of powerlessness about these issues?
90% of HN seem to think banning these words are at best silly, yet seem to be ambivalent about stopping it.
These aren't laws of nature other people just like you made these rules.
90% of HN seem to think banning these words are at best silly, yet seem to be ambivalent about stopping it.
These aren't laws of nature other people just like you made these rules.
This is exactly the problem. People who don't even fucking realize what the original term meant! And they want to change it! Ludicrous.
While the academic degree of the programmer still is “Master”. I give it another year.
I note that "master (verb)" is on the list, but "mastery" is not.
So apparently a Stanford M.S., M.A. or M.F.A. degree may be said to denote mastery of a subject, but its holder cannot claim to have mastered the subject. So many ways to get it wrong...
So apparently a Stanford M.S., M.A. or M.F.A. degree may be said to denote mastery of a subject, but its holder cannot claim to have mastered the subject. So many ways to get it wrong...
Give it time. Mastery can also refer to breaking the will of creatures, from horses to people, and explicitly celebrates domination in some usages
For some early examples, see: the Iliad
For some early examples, see: the Iliad
> Absolutely no one will take this seriously
In Canada, the professional regulators who control whether you're allowed to to call yourself an engineer and whether your company is allowed to do engineering, are also making this kind of thing mandatory. They are considering it a part of workplace safety, akin to preventing oil spills and lethal accidents: an engineer's top priority, lest they lose their license.
In Canada, the professional regulators who control whether you're allowed to to call yourself an engineer and whether your company is allowed to do engineering, are also making this kind of thing mandatory. They are considering it a part of workplace safety, akin to preventing oil spills and lethal accidents: an engineer's top priority, lest they lose their license.
Is that a joke?
Then again, the country has taxpayer funded university positions reserved for minority candidates (because apparently that's legal over there?).
Then again, the country has taxpayer funded university positions reserved for minority candidates (because apparently that's legal over there?).
Unfortunately it's not a joke. Even starting your own one-person engineering firm will not get you free of it.
It will be used as a convenient tool against anyone who goes against the groupthink of the day.
I doubt even this much is true. I truly believe this document will never be referenced outside of a promo doc or people making fun of it.
A friend of mine's mother is a researcher at a University and is in conflict with one of the department heads. She was denied some sort of career advancement over "You mentioned to someone that you liked the way they did their hair. This made your working environment unsafe for minorities as person could be reminded that their hairstyles are different than majority white styles [fwiw she also has exceptionally messy curly hair]".
Obvious nonsense, and the person who she complimented agreed. But when an administrator doesn't like someone, and needs to find a reason to cause them problems, this sort of list is a very useful tool. Maybe you don't even have to say it - "Professor X was found in repeated violation of our racial safety standards, and we just can't have racist staff".
I'll add that I don't have an issue with removing racist/bigoted language - but this list largely consists of obvious slurs that nobody needs a ruleset to avoid, or mundane words where no person would even begin to feel racist/offended outside of an administrator finding excuses to make more rules.
Obvious nonsense, and the person who she complimented agreed. But when an administrator doesn't like someone, and needs to find a reason to cause them problems, this sort of list is a very useful tool. Maybe you don't even have to say it - "Professor X was found in repeated violation of our racial safety standards, and we just can't have racist staff".
I'll add that I don't have an issue with removing racist/bigoted language - but this list largely consists of obvious slurs that nobody needs a ruleset to avoid, or mundane words where no person would even begin to feel racist/offended outside of an administrator finding excuses to make more rules.
it will take very little time in the current climate for this to spread from the academic circles into the corporate world, where all the HR/ethics/etc deadweight departments have people with those worthless degrees
next thing you know, master is now main, blacklist and whitelist are allowlist and denylist, and so on
next thing you know, master is now main, blacklist and whitelist are allowlist and denylist, and so on
There used to be a social market for nice little infographics that could readily illustrate inconvenient truths. I've wondered why we haven't seen the same for college topics. A simple infographic could show the amount of spending on diversity initiatives that could instead have gone to reducing tuition expenses. Between salaries and actual program costs, the number must be embarrassing for universities (not as embarrassing as football program costs but...that's another topic).
It could include the fact that Stanford has 17000 students and 15000 administrative staff.
What if what you are calling bloat is actually a highly effective revolutionary machine? The way the US is structured, elite schools like Stanford are the gateway to the most powerful positions in the country. Jobs like scientists, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, federal agents, politicians, and academic staff are gated behind having an elite degree. So I actually see this as being extremely ominous and not just bullshit.
The gatekeeping function of elite universities is an incredibly important point to make, and is absolutely the most urgent reason to take this seriously.
No other reason is needed, but "principle" is being violated here. Bad ideas need to be pushed back on. I think that's true whether or not rules achieve "de facto" status, because a society's dysfunction is proportional to the degree it that lets bad rules slide "because they'll never be enforced". In this case these bad rules lay bare an ignorant and bigoted world-view that is fundamentally anti-human. It is teaching students and teachers all the wrong lessons, and ironically is not even helping the people it's claiming to want to help. It is pure and overt thought policing and Stanford, and anyone who cares about the school and its legacy, needs to clean house yesterday.
No other reason is needed, but "principle" is being violated here. Bad ideas need to be pushed back on. I think that's true whether or not rules achieve "de facto" status, because a society's dysfunction is proportional to the degree it that lets bad rules slide "because they'll never be enforced". In this case these bad rules lay bare an ignorant and bigoted world-view that is fundamentally anti-human. It is teaching students and teachers all the wrong lessons, and ironically is not even helping the people it's claiming to want to help. It is pure and overt thought policing and Stanford, and anyone who cares about the school and its legacy, needs to clean house yesterday.
I do believe that woke language functions as a cultural signifier that keeps the elite safe and guarantees them success. This particular list is just too egregiously dumb to function correctly. I would be willing to bet that 99% of these replacements simply don't happen outside of Stanford domains, and the ones that do happen won't be due to this list.
In every day life yes. maybe. Stanford already has that secretive, anonymous discrimination report form and has encouraged students and staff to make reports. So if I speak to my friends I think nothing will happen and daily language may not change.
But the secretive reporting system will make people paranoid and when dealing with administration commissars and academic boards, I imagine the rules will be used to weed out opponents and anyone they believe does not comply with their goals.
And yes it is stupid. There are even words I am surprised they did not include like "fat". Oops, I used the word stupid.
But the secretive reporting system will make people paranoid and when dealing with administration commissars and academic boards, I imagine the rules will be used to weed out opponents and anyone they believe does not comply with their goals.
And yes it is stupid. There are even words I am surprised they did not include like "fat". Oops, I used the word stupid.
HN certainly has taken this seriously, which IMHO is disappointing.
1300+ comments on something that has hardly anything to do with technology. Really?
To me, this is a dumb and actually kind of funny list, due to some ridiculous notions (e.g. "stand up meeting" is ablelist?) that seem poorly put together with zero thought for context. It's as if someone got an assignment to put this together and tried to really, really stretch any possible connection they could into this. Like you said, a "bullshit time-consuming initiative".
That's all it is. I don't get why people are paying attention to it. It's not worth much thought at all.
1300+ comments on something that has hardly anything to do with technology. Really?
To me, this is a dumb and actually kind of funny list, due to some ridiculous notions (e.g. "stand up meeting" is ablelist?) that seem poorly put together with zero thought for context. It's as if someone got an assignment to put this together and tried to really, really stretch any possible connection they could into this. Like you said, a "bullshit time-consuming initiative".
That's all it is. I don't get why people are paying attention to it. It's not worth much thought at all.
It's worth some thought because, while we deal with technology, we also live in a society. That society is currently going through a bout of insanity. It affects us. It's like a fish living in polluted water. You don't care about factories on land, because you're a fish. Except, when they pollute the water you live in, you do care.
And Stanford has a certain amount of cachet, or influence, or reach, or whatever, even into tech circles and tech companies. So this nonsense may be coming soon to the company you or I work at. So, yeah, we care. We take it seriously, because it impacts us.
And Stanford has a certain amount of cachet, or influence, or reach, or whatever, even into tech circles and tech companies. So this nonsense may be coming soon to the company you or I work at. So, yeah, we care. We take it seriously, because it impacts us.
It's because of the name attached to it.
academia is the source of wokism, then it gets populated for political terf wars and selling adds optimization
> political terf wars
Misspelling turf wars as "terf" while writing about wokism is just too funny a coincidence to not mention.
Misspelling turf wars as "terf" while writing about wokism is just too funny a coincidence to not mention.
hahah, well-spotted
[deleted]
[deleted]
This kind of initiative lacks a core understanding of the requirements for thinking and intelligence in general, and by its nature of compulsion is subversive.
In order to think, you must risk being offensive, in order to learn you must risk being offended. In either case, you must have the freedom to do either, and compulsion is evil.
By compelling speech like that, you are indoctrinating future generations, and doing so along a path where they will be at a disadvantage and won't think because they have been brought up in an environment where the priority given is that it is more important to say the politically correct/right thing than it is to risk being offensive or do anything. If you can't question anything, can you even form a basis for real thought?
Do you have any value as a person if all you do is parrot what someone else says?
Not only that, but it also shares some of the same philosophy that lead to the deaths under Mao.
This makes me fear for the future because Stanford people are supposed to be intelligent, and yet this is just so utterly... stupid, borderline brainwashing, and it likely violates core institutional mandates/ethos.
That this is even getting any traction, you have to wonder wtf is going on up there. Clearly someone, more likely many need to be fired. Unbelievable.
In order to think, you must risk being offensive, in order to learn you must risk being offended. In either case, you must have the freedom to do either, and compulsion is evil.
By compelling speech like that, you are indoctrinating future generations, and doing so along a path where they will be at a disadvantage and won't think because they have been brought up in an environment where the priority given is that it is more important to say the politically correct/right thing than it is to risk being offensive or do anything. If you can't question anything, can you even form a basis for real thought?
Do you have any value as a person if all you do is parrot what someone else says?
Not only that, but it also shares some of the same philosophy that lead to the deaths under Mao.
This makes me fear for the future because Stanford people are supposed to be intelligent, and yet this is just so utterly... stupid, borderline brainwashing, and it likely violates core institutional mandates/ethos.
That this is even getting any traction, you have to wonder wtf is going on up there. Clearly someone, more likely many need to be fired. Unbelievable.
Correct.
And these people will not only be the leaders of tomorrow but also the ones that control worldwide communications from their offices in Silicon Valley. They will shape the entire world.
And these people will not only be the leaders of tomorrow but also the ones that control worldwide communications from their offices in Silicon Valley. They will shape the entire world.
russdill(2)
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
More importantly, you'll be so obsessed with words that you'll miss burning hate even when it hits you in your face. All these language games are about power ultimately, and about securing the status quo.
Precisely. And in the meantime, it’s great to recognise friend from foe. Are you using all the new “correct” words? Are you a good “party member”?
I read the article, then immediately Ctrl-F'ed this forum for 1984. Here's a hug.
Was seeing how far I had to scroll to find this perfect quote. How long before all the required readings are banned? I don't understand how you could run a philosophy course without immediately offending someone at this rate.
So glad I'm not the only one to see this connection. 1984 was not meant to be a guidebook.
[deleted]
Interestingly the theory of restricting language to control thought has been debunked. But personally, I do think that our range of acceptable speech can impact our thoughts in more subtle ways both positive and negative.
“The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers at the Ministry of Truth and determined to be fake news.”
Well, how reassuring!
Well, how reassuring!
There has never been any proof for it, and the scraps of data that point in the direction of a weak version of Sapir-Whorff all suffer from the usual psychology research flaws (cf. replication crisis).
If there's any way in which word usage influences our thoughts, there's not much evidence of it. E.g., there are ungendered languages, but the societies that use them are absolutely not more feminist than those where a gendered language is spoken. And suppressing slurs usually leads to substitution by other words, showing that the thought very much stays alive, independent of the word.
If there's any way in which word usage influences our thoughts, there's not much evidence of it. E.g., there are ungendered languages, but the societies that use them are absolutely not more feminist than those where a gendered language is spoken. And suppressing slurs usually leads to substitution by other words, showing that the thought very much stays alive, independent of the word.
The two examples you give don't disprove weak Sapir-Whorf, they disprove strong Sapir-Whorf. Almost no one who knows what they're talking about argues that language is the deciding factor in sexism or racism. Linguistic relativity is widely accepted, and that's the idea that language has an influence on your thought patterns.
There can be other influences that lead to misogyny and other biases, and language may adapt to give expression to those thought patterns. But language also can influence thought patterns. For it not to do so it would have to be the lone exception among all of the stimulae we take in, which is extremely unlikely.
There can be other influences that lead to misogyny and other biases, and language may adapt to give expression to those thought patterns. But language also can influence thought patterns. For it not to do so it would have to be the lone exception among all of the stimulae we take in, which is extremely unlikely.
Sapir-Whorf almost can't be disproved. There's no point in disproving it. But where's the evidence?
> the idea that language has an influence on your thought patterns.
What does language even mean in that statement? You can weaken it down all you want, but in the context of this topic, language means: word usage, and thoughts mean: racist, sexist, etc. opinions. Do these opinions get influenced by e.g. the food you eat? The sunset? The temperature of your living room? Those are stimuli, or at least external influences. Language is not a stimulus, but more of a skill. It's encoded in your brain, and it allows you to communicate.
To put it bluntly: is there any evidence that people who are forced to use "black" instead of "African-American" become less racist?
> the idea that language has an influence on your thought patterns.
What does language even mean in that statement? You can weaken it down all you want, but in the context of this topic, language means: word usage, and thoughts mean: racist, sexist, etc. opinions. Do these opinions get influenced by e.g. the food you eat? The sunset? The temperature of your living room? Those are stimuli, or at least external influences. Language is not a stimulus, but more of a skill. It's encoded in your brain, and it allows you to communicate.
To put it bluntly: is there any evidence that people who are forced to use "black" instead of "African-American" become less racist?
What about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
Does this not support at least the weak hypothesis?
Does this not support at least the weak hypothesis?
It doesn't disprove it, but that's not sufficient, is it? Is your argument about their (lack of) number system? Before we could speak, we had no knowledge of numbers, according to this theory. How did we ever get beyond that? Aliens?
Is there a source for this debunking? I'd love to read it.
I honestly can't find the article that cited the sources right now, so it's gonna have to be a trust me on this one. My google skills are failing me right now.
Here, let me help: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/lingui...
There's this:
> The strong form of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that people from different cultures think differently because of differences in their languages. ... Few sociolinguists would accept such a strong claim, but most accept the weaker claim of linguistic relativity, that language influences perceptions, thought, and, at least potentially, behavior.
And this:
> Linguistic relativity proposals are sometimes characterized as equivalent to linguistic determinism, that is the view that all thought is strictly determined by language. Such characterizations of the language–thought linkage bear little resemblance to the proposals of Sapir or Whorf, who spoke in more general terms about language influencing habitual patterns of thought, especially at the conceptual level. Indeed, no serious scholar working on the linguistic relativity problem as such has subscribed to a strict determinism.
My sense has long been that Sapir-Whorf is "debunked" in the popular consciousness but not among actual linguists, in part because of the confusion of linguistic determinism with linguistic relativity. Pop-sci sources characterize Sapir-Whorf as wholly deterministic, which it isn't and never was.
In the end, I'll trust my own gut on Sapir-Whorf over what the academy comes up with anyway, because there's a strong incentive to "disprove" it because it doesn't align with their current political values. My gut says that for linguistic relativity to not be true, language would have to be unique among all of our environmental stimulae in not influencing our thought patterns, and the odds of something so fundamental to our species being the lone exception are pretty darn slim.
There's this:
> The strong form of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that people from different cultures think differently because of differences in their languages. ... Few sociolinguists would accept such a strong claim, but most accept the weaker claim of linguistic relativity, that language influences perceptions, thought, and, at least potentially, behavior.
And this:
> Linguistic relativity proposals are sometimes characterized as equivalent to linguistic determinism, that is the view that all thought is strictly determined by language. Such characterizations of the language–thought linkage bear little resemblance to the proposals of Sapir or Whorf, who spoke in more general terms about language influencing habitual patterns of thought, especially at the conceptual level. Indeed, no serious scholar working on the linguistic relativity problem as such has subscribed to a strict determinism.
My sense has long been that Sapir-Whorf is "debunked" in the popular consciousness but not among actual linguists, in part because of the confusion of linguistic determinism with linguistic relativity. Pop-sci sources characterize Sapir-Whorf as wholly deterministic, which it isn't and never was.
In the end, I'll trust my own gut on Sapir-Whorf over what the academy comes up with anyway, because there's a strong incentive to "disprove" it because it doesn't align with their current political values. My gut says that for linguistic relativity to not be true, language would have to be unique among all of our environmental stimulae in not influencing our thought patterns, and the odds of something so fundamental to our species being the lone exception are pretty darn slim.
> Grandfather: This term has its roots in the "grandfather clause" adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks.
> Red team: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups.
> Blackbox: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term.
> Brave (do not use): This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man.
This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent banning any word that contains "ass" because "ass" is a bad word.
Anyone involved in the production of this document should be embarrassed and ashamed.
> Red team: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups.
> Blackbox: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term.
> Brave (do not use): This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man.
This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent banning any word that contains "ass" because "ass" is a bad word.
Anyone involved in the production of this document should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Someone's going to go ballistic when they run into lecture notes on red-black trees. Skip lists are also ableist.
Hopefully we don't find anything troubling in the pasts of Adelson-Velsky and Landis, or AVL trees will also be on the chopping block.
At least they'll probably be able to lecture about treaps.
Hopefully we don't find anything troubling in the pasts of Adelson-Velsky and Landis, or AVL trees will also be on the chopping block.
At least they'll probably be able to lecture about treaps.
Don’t even try and talk about a binary search. I only search on a spectrum now.
>This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent banning any word that contains "ass" because "ass" is a bad word.
there's some game whose word filter censors the "ass" in the name "Nasser"
the result is "N***er"
there's some game whose word filter censors the "ass" in the name "Nasser"
the result is "N***er"
remind me of a couple of different crumby """anti-cross-site-scripting""" filters you used to be able to find. They claimed that they'd remove dangerous input so that it would never hit your backend. They did this by deleting any harmful looking input, which had the fun consequence of turning this invalid input:
<script<script></script>>alert("hax")</script<script></script>>
<script>alert("hax")</script>
Good old <scr<script>ipt> :)
> Blackbox: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term.
The way I think about something being 'blackbox' is neither positive or negative. It's just not knowing. Looking into a dark room and not seeing what mechanism is inside it, merely knowing there's a door with a key and something comes out of it when I open the door.
I think speech is important, but most of these seem generated by chatgpt.
The way I think about something being 'blackbox' is neither positive or negative. It's just not knowing. Looking into a dark room and not seeing what mechanism is inside it, merely knowing there's a door with a key and something comes out of it when I open the door.
I think speech is important, but most of these seem generated by chatgpt.
I have to congratulate them: That brave bit at least is new.
It's definitely not, the braves have faced criticism over their name and iconography for a long time
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don’t think I had seen those before:
tarball [use instead: tar archive] While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby.
whitespace [use instead: empty space] Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
Hispanic [use instead: Latinx, use country of origin] Although widely used to describe people from Spanish-speaking countries outside of Spain, its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American countries.
immigrant [use instead: person who has immigrated, non-citizen] Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics.
Latinx is an example of grammatical colonialism at its finest. It's favoring cultural misappropriation of a non-english word over using the proper English adjective "Latin".
I give it 1-2 more years before being put out to pasture with "African American".
[Edit: Also, WTF? Indigenous people from the US are supposed to be called Latinx now?]
I give it 1-2 more years before being put out to pasture with "African American".
[Edit: Also, WTF? Indigenous people from the US are supposed to be called Latinx now?]
Surely tarball comes from tar, which is short for “tape archive”, which has nothing to do with the goo left behind from pyrolysis or with its color. Apparently whoever made this list doesn’t understand the purpose of the tar command :)
(Y’all should really stop conflating tar with asphalt though. The terms are related but not always interchangeable.)
Whitespace is pathetic. Even the article itself has a white background. In any case, in a lot of modern programmer usage, whitespace is not empty. Saying that empty space is significant in some file format would be rather silly. White_space is part of the Unicode standard, TYVM.
(Y’all should really stop conflating tar with asphalt though. The terms are related but not always interchangeable.)
Whitespace is pathetic. Even the article itself has a white background. In any case, in a lot of modern programmer usage, whitespace is not empty. Saying that empty space is significant in some file format would be rather silly. White_space is part of the Unicode standard, TYVM.
That's exactly my impression. The lunatics driving this mad train of hate over fields they have no expertise in whatsoever are conflating things left and right that are denoting different concepts who aren't interchangeable.
Reminds me of that woman who forced the change of master branch into main at github while posing as a "programmer" or "security researcher". I looked into her profile, only PRs for typos in documentation or cruft like that. No serious contribution. Only hate.
Reminds me of that woman who forced the change of master branch into main at github while posing as a "programmer" or "security researcher". I looked into her profile, only PRs for typos in documentation or cruft like that. No serious contribution. Only hate.
Latino/Latinx is not a direct substitute for Hispanic. To recommend that as a find/replace is highly irresponsible. People in Spain or from Spain are often or usually considered Hispanic but respectfully do not appropriate Latin-American/Latino identity.
Interestingly, I've seen a lot of pushback against "Latinx" as a term from DEI circles themselves, that it's seen as too purely academic and detached from real-world use by individuals that the label would apply to. So there's something odd to me about that suggestion only because it seems to be replacing one term with an equally or more problematic term.
> Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics
For people so obsessed with language, it seems pretty silly to so readily conflate "definition" with "classification".
For people so obsessed with language, it seems pretty silly to so readily conflate "definition" with "classification".
I also don’t see how “person who has immigrated” constitutes defining people by multiple characteristics.
One can be an immigrant and a [naturalized] citizen at the same time. "Immigrant" means that you moved [here] from [elsewhere], and decidedly does not mean "non-citizen"!
Also, the vast majority of immigrants are citizens [of a different country] and the vast majority of non-citizen [of the country they currently reside in] are not immigrants [but tourists, people on a non-immigrant visa, etc.].
> its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American countries.
They forgot Central American countries :(
They forgot Central American countries :(
South of the border, down Mexico way...
And California where they are :)
Florida says hi.
Sorry - not saying that Florida or Texas don't have the same experience - just that Stanford should know better being literally in a former Spanish colony.
Florida seems pretty significant to me re: Spain's colonization in the Americas. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Florida
> Spanish Florida (Spanish: La Florida) was the first major European land claim and attempted settlement in North America during the European Age of Discovery.
Spain also lost Florida in part, by conquest (to Andrew Jackson). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars
> The Seminole Wars were the longest and most expensive, in both human and financial cost to the United States, of the American Indian Wars.
Thought ultimately Congress did buy Florida as a sort of fait accompli when it became clear they couldn't hold it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty
> The Adams–Onís Treaty [is] a treaty between the United States and Spain in 1819 that ceded Florida to the U.S. and defined the boundary between the U.S. and New Spain.
Interestingly, less than half a year later, Mexico finally (re-)gained its independence from Spain.
Lots of Spain colonization efforts unraveled in a relatively short amount of time, historically.
> Spanish Florida (Spanish: La Florida) was the first major European land claim and attempted settlement in North America during the European Age of Discovery.
Spain also lost Florida in part, by conquest (to Andrew Jackson). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars
> The Seminole Wars were the longest and most expensive, in both human and financial cost to the United States, of the American Indian Wars.
Thought ultimately Congress did buy Florida as a sort of fait accompli when it became clear they couldn't hold it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty
> The Adams–Onís Treaty [is] a treaty between the United States and Spain in 1819 that ceded Florida to the U.S. and defined the boundary between the U.S. and New Spain.
Interestingly, less than half a year later, Mexico finally (re-)gained its independence from Spain.
Lots of Spain colonization efforts unraveled in a relatively short amount of time, historically.
Yes - sorry - my point was more that Stanford IS IN a former colony and should know better on some of this stuff (not that Florida isn't a former holding etc.)
No worries, all good.
An immigrant might have also just acquired citizenship..
Wut?
They jumped the shark(tm) on tarball.
They jumped the shark(tm) on tarball.
I had to look that one up because their interpretation seemed so unlikely to me. Doesn’t necessarily mean there is no other history there, but I found out tarballs are real things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarball_(oil)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarball_(oil)
It is hard to choose which of these is silliest, but my vote goes to the replacement of "he" with [name] or "they", until you know the person's preferred pronouns. [1]
The vast, vast majority of people who present as male wish to be referred to as "he". Many of them would be offended or confused if you used "they" as a term of reference. Many listeners would also be confused if you referred to a person who appears to be a typical male as a "they".
If 99% of men go by "he", why should we use "they" as a term of reference by default? This is the tail wagging the dog, to say the least.
1: the list also says we are not to refer to "preferred pronouns" anymore. They are just "pronouns" now.
The vast, vast majority of people who present as male wish to be referred to as "he". Many of them would be offended or confused if you used "they" as a term of reference. Many listeners would also be confused if you referred to a person who appears to be a typical male as a "they".
If 99% of men go by "he", why should we use "they" as a term of reference by default? This is the tail wagging the dog, to say the least.
1: the list also says we are not to refer to "preferred pronouns" anymore. They are just "pronouns" now.
Combine your two conclusions and sex (material reality) ceases to exist yet non-binary (an identity, not a sex) is to be respected as if it is a hard biological fact. After all, you don't decide to be non-binary, you just are. Yet this does not apply to sex.
It's almost as if reality, facts, logic, consistency don't matter. Which is postmodernism. A power struggle.
It's almost as if reality, facts, logic, consistency don't matter. Which is postmodernism. A power struggle.
You are exactly right to say that this is postmodernism. Postmodernism says that all speech is not about truth, but about power. These people believe that.
And they act the way they think. Their speech is all about power, not about truth. That's why their claims are so absurd and nonsensical - because it's not about the truth of the claims. It's about them asserting power over you.
The only reasonable response, then, is to not accept their assertion of power. No. Just no. (Or "no" with as many profane modifiers as you feel is appropriate.) No, we don't agree. No, you're ridiculous. No, we aren't going to get in a debate with your ridiculousness. And most of all, no, we aren't going to follow your stupid rules. No. Get lost. Go away.
And they act the way they think. Their speech is all about power, not about truth. That's why their claims are so absurd and nonsensical - because it's not about the truth of the claims. It's about them asserting power over you.
The only reasonable response, then, is to not accept their assertion of power. No. Just no. (Or "no" with as many profane modifiers as you feel is appropriate.) No, we don't agree. No, you're ridiculous. No, we aren't going to get in a debate with your ridiculousness. And most of all, no, we aren't going to follow your stupid rules. No. Get lost. Go away.
Until 'they' got pulled into duty, English didn't have a non gendered pronoun, so if you were referring to someone where you didn't know the gender, you had a choice of defaulting to "he", randomly choosing "he" or " she", or using "he or she" or "the [descriptor like 'programmer']*
They at first sounded weird being repurposed this way, but I think now it works better than any of the list above. Once you start using it for people who's gender you don't know, it's a pretty small step to use for someone's gender you don't want to assume.
They at first sounded weird being repurposed this way, but I think now it works better than any of the list above. Once you start using it for people who's gender you don't know, it's a pretty small step to use for someone's gender you don't want to assume.
> it's a pretty small step to use for someone's gender you don't want to assume.
Well that's the question, isn't it? How often do I have occasion to talk about someone whose gender I don't want to assume? In virtually every case, I am able to correctly ascertain the gender identity of a person I am going to talk about.
The Stanford rules would have me pretend as if I just have no idea, and use "they" instead of "he" or "she". This is utter foolishness. It ignores the offense and confusion that will result from "they-ing" someone who goes by "he" or "she". And it ignores the fact that it is generally very easy to deduce someone's gender identity.
Well that's the question, isn't it? How often do I have occasion to talk about someone whose gender I don't want to assume? In virtually every case, I am able to correctly ascertain the gender identity of a person I am going to talk about.
The Stanford rules would have me pretend as if I just have no idea, and use "they" instead of "he" or "she". This is utter foolishness. It ignores the offense and confusion that will result from "they-ing" someone who goes by "he" or "she". And it ignores the fact that it is generally very easy to deduce someone's gender identity.
All the time! When you don't know the identity of the subject, you also don't know the gender.
"Someone ate the last slice of cake. I wish they had considered me!"
"Phone for you" "What do they want?"
"Someone ate the last slice of cake. I wish they had considered me!"
"Phone for you" "What do they want?"
Yep, and I am happy to use "they" in that setting. The Stanford rules are silly because they also call for using "they" to refer to people whom you do know, if they've never specifically instructed you on their preferred pronouns. I am apparently supposed to refer to President Biden as a "they", since he's not told me otherwise.
joxel(4)
That's not true at all, it was always ('always') 'they' when unknown. I was taught as much in school well before all this.
It's a big and bizarre step to throw out 'he' and 'she' completely for all known men and women until such time as they confirm that yes they indeed are men and women, just to satisfy the miniscule proportion of them who are not. The exceptional ones should be the ones to point it out and then we can just say 'oh ok sure sorry' and move on.
> someone's gender you don't want to assume
Unless they look like someone who 'might not want their gender assumed', I'm perfectly happy assuming peoples gender, because it will be correct in the vast vast vast majority of cases.
It's a big and bizarre step to throw out 'he' and 'she' completely for all known men and women until such time as they confirm that yes they indeed are men and women, just to satisfy the miniscule proportion of them who are not. The exceptional ones should be the ones to point it out and then we can just say 'oh ok sure sorry' and move on.
> someone's gender you don't want to assume
Unless they look like someone who 'might not want their gender assumed', I'm perfectly happy assuming peoples gender, because it will be correct in the vast vast vast majority of cases.
I was taught to use “he” by default in grammar lessons in ~2005.
For what it's worth, my experience (use 'they') was (not that long, but) before then, in the UK.
What really irks me (as a result I suppose) is the sort of passive aggressive use of 'she' for gender unknown, as though righting some wrong or making some sort of point that we don't know it's 'he' either - true, that would be wrong too!
Matt Levine does it an awful lot, recently-ish I even noticed one was actually a man; he was just using it in the general sense not having checked who the specific person was in the role that he was talking about - 'they' would have been fine, but 'she' was more incorrect than usual, a factual error.
What really irks me (as a result I suppose) is the sort of passive aggressive use of 'she' for gender unknown, as though righting some wrong or making some sort of point that we don't know it's 'he' either - true, that would be wrong too!
Matt Levine does it an awful lot, recently-ish I even noticed one was actually a man; he was just using it in the general sense not having checked who the specific person was in the role that he was talking about - 'they' would have been fine, but 'she' was more incorrect than usual, a factual error.
they/them has always been a neutral pronoun in English. It's only now that it is a controversial topic that everybody is fussing about it. Imagine the following sentence.
"Someone is knocking at the door, can you let them in?"
Nobody would say "let him in", unless they knew a man was behind the door. This is utterly uncontroversial and boring.
"Someone is knocking at the door, can you let them in?"
Nobody would say "let him in", unless they knew a man was behind the door. This is utterly uncontroversial and boring.
>Someone is knocking at the door, can you let them in?
That is not a good example since there is presumably only 1 person knocking ("someone"), but there could be multiple people ("them") at the door waiting to come in.
Since you don't know the amount of people waiting to come in, using them would be appropriate.
That is not a good example since there is presumably only 1 person knocking ("someone"), but there could be multiple people ("them") at the door waiting to come in.
Since you don't know the amount of people waiting to come in, using them would be appropriate.
What about : "I am expected either my father or my mother to come, but not both of them. Someone is knocking at the door, can you let them/him in?"
using him sounds silly when there's a 50% chance it's you mother doesn't it?
using him sounds silly when there's a 50% chance it's you mother doesn't it?
That is a better example for sure. I still think there are issues since it could be somebody other than one of your parents knocking (including multiple people)
I think the better example would be when you know there is only one person. Person 1: "I went to the movies with a friend". Person 2: "Did they like the movie?"
This still has the issue about talking about somebody who is not present. Many people are advocating for using they/them when the person is right in front of you.
I think the better example would be when you know there is only one person. Person 1: "I went to the movies with a friend". Person 2: "Did they like the movie?"
This still has the issue about talking about somebody who is not present. Many people are advocating for using they/them when the person is right in front of you.
Agreed. That said, ‘they’ has been “on duty” as a singular pronoun since at least the 14th century
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
Indeed, if someone refers to me as "they" then (1) I am being misgendered (2) probably intentionally (3) to score some political goal.
That this is considered "okay" by certain people proves that they do not care about (1) or (2), only (3).
"He" -> "they" further implies that there's something wrong about "he", a defect not present in "they". Otherwise the opposite replacement would also be acceptable. It is morally despicable.
That this is considered "okay" by certain people proves that they do not care about (1) or (2), only (3).
"He" -> "they" further implies that there's something wrong about "he", a defect not present in "they". Otherwise the opposite replacement would also be acceptable. It is morally despicable.
I think the real issue is that until recently 'they' was considered a plural pronoun, whereas the gender revolutionaries want it to now be considered a singular pronoun.
This one seems fair to be honest, it's not just about those with non standard pronouns, but also women.
there is the same recommendation for "she".
The "don't assume" logic would also apply for feminine sounding names, especially when the name is from a different culture to your own and/or ambiguous. He has the problem of the out of fashion gender neutral he along with guessing incorrectly from name or appearence, but the second issue also applies to she.
Many of us will have been in a professional context (an audio conference call maybe) where someone guessed the person’s gender incorrectly from their name and the sum total of the offence was a shrug, and a quick apology was enough to set things right and move on.
This is a non-issue for almost every person on the planet except for maybe the most easily offended.
This is a non-issue for almost every person on the planet except for maybe the most easily offended.
It’s about power and dictating what good manners are now and a way to determine quickly if someone is of good breeding and worth continuing with much like how groups used other coded language and gestures in the past.
20 years ago, using they in this way would have really tweaked my ears, but I find myself using it in this way and hearing it in this way more and more, and I think it won't be long before we've forgotten how odd it used to feel.
It still sounds odd to my ears, but that's because I usually hear "they" as a plural pronoun. For example, I was watching a TV show with two siblings, one used "they/them" pronouns. When the mother said "I'm really proud of them and everything they have accomplished", I didn't know if that was referring to one sibling or both.
I know it will probably feel less odd as time goes on.
I know it will probably feel less odd as time goes on.
Singular they for when you aren't sure of gender actually seems to simplify language quite a bit in my experience. There are lots of non-non-binary situations that its helpful and you can avoid those awkward "he or she" "his or her" type phrases. Plus, everyone knows how to use they already, never had anyone get confused by it.
"Bob went to the store and they bought some beer" is completely parsable by everyone - nobody is getting confused unless they are trying to be.
"Bob went to the store and they bought some beer" is completely parsable by everyone - nobody is getting confused unless they are trying to be.
I know many people who would be honestly confused by your example.
An excellent illustration of the beginnings of an SJW dystopia. Not just the list itself, but the general feeling of fear they want you to feel while speaking. One can draw a link between any word and a possible harm - something that a few comments have hilariously shown with some examples. So if the goal was protecting anyone from every possible harmful word, the list fails.
But this demonstrates real evil that hides behind compassion and empathy, because preventing harm is not the real goal. The real goal is the assertion of power to police speech. Once you have that, you can do whatever you want with it to build a utopia where people aren't allowed to say things you don't think should be said. Even SJWs have to decide: what's worse, letting people say "lets bury the hatchet" without realizing they are "appropriating native culture", or putting an arbitrary group of unaccountable people in charge of what everyone says, in full knowledge of how that power can and will be abused?
Good heavens this whole thing is astonishingly stupid.
But this demonstrates real evil that hides behind compassion and empathy, because preventing harm is not the real goal. The real goal is the assertion of power to police speech. Once you have that, you can do whatever you want with it to build a utopia where people aren't allowed to say things you don't think should be said. Even SJWs have to decide: what's worse, letting people say "lets bury the hatchet" without realizing they are "appropriating native culture", or putting an arbitrary group of unaccountable people in charge of what everyone says, in full knowledge of how that power can and will be abused?
Good heavens this whole thing is astonishingly stupid.
This list is incredibly stupid. However, I don’t think this “Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action, which was published by the Stanford CIO Council (CIOC) and People of Color in Technology (POC-IT) affinity group” (using the words off their own website) is some mastermind plot to eventually subvert freethinking in America.
Instead, I think it’s just a group of busywork, incompetent administrators who have been hired to “come up with ideas”. The number of administrators in academia has absolutely exploded in the past few decades, and this is the kind of dumb stuff they do.
Instead, I think it’s just a group of busywork, incompetent administrators who have been hired to “come up with ideas”. The number of administrators in academia has absolutely exploded in the past few decades, and this is the kind of dumb stuff they do.
I think so too.
For example, say, the people involved got four weeks to do this -- and they were done in a day, but then continued adding more and more words anyway to fill the time. Or because more words would give a more serious / competent impression.
I'd like to assume good intentions or incompetence / laziness / selfishness & don't-care, rather than giant conspiracy theories
Don't we have the same problem with in house lawyers and designers, who, if idle, want to sue someone, or want to redesign a "perfect" app and just make it worse
Or software devs who add pointless stuff to the tech stack
Maybe Parkinsons law should be amended:
> "work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion [with pointless things you'd be better off without]"
For example, say, the people involved got four weeks to do this -- and they were done in a day, but then continued adding more and more words anyway to fill the time. Or because more words would give a more serious / competent impression.
I'd like to assume good intentions or incompetence / laziness / selfishness & don't-care, rather than giant conspiracy theories
Don't we have the same problem with in house lawyers and designers, who, if idle, want to sue someone, or want to redesign a "perfect" app and just make it worse
Or software devs who add pointless stuff to the tech stack
Maybe Parkinsons law should be amended:
> "work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion [with pointless things you'd be better off without]"
> some mastermind plot to eventually subvert freethinking in America
Hitler did not start off with a mastermind plot to become the sole decisionmaker in Germany either. "There is no conspiracy, they're just acting in typical self-serving ways" is a counterproductive and even subversive objection when the enemy is demonstrably at the gates.
Hitler did not start off with a mastermind plot to become the sole decisionmaker in Germany either. "There is no conspiracy, they're just acting in typical self-serving ways" is a counterproductive and even subversive objection when the enemy is demonstrably at the gates.
Here is a movie plot. Priests of the dark temple, the so called "brothers of shadow", worship their deity Ktulhu that feeds off fear. The priests know that fear physically radiates away your energy in a low frequency spectrum, and their demon can collect this energy. The demon rests deep under the ocean in a particular place that acts as a natural parabolic anthenna for the fear waves. Since the dawn of the mankind, the only mission of the priests has been invoking fear in the masses. The movie ends with the rise of the demon, who promptly sucks all the life from anyone who can fear, those priests including, and then starves to death. However, as it turns out, a tiny group of people weren't suspectible to fear, as they didn't hate, so they survive and begin the new golden age, free of hate and fear, at least in the beginning. The final scene in the movie shows the demon, hibernating deep in the ocean.
The general feeling of fear is the point.
I think you mean dystopia because what this leads to is no utopia in my mind
I meant utopia from their perspective, ironically. Although I think we all have a subjective utopia in mind - if no-one ever spoke again about certain subjects, I personally would consider the world a better place! But I recognize that my opinion isn't the only one that matters, people are messy and still somewhat barbaric at heart, and its an exercise in futility if you think you can legislate your way out of that state. The "greatest ethical minds of our generation" have agreed amongst themselves to embark on this SJW adventure, for realsies. It's an experiment in techno-utopia based on the dogmatic presentism and a confused, crude model of historical value production, and a grossly oversimplified cure. This "cure" depends entirely on synthetic moral reasoning motivate, and power-by-fiat to enforce. It is almost a parody of left-wing extremism, as described by the right:ivory tower reasoning foisted on the rest of us without our consent. Essentially the right wants the freedom to be a bad person if they want to, a racist if they want to, and the left really doesn't want to allow that, but has to tiptoe around issues of freedom of expression.
Personally, I miss the days when the Jewish-led ACLU would come to bat for neo Nazis when local police would violate their free speech rights. This is correct. We must give people the right to be bad people, and say bad things, because no-one can unambiguously define good or bad. This disciplined, principled approach to a notion of freedom seems to have disappeared completely, and within my lifetime! That makes me feel incredibly guilty because, right now, my kids have a much harder road ahead than I did, my son in particular.
Personally, I miss the days when the Jewish-led ACLU would come to bat for neo Nazis when local police would violate their free speech rights. This is correct. We must give people the right to be bad people, and say bad things, because no-one can unambiguously define good or bad. This disciplined, principled approach to a notion of freedom seems to have disappeared completely, and within my lifetime! That makes me feel incredibly guilty because, right now, my kids have a much harder road ahead than I did, my son in particular.
“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe native speakers speaking naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups of multiple people (regardless of gender).
It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered. But etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”.
Making “you guys” taboo seems to be a cultural phenomenon specific to certain industries. I’ve asked several of my friends, and never encountered one outside of tech or academia who thought “you guys” was problematic at all. In fact, the vast majority had never even heard of the issue or imagined that it could be controversial.
It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered. But etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”.
Making “you guys” taboo seems to be a cultural phenomenon specific to certain industries. I’ve asked several of my friends, and never encountered one outside of tech or academia who thought “you guys” was problematic at all. In fact, the vast majority had never even heard of the issue or imagined that it could be controversial.
> etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”.
Man was not gendered when "woman" originated. In Old English, the words for men and women were "wer" and "wif", while "mann" described any person. Over time, wifmann became woman, and for whatever reason, wermann didn't end up becoming a word.
Other examples of trouble through etymology might include "virtue" and "world", which both derive from "wer".
Man was not gendered when "woman" originated. In Old English, the words for men and women were "wer" and "wif", while "mann" described any person. Over time, wifmann became woman, and for whatever reason, wermann didn't end up becoming a word.
Other examples of trouble through etymology might include "virtue" and "world", which both derive from "wer".
Okay, but my point still stands. If etymology determined meaning we’d have to conclude that “man” is ungendered, which is clearly wrong.
Wer did survive in the word "werewolf" as well.
How very interesting. Thank you.
Guy refers to Guy Fawkes. I'm not sure why his gender is supposed to have stuck, but not eg his religion or politics?
[deleted]
Out of all of these, y’all rolls most readily off the tongue.
That’s entirely subjective.
Sounds extremely southern to me. Not in a pejorative way, but in a way that seems really odd when said by a Northeastern US English speaker.
Southerner here. The correct form is "all a y'alls."
Yes, but if you use "y'all" it either means that you don't think southerners are idiots, or that you are ironically acting like you don't think they are idiots.
Even the wokest wokes have their limits.
Even the wokest wokes have their limits.
Well, that’s a completely unprompted comment…
I was thinking about this the other day.
You can approach a group of women and say " hey guys", that is fine.
To a group of men," hey gals", and that is not fine.
"Hey guys" to a mixed group, why... You've now 'elevated' the women to men so everyone is ok with it.
It all implies that being a woman is somehow lesser. And so that is why I'm going to stick to everyone or folks.
Although I don't begrudge or ask anyone to change.
You can approach a group of women and say " hey guys", that is fine.
To a group of men," hey gals", and that is not fine.
"Hey guys" to a mixed group, why... You've now 'elevated' the women to men so everyone is ok with it.
It all implies that being a woman is somehow lesser. And so that is why I'm going to stick to everyone or folks.
Although I don't begrudge or ask anyone to change.
Your argument is dubious for two reasons:
1. You assume that “guys” is the male equivalent of “gals”. It’s not — the latter is much more strongly gendered. Your argument is circular, because you assume that “guys” is gendered as one of your axioms.
2. You are talking about “hey guys”, whereas I was talking about “you guys”. The whole point of my post was that you can’t understand the meaning of “you guys” simply by referencing the meaning of “guys”. They are completely different words, and their only relationship is historical, even though one is a substring of the other. Even if “hey guys” is mildly gendered (which I’m not sure of, but I’m at least willing to believe it’s possible), “you guys” absolutely isn’t, empirically.
1. You assume that “guys” is the male equivalent of “gals”. It’s not — the latter is much more strongly gendered. Your argument is circular, because you assume that “guys” is gendered as one of your axioms.
2. You are talking about “hey guys”, whereas I was talking about “you guys”. The whole point of my post was that you can’t understand the meaning of “you guys” simply by referencing the meaning of “guys”. They are completely different words, and their only relationship is historical, even though one is a substring of the other. Even if “hey guys” is mildly gendered (which I’m not sure of, but I’m at least willing to believe it’s possible), “you guys” absolutely isn’t, empirically.
You guys is a gendered term and a perfectly reasonable axiom.
And because it's used by everyone, I submit this is true in the court of public opinion.
And because it's used by everyone, I submit this is true in the court of public opinion.
If you’re not being sarcastic, “you guys” is never (and I know how strong that word is) gendered. It’s literally a synonym for “you all”, ‘y’all’, or ‘you’ (plural).
Are you a native speaker? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t imagine this not seeming ubiquitous to a person that’s grown up in American English.
Are you a native speaker? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t imagine this not seeming ubiquitous to a person that’s grown up in American English.
I have to admit I don’t understand your point or what you’re trying to say.
> "You've now 'elevated' the women to men"
No elevation is happening. There is only inclusion and gathering together all members of the group regardless of gender. "Guys" performs this function effortlessly, without harm.
Gals always = girls. Guys does not always equal boys. That's language at work, an evolution which shouldn't be policed by language activists, instructing us what words are permitted.
If "leader" is part of the origin of "guy", that makes it even more suitable to gender neutral use in modern times. It's healthy when language is allowed to evolve and operate in varying contexts. Gatekeeping and policing words is to create problems and tension.
No elevation is happening. There is only inclusion and gathering together all members of the group regardless of gender. "Guys" performs this function effortlessly, without harm.
Gals always = girls. Guys does not always equal boys. That's language at work, an evolution which shouldn't be policed by language activists, instructing us what words are permitted.
If "leader" is part of the origin of "guy", that makes it even more suitable to gender neutral use in modern times. It's healthy when language is allowed to evolve and operate in varying contexts. Gatekeeping and policing words is to create problems and tension.
Traditional English has three genders: Male, Female, ???:
He/she/it They/they/they Guys/gals/guys
(Unfortunately, incorrectly using "it" to refer to a human is considered derogatory. All the other cells I listed were considered fine 20-30 years ago, and generally still are.)
He/she/it They/they/they Guys/gals/guys
(Unfortunately, incorrectly using "it" to refer to a human is considered derogatory. All the other cells I listed were considered fine 20-30 years ago, and generally still are.)
"It"? I don't think so. It is "they".
> I could not see the person; [he,she,they, not "it"] was/were hidden in shadow.
> I could not see the person; [he,she,they, not "it"] was/were hidden in shadow.
I have a friend who always says “hi women” when meeting up with our group, no matter the genders of the people present. Nobody is getting offended.
so what should we use instead of the word "mother nature"? This implies fathers as lesser people, right?
I read though the suggestions. So "trigger warning" is now problematic and the proper alternative is "content note". And "Preferred pronouns" is hate speech, because you imply that pronouns are merely a preference, as if the person can choose their identity.
Godspeed.
Godspeed.
In another 10 years, a good chunk of their current "Consider using" suggestions will also be "problematic"
Using their line of thought "intersex person" will become problematic as "inter" means "between" which presumes two fundamental sexes and that "intersex" therefore isn't a fundamental sex.
Retarded people like to come up with a new word for retarded people all the time. It’s retarded.
It's not going to take 10 years.
>So "trigger warning" is now problematic and the proper alternative is "content note". And "Preferred pronouns" is hate speech, because you imply that pronouns are merely a preference, as if the person can choose their identity.
The woke shibboleth to discriminatory slur pipeline is real.
The woke shibboleth to discriminatory slur pipeline is real.
> And "Preferred pronouns" is hate speech, because you imply that pronouns are merely a preference, as if the person can choose their identity
But their position has been that gender is socially constructed and thus malleable, so it follows that pronouns would be too.
But their position has been that gender is socially constructed and thus malleable, so it follows that pronouns would be too.
...just like gender being a social construct but gender affirming surgery exists.
I wonder if “trigger warning” has been labeled offensive because those doing the labeling have realized it’s become a joke, almost pejorative term in the eyes of the rest of the world. I think 80% of the time when I hear someone use the phrase these days, it’s through some layer of satire.
> I wonder if “trigger warning” has been labeled offensive because those doing the labeling have realized it’s become a joke
No, the discourse about the problematic nature of the “trigger warning” as a flag for advisories of potentially-offensive content and the way it (and some other related terminology adopted around the same time) was grounded in a misapplication of terminology and concepts surrounding PTSD in specific and trauma in general began very shortly after the term began popular and had nothing to do with the insensitive dismissal of what the term is a label for (in fact, it is largely diametrically opposed, which is why that the kind of people who dismiss the need for the concerns about content have embraced the misapplication of “trigger” that it involves for their own attacks.)
No, the discourse about the problematic nature of the “trigger warning” as a flag for advisories of potentially-offensive content and the way it (and some other related terminology adopted around the same time) was grounded in a misapplication of terminology and concepts surrounding PTSD in specific and trauma in general began very shortly after the term began popular and had nothing to do with the insensitive dismissal of what the term is a label for (in fact, it is largely diametrically opposed, which is why that the kind of people who dismiss the need for the concerns about content have embraced the misapplication of “trigger” that it involves for their own attacks.)
Probably because “trigger warning” itself can be a trigger so that dangerous language has to be replaced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010941
Also there is a high turnover of PC words - every few years the “correct” word changes to something else, because reasons.
Also there is a high turnover of PC words - every few years the “correct” word changes to something else, because reasons.
These people continue to swallow themselves through the ratchet of cancellation.
They are like the Star Bellied Sneetches. Except instead of applying and removing stars from their bellies until no one knows who is in or out or good or bad, they include and exclude by ever more tortured use of language.
They are like the Star Bellied Sneetches. Except instead of applying and removing stars from their bellies until no one knows who is in or out or good or bad, they include and exclude by ever more tortured use of language.
This is all part of the plan. Only those on the frontier of nu-speak are untouchable. The faster the frontier advances, the greater the concentration of power in the hands of those coming up with this language.
When people can (and have) lost their livelihoods by using the wrong language, being in charge of new language is a powerful thing indeed.
When people can (and have) lost their livelihoods by using the wrong language, being in charge of new language is a powerful thing indeed.
This is good, the madness has begun to eat itself.
Madness is now a forbidden word. The non-harmful word is "surprising/wild",
The term "wild" has been used to refer to indigenous peoples for centuries; it has also been used to describe foreigners, and people with mental health issues, for even longer.
The term "surprising" has a lot of connotations too.
Safer to just not speak
The term "surprising" has a lot of connotations too.
Safer to just not speak
The funny thing is that the replacement word inevitably becomes insulting. For example, when you say to your friend that he's very "special", we all know what's up.
[deleted]
Could be a fun game to create social media accounts just for the purpose of problematizing terminology popular with self described progressive people until they are speaking jargon incomprehensible to anyone else.
Or maybe it already happened.
Or maybe it already happened.
Isn’t this basically what 4Chan did with the “OK” hand symbol?
There's a surprising/wild girl I know, the security guard at the library explained the smashed window with one word - her name.
As the website doesn't work for me, I genuinely cannot tell if your examples are sarcasm or come from the website.
Quoted from site:
> Instead of: trigger warning
> Consider using: content note
> Context: The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.
So the examples are not sarcasm, they are literal.
> Instead of: trigger warning
> Consider using: content note
> Context: The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.
So the examples are not sarcasm, they are literal.
Referring to literature and scientific works as "content" triggers a negative emotional response in me because I associate it with the corporatization and commoditizstion of speech.
Please use the phrase: "Words that describe subsequent words may follow this disclaimer."
(Except "follow" could have negative religious connotations.)
Please use the phrase: "Words that describe subsequent words may follow this disclaimer."
(Except "follow" could have negative religious connotations.)
"Word" as well. Better "sequence of characters", although that might discriminate against ideogram centric cultures. Wow, this is though!
I was surprised this wasn't because it could evoke thoughts of gun violence.
I actually like “content note.” I’m pretty unfazed by offensive content so I don’t need your spoiler alert to be called a warning.
I think they are entirely over used whatever one chooses to call them, but these don't mean the same thing at all. Content note could mean anything. For people with PTSD though, for whom psychological triggering is a real thing (not just something they don't like), a "trigger warning" means something pretty specific (or at least, it did before it became overused).
Absolutely disgusting. I can't even imagine how corrupted the minds of those who come up with such lists.
Having thick skin is a good thing. Actively showing off your fragility isn't.
Treating people charitably is a good thing. Actively looking for gotchas isn't.
Having thick skin is a good thing. Actively showing off your fragility isn't.
Treating people charitably is a good thing. Actively looking for gotchas isn't.
This has nothing to do with fragility, and there is nothing bad about showing honest fragility (although “showing off” is rarely productive).
This is about controlling speech and revisionism, while using sensitive people as an excuse for it. Why? Because it makes you more relevant, if you set the agenda. You get to choose who is good or bad in this absurd moral system where words, not their meaning or your actions, is the basis for judgment. Ironically, this is about good old self-interest and power.
Moralism seems to be inherent in humans, there are always those who self-select to police the behavior of other people. What’s scary with this stuff is that this particular flavor of it has a blind spot (apologies for ableist language, 10 lashes for me) among our current intellectual gate keeping class – most of them just let this pass through and even think it’s a good idea. That’s the only reason this BS can get amplified in influential institutions.
This is about controlling speech and revisionism, while using sensitive people as an excuse for it. Why? Because it makes you more relevant, if you set the agenda. You get to choose who is good or bad in this absurd moral system where words, not their meaning or your actions, is the basis for judgment. Ironically, this is about good old self-interest and power.
Moralism seems to be inherent in humans, there are always those who self-select to police the behavior of other people. What’s scary with this stuff is that this particular flavor of it has a blind spot (apologies for ableist language, 10 lashes for me) among our current intellectual gate keeping class – most of them just let this pass through and even think it’s a good idea. That’s the only reason this BS can get amplified in influential institutions.
At some point, weakness became a virtue.
Set someone up to fail, and you will succeed.
> master (v)
> become adept in
> Historically, masters enslaved people, didn't consider them human and didn't allow them to express free will, so this term should generally be avoided.
I assume Stanford now hands out an Adept Degree at the end of grad school.
> become adept in
> Historically, masters enslaved people, didn't consider them human and didn't allow them to express free will, so this term should generally be avoided.
I assume Stanford now hands out an Adept Degree at the end of grad school.
I know you're being sarcastic, but they do indeed still have "Masters degrees": https://online.stanford.edu/masters-degrees
The master one still makes me mad when the git project was being silly about it. From its page on Etymonline, the noun comes from Latin ‘magister’ (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher", with “master’s degree” (which originally qualified somebody to be able to teach) being attested back to the 14th century. As an adjective it was used as far back as the 12th century, coming into words like “master key”, “master craftsman”, “master recording” etc. and “master branch” makes complete sense in this context, especially when git doesn’t have anything named with anything like ‘slave’ branch or anything similar.
Being familiar with the various meanings of the word, it completely baffled me that anybody would ever try to link “master branch” to slavery. It makes absolutely no sense…
Being familiar with the various meanings of the word, it completely baffled me that anybody would ever try to link “master branch” to slavery. It makes absolutely no sense…
I personally would prefer a Journeyman exit degree option :)
Journeyperson, thank you very much.
Actually, journeyperchild.
Actually, journeyperchild.
The usage of "person" erases the existence of otherkin and pronoun users that reject the "person" label. Please use "entity" instead. Journeyentity.
Journeyentity means that they are capable of moving/travelling ... what about those who cannot move about?
Those people are called invalids and they can travel. Please use the correct term.[1]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_carriage
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_carriage
I would not want some snotty academics to devalue my trade school degree.
Water
- refreshing fluid needed to biologically function.
- used to drown witches in
I mean, how long do we want this list to be? Thank god (or any deity of your chosing) we can outsource language to AI soon.
- refreshing fluid needed to biologically function.
- used to drown witches in
I mean, how long do we want this list to be? Thank god (or any deity of your chosing) we can outsource language to AI soon.
[deleted]
Ngl now I kind of wish I had an Adept degree
I got yelled at by a female graduate student for using the term "rule of thumb". The Standford page says: "Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.", which I translate as "this is bullshit, but some people have decided to be offended by it".
To be clear, this supposed etymology is absolutely false. Wikipedia has an entire page about this myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
Sadly, it’s about feelings, not facts. That’s how indoctrination works.
So you're telling me you don't get offended at a phrase originating from an old story in a completely different context your friend told you that you didn't bother to fact check?
Opposable thumbs are what separate my species from others, therefore it's a huge part of my identity. If someone resists there phrase "rule of thumb", they're attacking me personally.
Check your privilege. Not everyone has opposable thumbs.
Used in a similar fashion in Boondock Saints.
Using this as a reputable secondary source in the OP document would not surprise me the least.
"Rule of thumb" has just joined blacklist and quantum supremacy.
If she yelled at you, please complain about her.
If she yelled at you, please complain about her.
I think you just summarized most of this list and this movement (not all! but most).
Others have called out some the silliness on this list, but honestly my biggest problem with it is that it's just so lazy, and often times flat out incorrect in its assumptions.
- "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction.
- They say the phrase "committed suicide" is problematic because it "trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions" and I'm not sure how in the world you can come to that conclusion unless you're using a completely different (and wrong) definition of "committed" as in being committed to a mental hospital.
- Every word that contains "man" or "woman" as part of it just lazily replaces it with "person." I'm sorry, but "congressperson" is never going to be a word and nobody is ever going to use it in any serious context. "Member of Congress" has been around for a couple hundred years but mention of that completely acceptable alternative.
- Nobody has ever said "landlady"
- "Latinx" is used almost exclusively by the type of person who comes up with this list in the first place.
This list reads like ChatGPT trained exclusively on social justice parody.
- "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction.
- They say the phrase "committed suicide" is problematic because it "trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions" and I'm not sure how in the world you can come to that conclusion unless you're using a completely different (and wrong) definition of "committed" as in being committed to a mental hospital.
- Every word that contains "man" or "woman" as part of it just lazily replaces it with "person." I'm sorry, but "congressperson" is never going to be a word and nobody is ever going to use it in any serious context. "Member of Congress" has been around for a couple hundred years but mention of that completely acceptable alternative.
- Nobody has ever said "landlady"
- "Latinx" is used almost exclusively by the type of person who comes up with this list in the first place.
This list reads like ChatGPT trained exclusively on social justice parody.
> Nobody has ever said "landlady"
I have heard it in exactly one place, and that place is the movie Kung-fu Hustle.
Who is throwing handles?
I have heard it in exactly one place, and that place is the movie Kung-fu Hustle.
Who is throwing handles?
She’s like a badass or something in that movie, right?
I feel vaguely like that was a sendup of a trope that is like: a landlady who kind of harries the main character but isn’t taken very seriously because she’s a woman. But that idea doesn’t resonate as much anymore (which is good!), so the sendup loses some grounding.
I feel vaguely like that was a sendup of a trope that is like: a landlady who kind of harries the main character but isn’t taken very seriously because she’s a woman. But that idea doesn’t resonate as much anymore (which is good!), so the sendup loses some grounding.
Certainly the most prominent landlady in my mind.
But I also had a landlady for several years in SF. And that's how I referred to her. I didn't think it too strange.
But I also had a landlady for several years in SF. And that's how I referred to her. I didn't think it too strange.
> - Nobody has ever said "landlady"
They have, though not nearly as often as landlord. It was way more popular in the 19th century but it seems to be making a recent comeback. [0]
[0]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=landlady%2Clan...
They have, though not nearly as often as landlord. It was way more popular in the 19th century but it seems to be making a recent comeback. [0]
[0]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=landlady%2Clan...
Devoted vs. addicted: I think they mean in the context of "Addicted to games" or "addicted to bacon" in a casual sense. Of course, they fail to even try to add context. As many have pointed out, this list is more about control over thought than over actually helping anyone.
Committed vs. died by suicide: It's the association with "committing" an act as something negative. You commit a crime, you don't commit an achievement. Again, it's a stretch and a waste of time. Whoever wrote this needs to go make sandwiches for the homeless for a while.
Committed vs. died by suicide: It's the association with "committing" an act as something negative. You commit a crime, you don't commit an achievement. Again, it's a stretch and a waste of time. Whoever wrote this needs to go make sandwiches for the homeless for a while.
> - "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction.
Err, do they mean that these words shouldn’t be used at all, or that they don’t want them used as expressions outside the correct context? Like it is not that uncommon to hear something like “I’m addicted to this new game” or “I’m addicted to that new Poke Bowl place” or whatever, that usage could be seen as trivializing and… I mean some people will disagree but it is at least a coherent position. Similar for “committed suicide” although that comes up less often (but like “I was so embarrassed I wanted to kill myself!” could clearly be seen as pretty trivializing — I think this expression is currently falling out of the lexicon for that very reason).
> Every word that contains "man" or "woman" as part of it just lazily replaces it with "person." I'm sorry, but "congressperson" is never going to be a word and nobody is ever going to use it in any serious context. "Member of Congress" has been around for a couple hundred years but mention of that completely acceptable alternative.
I think “congressperson” or “congress-member” in my head. The word congressman would typically not occur to me first. I wonder if this is a regional thing or something? I’m not that young, (30s) but I did grow up in a pretty progressive area.
> Nobody has ever said "landlady"
This one does seem a little odd to me, I’m sure “lord” has a gendered etymology but it is pretty neutral feeling in modern English, right? Maybe I’m showing some ignorance here.
Landlady is definitely a phrase that’s been used right? But it seems a little dated and weirdly gendered nowadays, IMO…
Err, do they mean that these words shouldn’t be used at all, or that they don’t want them used as expressions outside the correct context? Like it is not that uncommon to hear something like “I’m addicted to this new game” or “I’m addicted to that new Poke Bowl place” or whatever, that usage could be seen as trivializing and… I mean some people will disagree but it is at least a coherent position. Similar for “committed suicide” although that comes up less often (but like “I was so embarrassed I wanted to kill myself!” could clearly be seen as pretty trivializing — I think this expression is currently falling out of the lexicon for that very reason).
> Every word that contains "man" or "woman" as part of it just lazily replaces it with "person." I'm sorry, but "congressperson" is never going to be a word and nobody is ever going to use it in any serious context. "Member of Congress" has been around for a couple hundred years but mention of that completely acceptable alternative.
I think “congressperson” or “congress-member” in my head. The word congressman would typically not occur to me first. I wonder if this is a regional thing or something? I’m not that young, (30s) but I did grow up in a pretty progressive area.
> Nobody has ever said "landlady"
This one does seem a little odd to me, I’m sure “lord” has a gendered etymology but it is pretty neutral feeling in modern English, right? Maybe I’m showing some ignorance here.
Landlady is definitely a phrase that’s been used right? But it seems a little dated and weirdly gendered nowadays, IMO…
> "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction.
I think the page or it's authors agree with you. But you (probably) aren't addicted to video games and that's the use that trivializes real addictions. If the article isn't clear that's a different criticism that the one you're making
I think the page or it's authors agree with you. But you (probably) aren't addicted to video games and that's the use that trivializes real addictions. If the article isn't clear that's a different criticism that the one you're making
"Moron" was once considered a technical term for mental disability. Then, kids starting using it, and it became offensive.
It was replaced by "mental retardation". We all know how that term evolved in kind.
Many people now use "disabled" (including this list's suggestions), but that is now often seen replaced by "differently abled". If I were a betting man, I'd say that in 5 years even "differently abled" will be co-opted by the crude and become offensive.
It is an endless treadmill.
It was replaced by "mental retardation". We all know how that term evolved in kind.
Many people now use "disabled" (including this list's suggestions), but that is now often seen replaced by "differently abled". If I were a betting man, I'd say that in 5 years even "differently abled" will be co-opted by the crude and become offensive.
It is an endless treadmill.
A euphemism treadmill, in fact
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
Comic Doug Stanhope did a bit about the euphemism treadmill. For example, before "retarded" was a medical term doctors used the terms "moron" and "imbecile" which people co-opted to call someone that does something incredibly stupid. In turn, "retarded" ended up co-opted as well because it stuck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy_a2C7VSWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy_a2C7VSWg
What's he saying though? That connotations of words change over time? Everyone should know that. 'Retarded' used to be a medical term, now it's a 4chan term, so it needs canning.
He's arguing that any term that replaces a previous one due to its offensiveness and insensitivity will most likely become the new offensive term.
>'Retarded' used to be a medical term, now it's a 4chan term, so it needs canning.
That's exactly Doug's point. Soon enough terms like "neurodivergent" might become offensive when it's co-opted by people in general, e.g., "you're such a neurodivergent", "you're a neury", etc
>'Retarded' used to be a medical term, now it's a 4chan term, so it needs canning.
That's exactly Doug's point. Soon enough terms like "neurodivergent" might become offensive when it's co-opted by people in general, e.g., "you're such a neurodivergent", "you're a neury", etc
The George Carlin bit on shellshocked comes to mind.
For those curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
I remember joking years ago that "disabled" would become a slur, after "retard" became less and less acceptable.
I didn't think it would actually happen, but the endless treadmill is being proven again and again. I would also bet that "differently abled" is absolutely considered offensive by the end of this decade.
I didn't think it would actually happen, but the endless treadmill is being proven again and again. I would also bet that "differently abled" is absolutely considered offensive by the end of this decade.
Neurodivergent is the next one in line I think.
Another poster pointed out that “non verbal, non vocal” is actually a better burn than the one it’s replacing.
Another poster pointed out that “non verbal, non vocal” is actually a better burn than the one it’s replacing.
Or using N-word, C-word, R-word as insults.
I mean, this list already did a 180 on:
> Instead of African-American
> Consider using Black
I mean, this list already did a 180 on:
> Instead of African-American
> Consider using Black
I think you didn't stay on top of developments for 2 weeks, because the new thing is to basically call any activity "ableist".
Ableist and privileged, magic words to bring anything down.
You can also get more specific. For example, we all know that white people suck. When white people do a good thing, they're white saviors. Or center themselves. When they're quiet, it's white silence. When they get angry, white fragility. When they learn about other cultures, cultural appropriation. Even when being bloody on time for a meeting that's "whiteness".
It's a divisive, anti-progress, hateful, cynical death cult.
Ableist and privileged, magic words to bring anything down.
You can also get more specific. For example, we all know that white people suck. When white people do a good thing, they're white saviors. Or center themselves. When they're quiet, it's white silence. When they get angry, white fragility. When they learn about other cultures, cultural appropriation. Even when being bloody on time for a meeting that's "whiteness".
It's a divisive, anti-progress, hateful, cynical death cult.
>"Moron" was once considered a technical term for mental disability
Obligatory Louis CK reference:
https://youtu.be/DXtHF0WRX64?t=197
Obligatory Louis CK reference:
https://youtu.be/DXtHF0WRX64?t=197
> in 5 years even "differently abled" will be co-opted by the crude and become offensive.
I already encountered it in this way
I already encountered it in this way
I heard a theory that woke is actually a class marker of manners, indicating that someone has the time and privilege to track the constantly shifting, baroque signals of what is and is not acceptable to say during any given season. If someone were to make that case, this could be evidence in favor.
It's a decent interpretation of at least some of the phenomenon. E.g. "latinx" has become an upper middle class shibboleth with close to zero participation from the people "being protected from harm" by the neologism.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
Catherine Liu's short book Virtue Hoarders has this thesis, arguing that the class that this language is a marker of is the professional managerial class (PMC), a social class originally posited by the John and Barbara Ehrenreich in the 70s. I can't recommend the book too highly but I think it was correct in most of its observations.
> a social class originally posited by the John and Barbara Ehrenreich in the 70s
The professional managerial class was also identified and studied quite a bit earlier. James Burnham wrote about it extensively in 1941 in The Managerial Revolution, and that was based (in part) on ideas from Vilfredo Pareto in the early 1900s about "elite theory."
The professional managerial class was also identified and studied quite a bit earlier. James Burnham wrote about it extensively in 1941 in The Managerial Revolution, and that was based (in part) on ideas from Vilfredo Pareto in the early 1900s about "elite theory."
I always considered it ageist. Gen-X and above who have been using terms like "guys" since they were subversive are now targeted and made unwelcome. Younger "folks" meanwhile are fresh from the birth place of PC terminology--American universities--and therefore on the level by default.
That's an interesting perspective. This ageism makes me think of elderly people (both Black and white) in the 80s who could not seem to stop using the term "colored" to refer to Black people. It was the polite term when they were young and it was hard for them to adjust to Black, which had been up to then an outrageously rude term. I just dismissed them as racist, but thinking back, the people who used it otherwise expressed no animosity in their hearts. Ironic that things have come full circle today and the polite term is "people of color".
To be fair to the woke, sincerely, their hearts really are in the right place generally speaking.They are trying out the ancient idea that language changes thought, and if people speak only correctly they will think only correctly. Of course, it never has worked, will never work, and introduces bad unintended consequences, but the motivation is kind at core.
To be fair to the woke, sincerely, their hearts really are in the right place generally speaking.They are trying out the ancient idea that language changes thought, and if people speak only correctly they will think only correctly. Of course, it never has worked, will never work, and introduces bad unintended consequences, but the motivation is kind at core.
I really don’t think kindness is the root of this sort of thing. I’ve had the displeasure of working with folks in the past that push this sort of thing and I could hardly describe any of them as kind people, quite the contrary.
You know, we should introduce woke battles: they are a mix of public debates and rap battles. Participants take turns to berate each other and demonstrate wokeness. The jury watch the debate closely and try to get offended.
Nah. Each round should have the other side of the rap battle explain how they've been personally discriminated against by the elevated wokeness of the previous response.
It's maybe a marker of the (western) petit bourgeois. Upper class put up with it less.
Are humans no longer capable of recognizing context? How is "he mastered the material in the lecture" invoking centuries of internalized slavery and causing harm in the process?
It’s not. What we are witnessing is the last gasp of an unproductive class of hall monitors and moral busybodies trying to control everyone else and appear productive and enlightened while doing it.
As an elder millennial, it really doesn’t seem like a last gasp. These academic attempts are perfect for conspicuous signalling at no cost and such signals usually get repeated by my generation and zoomers. What I’m trying to say is that based on the past few years it seems these busybodies are winning.
I agree with this point. If my mortgage depended on writing this kind of content 40 hours a week, believe me, I would crank out so much harm reduction gobledygook that you would have no chance due to volume alone. And now that ChatGPT is around, I have a practically infinite supply of starter content to expand on.
There's a fundamental asymmetry at work here: the DEI bureaucrats have all of the time and incentives in the world to make more of this and ram it through the right channels. This is their paycheck. Supporting this is perceived as virtuous in many circles regardless of validity. And who is pushing back? Not anybody in a position where their opinion would matter. Instead all we get is a WSJ article and a few dozen anonymous posters on web boards. Doesn't bode well.
Lots of analogies here with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
There's a fundamental asymmetry at work here: the DEI bureaucrats have all of the time and incentives in the world to make more of this and ram it through the right channels. This is their paycheck. Supporting this is perceived as virtuous in many circles regardless of validity. And who is pushing back? Not anybody in a position where their opinion would matter. Instead all we get is a WSJ article and a few dozen anonymous posters on web boards. Doesn't bode well.
Lots of analogies here with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
The collapse of media companies disagrees.
People are tired of openly racist organizations lecturing everyone else about how racism is such a problem — such as Harvard who has been griping for a decade… and argued they have a right to be racist to Asians in October.
As a Millennial, everyone I know is focused on the economy and over the whole “woke”.
People are tired of openly racist organizations lecturing everyone else about how racism is such a problem — such as Harvard who has been griping for a decade… and argued they have a right to be racist to Asians in October.
As a Millennial, everyone I know is focused on the economy and over the whole “woke”.
I often suspect the person people coming up with these lists are white woke people, more so than the people groups supposedly offended by these terms.
I imagine it's mostly white woke people coming up with these lists. It's their attempt to "help", but at the same time reinforce their status.
Tangential to this topic, the New Yorker did an article on Clarance Thomas' views on race. He used to align with radical black nationalism before his views grew more conservative. It's a very interesting article.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-rad...
These particular quotes stuck with me: "Thomas came to believe that, for the white liberal, offering help to black people was a way to express the combined privileges of race and class...The second way affirmative action continues white supremacy is by elevating whites to the status of benefactors, doling out scarce privileges to those black people they deem worthy...Put simply, Thomas believes that affirmative action is a white program for white people."
Tangential to this topic, the New Yorker did an article on Clarance Thomas' views on race. He used to align with radical black nationalism before his views grew more conservative. It's a very interesting article.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-rad...
These particular quotes stuck with me: "Thomas came to believe that, for the white liberal, offering help to black people was a way to express the combined privileges of race and class...The second way affirmative action continues white supremacy is by elevating whites to the status of benefactors, doling out scarce privileges to those black people they deem worthy...Put simply, Thomas believes that affirmative action is a white program for white people."
I think this is the crux of the issue. Modern media makes an art of decontextualization, to the point where most of us experience the world as a series of disconnected narratives emerging from the ether only to dissipate just as quickly as they come. In this milieu the quixotic and paradoxical attempt to perfect language in the service of justice seems like a reasonable, plausible, and achievable goal.
Moreso, how the hell would they call MSc graduates?
> Instead of 'handicap parking', use 'accessible parking'
This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped!
This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap' is offensive, so we come up with a new label. As if agonizing over what to label handicapped people makes their condition any better.
This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped!
This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap' is offensive, so we come up with a new label. As if agonizing over what to label handicapped people makes their condition any better.
It is hilariously backwards.
The most common cases of accessibility refer to accommodations made for deaf and blind people within day-2-day interfaces. Guess which 2 have no need for accessible parking ? -> Deaf and blind people.
We should start harvesting George Carlin's grave. It could power the entire world with how fast he's turning in it.
The most common cases of accessibility refer to accommodations made for deaf and blind people within day-2-day interfaces. Guess which 2 have no need for accessible parking ? -> Deaf and blind people.
We should start harvesting George Carlin's grave. It could power the entire world with how fast he's turning in it.
As opposed to inaccessible parking it is very clear: you can reach it. The fact that a handicapped person cannot reach it seems irrelevant.
Totally bonkers.
Totally bonkers.
The issue here is that a lot of people who need a spot close to the door are not "handicapped." The obvious example would be someone gimping around in an ankle cast. You wouldn't, they wouldn't, and their doctors would not say they are "handicapped." They don't have "handicap" concerns, but they certainly have "accessibility" concerns.
Sure, I can see how in certain circumstances, the word "handicapped" is not the optimal descriptor. I still think "accessibility" is bad, but maybe "disability parking" covers your scenario better.
This is the nature of language. Any one word or image you use to represent something necessarily loses some nuance.
Not everyone who needs a handicapped spot is in a wheelchair, but the wheelchair symbol is a clear, obvious way to communicate that a spot is for handicapped people.
You're not supposed to bring all your brothers and sisters into the "family" restroom with you. Most people can look beyond the literal words on a sign and comprehend the meaning that is being conveyed.
The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language. The assertion that using the phrase "handicapped parking" is _harmful_ is absurd.
This is the nature of language. Any one word or image you use to represent something necessarily loses some nuance.
Not everyone who needs a handicapped spot is in a wheelchair, but the wheelchair symbol is a clear, obvious way to communicate that a spot is for handicapped people.
You're not supposed to bring all your brothers and sisters into the "family" restroom with you. Most people can look beyond the literal words on a sign and comprehend the meaning that is being conveyed.
The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language. The assertion that using the phrase "handicapped parking" is _harmful_ is absurd.
> I still think "accessibility" is bad, but maybe "disability parking" covers your scenario better.
It doesn't. A guy in an ankle cast with a fracture is neither "handicapped" nor "disabled." However, he does have a problem involving "access," hence the usefulness of a term like "accessibility."
> The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language.
Right, but your understandable reaction to that agenda is, in my view, blinding you to the fact that they accidentally snuck in a good recommendation and "accessible" is actually an improvement. Unlike the authors of the Stanford list I'm not going to castigate you for your disagreement, but I really think 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. is simply untrue.
It doesn't. A guy in an ankle cast with a fracture is neither "handicapped" nor "disabled." However, he does have a problem involving "access," hence the usefulness of a term like "accessibility."
> The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language.
Right, but your understandable reaction to that agenda is, in my view, blinding you to the fact that they accidentally snuck in a good recommendation and "accessible" is actually an improvement. Unlike the authors of the Stanford list I'm not going to castigate you for your disagreement, but I really think 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. is simply untrue.
[deleted]
I disagree strongly. It's entirely possible to be temporarily handicapped as the result of some kind of injury. There's a reason you can get temporary handicap parking permits.
This thread started a day ago, but only had about an hour on the front page. Reposts keep appearing, so there is obviously an appetite for this story. Instead of a duplicate/split discussion, I've re-upped the original thread and merged the others hither.
If you're going to comment, please make sure you're up on the site guidelines and that your comment is within them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you're going to comment, please make sure you're up on the site guidelines and that your comment is within them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I suspect the appetite has something to do with how ridiculous this whole thing is. Having a meaningful discussion about this is going to be very hard without occasionally bursting out in laughter.
Some of these suggestions are so euphemistic I wouldn't necessarily know what someone using them is trying to say... Plenty of cases where the client isn't actually the user, plenty of cases where saying something is "surprising" doesn't give the same subtext as saying something is "insane..." and that's just scratching the surface. GF is 100% Mexican descent, first gen US citizen, w/ advanced degree and she despises Latinx as a term (can't even pronounce it in Spanish she says).
I'll never forget how a Mexican on Twitter replied to those who use "Latinx": "Fuck off, pendejx."
Your girlfriend's attitude generally reflects those of Hispanics in the US, most of whom prefer to be referred to as "Hispanic". The rationale behind Latinx is that it covers both Latino and Latina, while also acknowledging the trans/nonbinary/genderqueer contingent. But I think the term "Hispanic" covers everybody as well...
Your girlfriend's attitude generally reflects those of Hispanics in the US, most of whom prefer to be referred to as "Hispanic". The rationale behind Latinx is that it covers both Latino and Latina, while also acknowledging the trans/nonbinary/genderqueer contingent. But I think the term "Hispanic" covers everybody as well...
"Latine" (with a long e) or just "Latin" works fairly well in the language if one absolutely must avoid the collective-o ending, as in "Latine intelligente." Still a tad awkward, but leagues better than "Latinx", which is such a blatant violation of Spanish phonotactics and aesthetics that it bugs me, a white AF grigo.
"Latinx" was so obviously created by an English-primary speaker.
"Latinx" was so obviously created by an English-primary speaker.
Here's my suggestion: if you're an English speaker just say "Latin". Don't use any gendered suffix. It's literally the same word as "Latino" but in English. You don't call Italians "Italianx" or "Italiane" right? You just say "Italian". In context, nobody is going to mix up a conversation about modern Latin people and the ancient world.
I think that is kind of the point. The out-of-place x, by its very incongruousness, calls attention to and centers the LGBTQ constituent. You see it even with English words of Germanic origin, like spelling "folks" as "folx" or "women" as "womxn".
Nitpick: This may be true of “folx” and “Latinx”, but “womxn” (despite sometimes-similar connotations) seems to have originated as a way to highlight/signal feminism, and has only acquired queer connotations recently.
I'm aware of the form "womyn" from the 90s, but "womxn" appears to be more recent, and differentiated from "womyn" by its explicit inclusion of trans women and woman-like nonbinary people.
Edit: Wikipedia traces "womxn" back to the 1970s, but it seems unlike "womyn" it didn't get much currency in ordinary feminist usage, only finding purchase when the queer angle was added.
Edit: Wikipedia traces "womxn" back to the 1970s, but it seems unlike "womyn" it didn't get much currency in ordinary feminist usage, only finding purchase when the queer angle was added.
Hispanic is offensive because it focuses on the subjugation of the indigenous people by the Spanish Empire.
Latinx is much better. It (1) avoids acknowledging that Spain was once a world power, (2) intentionally introduces an unwanted misspelling of a common Spanish word that accentuates the Castilian lisp (3) intentionally misgenders the vast majority of people from those regions and (4) denies the existence of non-European South American languages and cultures.
Latinx is much better. It (1) avoids acknowledging that Spain was once a world power, (2) intentionally introduces an unwanted misspelling of a common Spanish word that accentuates the Castilian lisp (3) intentionally misgenders the vast majority of people from those regions and (4) denies the existence of non-European South American languages and cultures.
> Hispanic is offensive because it focuses on the subjugation of the indigenous people by the Spanish Empire.
Let’s rewind 900 more years to the 5th/6th century and play madlibs: “English (demonym) is offensive because it focuses on the subjugation of the Romano-British people by the Angles.” Does this example still fit, or is it too far back in history to be offensive?
Let’s rewind 900 more years to the 5th/6th century and play madlibs: “English (demonym) is offensive because it focuses on the subjugation of the Romano-British people by the Angles.” Does this example still fit, or is it too far back in history to be offensive?
Gemany^W Allemagne^W Tyskland^W Saksa^W Németország^W Deutschland would like a word.
> avoids acknowledging that Spain was once a world power
As opposed to... checks notes the Holy Roman Empire?
> (2) intentionally introduces an unwanted misspelling of a common Spanish word that accentuates the Castilian lisp
That's just how the linguistics do. This is the same drivel that tries to argue chop chop and long time no see are somehow offensive, instead of just loanphrases from Chinese pidjin.
> (3) intentionally misgenders the vast majority of people from those regions
No, again this demonstrates a profound ignorance of how language actually works in practice. -o does not imply "default male" in Spanish. There's tomes on this stuff. Grammatical gender is not social gender. A mesa doesn't identify as female.
> (4) denies the existence of non-European South American languages and cultures.
Again, Latin/[aoex]?/ is better in this regard how exactly?
As opposed to... checks notes the Holy Roman Empire?
> (2) intentionally introduces an unwanted misspelling of a common Spanish word that accentuates the Castilian lisp
That's just how the linguistics do. This is the same drivel that tries to argue chop chop and long time no see are somehow offensive, instead of just loanphrases from Chinese pidjin.
> (3) intentionally misgenders the vast majority of people from those regions
No, again this demonstrates a profound ignorance of how language actually works in practice. -o does not imply "default male" in Spanish. There's tomes on this stuff. Grammatical gender is not social gender. A mesa doesn't identify as female.
> (4) denies the existence of non-European South American languages and cultures.
Again, Latin/[aoex]?/ is better in this regard how exactly?
[deleted]
Except for the part that the people being named speak a dialect of Spanish, not Latin.
So as soon as you have to discuss what they speak, you're bringing in Spain.
So as soon as you have to discuss what they speak, you're bringing in Spain.
> The rationale behind Latinx is that it covers both Latino and Latina
The real rationale is one of imperialism: everyone should use a non gendered language. Like English, things would be so much more simple if everyone used English.
So going for latinx to erase part of a gendered language is a sneaky first attack on this language.
The real rationale is one of imperialism: everyone should use a non gendered language. Like English, things would be so much more simple if everyone used English.
So going for latinx to erase part of a gendered language is a sneaky first attack on this language.
> GF is 100% Mexican descent, first gen US citizen, w/ advanced degree and she despises Latinx as a term (can't even pronounce it in Spanish she says).
I mean, the whole """Latinx""" thing is just non Latino whites replacing a Spanish word (Latino) with an English word, then telling the demographic it refers to to use this English word to refer to themselves
I have no idea how this dynamic doesn't manage to piss off more people
I mean, the whole """Latinx""" thing is just non Latino whites replacing a Spanish word (Latino) with an English word, then telling the demographic it refers to to use this English word to refer to themselves
I have no idea how this dynamic doesn't manage to piss off more people
It does but it's the privileged upper class mainly white women pushing it. You think randoms like me have any say in that matter? At best you get treated like a dog with a lecture of internalized racism and misogyny or some other insanity for not buying into their bs.
Spanish words ending in "o" are, by default, inclusive. For centuries, it has been a linguistic idiom (not just in Spanish) that references to mixed-sex groups of people are done in the masculine. Women understood this perfectly and were not slighted by the custom, because it would not lead to an assumption that a group of people were homogeneously male or an assumption that women were "lesser" than men or excluded from the conversation. If a group of people is uniformly female then the feminine declensions can be used, and fluent speakers will easily shift from one to the other based on group composition.
It's very much the same sort of situation that we've used words like "mankind" and "peace on Earth, good will towards men" and women have always understood that "men" included them implicitly. It's only recently that women have chosen to take linguistic offense and rise up and complicate the language in search of manufactured equity.
It's very much the same sort of situation that we've used words like "mankind" and "peace on Earth, good will towards men" and women have always understood that "men" included them implicitly. It's only recently that women have chosen to take linguistic offense and rise up and complicate the language in search of manufactured equity.
I don't understand why Latino would be problematic but actor wouldn't
When it comes to technical writing, many of these replacements just wont work. Take "user" for example which they want you to replace with "client", so "system user" will turn into "system client" which would not work because "clients" are something else entirely in programming.
Another one is "man-in-the-middle" which is often used to describe MITM attacks. Sure "person in the middle attack" might de-gender the phrase, but everyone know the MITM acronym and putting PITM instead would only confuse a reader.
And that last one is "submit" should be changed to "process", well those things are totally different when talking about a server that you "submit" things to and that then "processes" the thing.
Another one is "man-in-the-middle" which is often used to describe MITM attacks. Sure "person in the middle attack" might de-gender the phrase, but everyone know the MITM acronym and putting PITM instead would only confuse a reader.
And that last one is "submit" should be changed to "process", well those things are totally different when talking about a server that you "submit" things to and that then "processes" the thing.
Tells you all you need to know about the actual technical background of the person writing this.
My guess is all they have is an arts degree in gender studies.
My guess is all they have is an arts degree in gender studies.
Oh wow there was "latinx" there. People from Latin America take a lot of umbrage at having this little exonym pushed on us, believe me. It feels like colonialism.
The term "Hispanic" is already very broad to refer to people from a large collection of polities with several cultural spheres in it, but at least the concept of "hispanoamérica" exists in it, and the word isn't a novel take on the Spanish language coming from the US.
The term "Hispanic" is already very broad to refer to people from a large collection of polities with several cultural spheres in it, but at least the concept of "hispanoamérica" exists in it, and the word isn't a novel take on the Spanish language coming from the US.
The best example of how all of this is just a huge virtue signaling effort. I don't want to be called latinx and it's not a bunch of yankees feeling guilty of their government who's going to choose what to call us. It's the most colonial term I've seen from these types and it's unpronounceable in either Spanish or Portuguese. A juice of wokism.
Humor may apply here since the best way to kill this is to pronounce it la-tinks instead of Latin X. My parents are from Central America so feel free to say a latinks person told you it's pronounced that way.
I prefer lantinucks. There was also a short-lived trend of using 'x' in some parts of South America, it kind of died down in Chile as people decided to roll back to more boring centrist positions after a period of radicalization, and priorities shifted lower in the pyramid of needs during an economic crisis and a crime wave.
According to some random commenter I saw on HN last week, BIPOC is similarly questionable.
I will make an effort to use whatever term people prefer, but it's impossible to know which that is when the loudest voices don't agree.
I will make an effort to use whatever term people prefer, but it's impossible to know which that is when the loudest voices don't agree.
You speak for all latin americans?
People at the last place I worked (US) wanted to. When I brought up that people in Latin America aren't really on-board with the whole latinx thing, the pushback I got boiled down to "they shouldn't be using gendered language". Yeah. I didn't want to get into a whole "that's mighty colonial of you" debate. It was kind of a weird place to work.
Do the American "lantinx" and their "allies" at fancy Universities do?
> People from Latin America take a lot of umbrage at having this little exonym pushed on us
Don't.
It's just an effing word.
Don't.
It's just an effing word.
>retard (n) person with a cognitive disability, person with autism, neurodivergent person
Well it's great that Stanford thinks "Person with Autism" is synonymous with "Retard".
Given the specific target audience of this IT department, the nomenclature "Person with Autism" is especially controversial and likely to cause offence and the phrasing "Autistic Person" would be preferable (See [1] for more details). So the language they're suggesting in a reference is a poor choice.
The person who authored this really hasn't meaningfully consulted with the relevant groups in question enough. They would be well served reading the better style guides which already exist such as [1] which by comparison give actually useful guidance which evidently Stanford failed to find during its research [2]. Notice how this guide, which only covers one section of what Stanford was trying to cover, is longer than Stanford's entire guide. Notice also how this is presented as a GUIDE, as suggestions, rather than simply decrying certain terms as harmful.
I will note that this appears to be an internal IT department effort, so I would try to keep into context this is likely the work of some busybody who likely had no reason to anticipate international social media scrutiny. I do have to admit though, this effort simply isn't well executed enough to be advisable, and the tone is way too hardline.
[1] https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#Autism [2] https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/ehli#footnote-3
Well it's great that Stanford thinks "Person with Autism" is synonymous with "Retard".
Given the specific target audience of this IT department, the nomenclature "Person with Autism" is especially controversial and likely to cause offence and the phrasing "Autistic Person" would be preferable (See [1] for more details). So the language they're suggesting in a reference is a poor choice.
The person who authored this really hasn't meaningfully consulted with the relevant groups in question enough. They would be well served reading the better style guides which already exist such as [1] which by comparison give actually useful guidance which evidently Stanford failed to find during its research [2]. Notice how this guide, which only covers one section of what Stanford was trying to cover, is longer than Stanford's entire guide. Notice also how this is presented as a GUIDE, as suggestions, rather than simply decrying certain terms as harmful.
I will note that this appears to be an internal IT department effort, so I would try to keep into context this is likely the work of some busybody who likely had no reason to anticipate international social media scrutiny. I do have to admit though, this effort simply isn't well executed enough to be advisable, and the tone is way too hardline.
[1] https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#Autism [2] https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/ehli#footnote-3
Everyone should read Musa al-Gharbi’s analysis of the purpose of these kinds of lists. It’s written in the context of racism and “micro aggressions” but is more broadly applicable: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
To use one of the examples, Filipinos didn’t get together and campaign to eliminate “the Philippine Islands” from the lexicon. A bunch of white Americans—the people who run Stanford—did that, in order to increase their own power. Maybe some Filipinos assimilated into the white power structure of Stanford contributed, but in no way does that imply any organic demand by Filipino Americans in general.
To use one of the examples, Filipinos didn’t get together and campaign to eliminate “the Philippine Islands” from the lexicon. A bunch of white Americans—the people who run Stanford—did that, in order to increase their own power. Maybe some Filipinos assimilated into the white power structure of Stanford contributed, but in no way does that imply any organic demand by Filipino Americans in general.
Is this initiative being evaluated for inclusivity of people with language processing conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, to make sure it doesn't cause discriminatory strain on these folks?
As one of those people, no, probably not. At best, they consulted the loudest few autistic p... people with autism they could find, and decided that represented all of us. (I'm in a couple of other minority groups, it's a common pattern.)
Specifically, I'm the "parse everything hyperliterally unless I consciously try not to" type, which means I do not see the problem with many of these, and just have to remember a list of words I can't use professionally.
Amusingly, most of the list of words I'd always been told I couldn't use professionally get used all the fucking time.
Specifically, I'm the "parse everything hyperliterally unless I consciously try not to" type, which means I do not see the problem with many of these, and just have to remember a list of words I can't use professionally.
Amusingly, most of the list of words I'd always been told I couldn't use professionally get used all the fucking time.
Worse than that, the list itself perpetuates the idea that autism is associated with retardation.
Can you explain this a bit more or give an example? I'm curious about this.
It is like requiring people to jog at the job, and then say that being wheelchair bound isn't an excuse to skip the jogging exercise. Some people have a much harder time with abstractions and words, they have learned the ones on the left, remapping all of that to the words on the right is a ton of work and maybe some of them will never manage to do it.
That's really insightful!
This is absolute insanity - I do not mean surprising/wild, I mean the people/organizations who have curated this page of random innocuous words and contexts have completely lost touch with reality and should be relieved of any serious positions in higher learning.
You can't use the word brave anymore? What in the hell is going on with academics?
You can't use the word brave anymore? What in the hell is going on with academics?
Not everyone who looks like an adult is an adult mentally. Some get stuck in college, some in high school, some in kindergarten. I believe that most of the woke types are the kindergarten type: they are doing the right thing, but in their local coordinate system.
Some of these seem like legitimate improvements. A lot are inconsequential (e.g. "homeless person" vs "a person without a home"). But some are genuinely degrading our ability to communicate. E.g. "paraplegic" and "quadriplegic" should both be replaced with: "person with a spinal cord injury, person who is paralyzed" But this lacks the old term that distinguished paralysis below the waist with paralysis below the neck. A non-powered wheelchair is only going to help the former. Not to mention "person with a spinal cord injury severing the nerves to their legs, but not their arms" is a bit of a mouthful. If only there were a pair of words, perhaps using the roots to denote 2 and 4, that could convey these two things more concisely...
It feels like this whole list was compiled by one or very few people with no actual expertise.
Why don't they ever consult the people about what words should make it on the list? I bet you most of the terms on that list are not even found offensive by those who they allegedly describe.
Why don't they ever consult the people about what words should make it on the list? I bet you most of the terms on that list are not even found offensive by those who they allegedly describe.
[deleted]
I wholeheartedly support the elimination of harmful languages. There's just no good reason these days for anyone to use C++.
> not referring to a specific standard of C++
This is a violation and implies that all of the C++ language is the same which may be offensive to users of a specific standard such as ISO/IEC 14882:2017. Referring to C++ generically ignores any differences between specifications.
Instead, referring to a specific standard, for example, C++11 is more appropriate to members of the ISO/IEC 14882 community.
This is a violation and implies that all of the C++ language is the same which may be offensive to users of a specific standard such as ISO/IEC 14882:2017. Referring to C++ generically ignores any differences between specifications.
Instead, referring to a specific standard, for example, C++11 is more appropriate to members of the ISO/IEC 14882 community.
Consider writing "C++1x" or "C++2x" instead.
You forgot the trigger warning! There are people in the C++ culture that would be highly offended by such language. And who wants to see a grey beard cry silent tears while investigating yet another core dump?
Note: I am a member of the C++ community and therefore have the credentials necessary to make fun of my culture. If you make fun of the C++ culture without being part of it then you are clearly in violation of new speak and a woke certified person will try to cancel you.
Note: I am a member of the C++ community and therefore have the credentials necessary to make fun of my culture. If you make fun of the C++ culture without being part of it then you are clearly in violation of new speak and a woke certified person will try to cancel you.
>You forgot the trigger warning!
Bro, don't use that phrase.
"The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person."
Consider using "content note".
Ahh your comment triggered me! And you forgot the “content note”!
We were always at war with C++
The proper term is double-plus-C
…then what is double-plus-un-C? A lisp? (and is “lisp” problematic?)
Violation. Using the term “we” implies agreement among all present.
correct. only big brother must agree.
This got dark quick:
"basket case" Originally referred to one who has lost all four limbs and therefore needed to be carried around in a basket.
I've only heard of basket case from the context of barely ridable motorcycle in a constant state of repair with its random parts in a basket.
I wish it was my job to make this sort of document. I'd make up all sorts of crazy backstories for slang no one has ever heard of.
I've only heard of basket case from the context of barely ridable motorcycle in a constant state of repair with its random parts in a basket.
I wish it was my job to make this sort of document. I'd make up all sorts of crazy backstories for slang no one has ever heard of.
I didn't know that. And now that I do know it, I feel harmed.
I always thought it came from insane asylums using basket weaving as an activity/therapy.
Same with me when I was a teen and all my friends had motorcycles, several ending up being basket cases.
I only know it thanks to the Green Day song of the same name.
I feel like someone that had no limbs would still be too heavy to carry around in a basket. What is the weight of a delimbed torso?
It varies by person. A quick search of body weight percentage is about 4-5% per arm and 16-17% per leg. For a 150 lb while intact man that would be about 70ish to 80ish pounds. Baskets may be carried by multiple people or dragged though.
Apparently according to one source the basket case origin was a result of rumor telephone and loss of context. https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/08/basket-case.html
Apparently according to one source the basket case origin was a result of rumor telephone and loss of context. https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/08/basket-case.html
Jonathan Haidt's "Two incompatible sacred values in American universities"[1] seems particularly relevant here. He argues (among other things) that modern universities are undergoing a truth/social justice schism, and that attempting to advance both inevitably perverts both.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
Which is an unfortunate state of affairs. But I believe he is right. Given this schism, he sees the way to proceed forward is likely by creating a separation. Similar to what we already have today with the separation of religious universities from secular universities. We likely will need to have social-justice universities. Religious universities continue with their core values of God, faith, and devotion. Social justice universities can operate under their own diversity, equity, and inclusion values. And secular universities and return to their values that we all used to think were good and noble until yesterday, which are equality, fairness, and meritocracy.
A discussion between Niall Ferguson and Lex Fridman [1] captures the first signs of this new separation. The discuss the introduction of a new university coming to Austin.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glz9lKobyZY
A discussion between Niall Ferguson and Lex Fridman [1] captures the first signs of this new separation. The discuss the introduction of a new university coming to Austin.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glz9lKobyZY
The inclusion of "Hispanic => Latinx" is staggering because:
- The vast majority of Hispanic people don't like "Latinx"
- "Latinx" was invented to avoid gendered words like "Latino", and "Hispanic" isn't gendered
- It's listed under "imprecise language", but "Latinx" isn't any more precise.
It's so ironic that "colonialism" has now come to mean anything progressive academics don't like, but telling a minority group what they must call themselves because "we know what's best for you" is considered totally fine.
- The vast majority of Hispanic people don't like "Latinx"
- "Latinx" was invented to avoid gendered words like "Latino", and "Hispanic" isn't gendered
- It's listed under "imprecise language", but "Latinx" isn't any more precise.
It's so ironic that "colonialism" has now come to mean anything progressive academics don't like, but telling a minority group what they must call themselves because "we know what's best for you" is considered totally fine.
> - The vast majority of Hispanic people don't like "Latinx"
It's worse than that. The majority of Hispanic people (around 75%) haven't even heard of it [1]. Only about 3% use it. Even among the demographic that it has the most recognition in (ages 18-29) only 42% of heard of it, and only 7% use it.
Many also find it offensive [2].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin...
It's worse than that. The majority of Hispanic people (around 75%) haven't even heard of it [1]. Only about 3% use it. Even among the demographic that it has the most recognition in (ages 18-29) only 42% of heard of it, and only 7% use it.
Many also find it offensive [2].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin...
The kicker for me is if we want to anglicize Spanish because we know better than them... we could just say Latin! It's already a word! But it doesn't come with ingroup signaling and so here we are..
When you read Latinx in Spanish it reads as "Latín Equis".
"Equis" is a word we use when talking about something or someone irrelevant. Like the x in an algebra formula.
https://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=equ...
"Equis" is a word we use when talking about something or someone irrelevant. Like the x in an algebra formula.
https://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=equ...
Wait, what does that mean wrt the Dos Equis beer then? Is the most interesting man in the world actually irrelevant?
I think you meant most interesting person in the world.
Geez.
Geez.
TIL The beer was first named Siglo XX which stands for 20th century. The name Dos Equis later came about from the roman numeral for twenty, which is XX.
Right?!
Kublai was on this train 700 years ago: https://youtu.be/FJUueJzLr54?t=169
Kublai was on this train 700 years ago: https://youtu.be/FJUueJzLr54?t=169
In my understanding “Latin” also includes people from Latin Europe, (France, Italy, Spain, etc.), so it’s a bit less precise.
Also note that Latino is a Spanish word, Latinx is obviously an English word. So we have non Latino white people telling Latinos to use an English word to refer to themselves
Definitely no colonial undertone to this dynamic whatsoever
Definitely no colonial undertone to this dynamic whatsoever
Latinx is not even an English word, it is a made-up word. It is not language evolution but an attempt at language revolution which fortunately seems to have failed thus far. May it keep on failing and may it - and the multitude of other attempts - serve as a warning that Newspeak better remain in the dystopic novels from which it often seems to originate.
Worth noting that Latinos are themselves colonizers (well, at least of mixed ancestry). Latinx is still stupid and condescending, but framing it as colonialism is a bit reductive.
In the early 1800s my Latin American country still had separate towns for different ethnicities, but today most of us are of mixed ancestry.
Does the modern definition of colonizer include mixed ancestry descendants too?
Does the modern definition of colonizer include mixed ancestry descendants too?
New Hispanic rule: you can't use "LatinX" unless you agree to be called "GringX". You can try to impose something if you accept another random imposition in return, equivalent exchange style.
BTW, GringX is pronounced as GriguEquis.
BTW, GringX is pronounced as GriguEquis.
The thing is though, in Spanish, the masculine form of a noun already also takes the duty of neuter form. E.g. “Latinos” already refers to a general group of people, regardless of gender. It doesn’t mean a group of only men.
It doesn't matter to these sorts of people. "Guys" is similarily in generic use in English and I've seen mods of an ostensibly inclusive space immediately get on the case of a newcomer who just said "hey guys" as a greeting on arriving to a Discord server.
Furthermore, Hispanic != Latino (or even Latinx)
Specifically, Hispanic relates to Spain and the Spanish speaking world, whereas Latino indicates Latin America which includes Brazil, but not Portugal.
Specifically, Hispanic relates to Spain and the Spanish speaking world, whereas Latino indicates Latin America which includes Brazil, but not Portugal.
In the context of US immigrant groups they’re almost the same, as there are huge amounts of Mexicans, Central Americans, Cubans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and their descendants, but relatively few people from Spain, Portugal, or Brazil.
Argentina, for example, has a huge population of those from Italy. Brazil from Portugal, Mexico and central America from Spain. This is why you generally don't want to call an Argentine or Brazilian "Hispanic".
My guess as to why we call the continent "Latin America" is because for a long time Argentina dominated, being one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world, even giving birth to the expression "As rich as an Argentine". It is is still very important even today, but I don't want to get my Brazilian friends upset with me.
My guess as to why we call the continent "Latin America" is because for a long time Argentina dominated, being one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world, even giving birth to the expression "As rich as an Argentine". It is is still very important even today, but I don't want to get my Brazilian friends upset with me.
In order to interpret this stuff correctly you have to understand that we’re talking about ethnic/cultural groups in the US, not in Latin America.
There are not many Argentines in the US, so the distinction rarely comes up.
There are not many Argentines in the US, so the distinction rarely comes up.
If you want to know why, in the US, we call someone an "X-American", whether that is a German-American, Latin-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, then you need to know where these terms come from. Words always have a historical, rather than a logical, explanation.
[deleted]
I heard a member of the Lantinx community say they hate the term Latinx because X literally difficult to say in Spanish lol, it’s like Latin-ehkess not latin-ex
We hate it because it's colonialist, patronizing and makes no sense within our linguistic roots.
Excuse my ignorance but let me treat this thread as a safe space:
should I prefer the use of the term "pendejex" to be gender inclusive in Spanish?
should I prefer the use of the term "pendejex" to be gender inclusive in Spanish?
> to be gender inclusive in Spanish?
Just look for a different term that is already gender inclusive. Maybe one day us Spanish speakers will agree on gender-inclusive inflections, but currently -e is not really having any traction outside dedicated LGBT circles, and -x or -ex even less. I admit I hesitate to speak to the odd person expecting -e and I'm supposed to benefit from it catching on!
Grammatical gender just sits in a similar position to closed class words: you can't just add new gendered inflections to a language and expect speakers to still be able to speak it without effort, specially when it propagates to adjectives through linguistic agreement. Imagine if someone asked you to use tay instead of singular the or something similar.
I can't comment on pendejo/a as it isn't part of my dialect, so I'm not sure what would be equivalent with similar nuance, but I doubt anyone cares about being inclusive when insulting.
Just look for a different term that is already gender inclusive. Maybe one day us Spanish speakers will agree on gender-inclusive inflections, but currently -e is not really having any traction outside dedicated LGBT circles, and -x or -ex even less. I admit I hesitate to speak to the odd person expecting -e and I'm supposed to benefit from it catching on!
Grammatical gender just sits in a similar position to closed class words: you can't just add new gendered inflections to a language and expect speakers to still be able to speak it without effort, specially when it propagates to adjectives through linguistic agreement. Imagine if someone asked you to use tay instead of singular the or something similar.
I can't comment on pendejo/a as it isn't part of my dialect, so I'm not sure what would be equivalent with similar nuance, but I doubt anyone cares about being inclusive when insulting.
Honestly, most people (including me) don't care about gender neutrality in the latino community. In any case, pendeje is the correct way to write it and pronounce it.
X is read as "Equis". And Equis is a word some Latin American countries used as a synonym for irrelevant/whatever/not important.
Lol, ya my friend said Latinx is dumb as hell, said it’s even hard to say (he’s Mexican)
I've seen Latinx used by US universities and Fortune 500 companies, but not really used by the people I know. It may be different in more affluent or academic circles though.
Any time I see a word abused with an -x suffix, I file it in the same mental bucket as the people who stylized their IRC nicks like xXDeSTRoYeRXx.
[deleted]
Anecdotally, the vast majority of Latinos I know hate the term as a virtue signal purity test invented by academics expressing guilt for their whiteness.
> OCD
Maybe they should ask actual OCD sufferers whether the term offends them when used to mean “detail oriented” because if they had asked me, a bona fide obsessive-compulsive patient, I would have responded with “meh.” My OCD has caused me untold misery, wrecked relationships, and made work difficult, but we all have a subtle sense about when people mean us harm or are just using a term as a shortcut. Almost never is “OCD” meant to cause personal distress, nor should it.
Maybe they should ask actual OCD sufferers whether the term offends them when used to mean “detail oriented” because if they had asked me, a bona fide obsessive-compulsive patient, I would have responded with “meh.” My OCD has caused me untold misery, wrecked relationships, and made work difficult, but we all have a subtle sense about when people mean us harm or are just using a term as a shortcut. Almost never is “OCD” meant to cause personal distress, nor should it.
And your experience is reflective of all folks who have OCD? I can absolutely imagine someone being pretty upset by seeing how casually "oh I'm just OCD" gets tossed around.
I'm queer, I would never presume to say that another queer person's challenges or trauma were the same as mine.
I'm queer, I would never presume to say that another queer person's challenges or trauma were the same as mine.
> I can absolutely imagine
There's the problem, right there. A lot of these affronts are imagined, without actually getting input from people. A perfect example is the use of Latinx, which many Hispanic people have spoken out against, yet keeps getting tossed around because people _imagine_ that the word "hispanic" is offensive.
There's the problem, right there. A lot of these affronts are imagined, without actually getting input from people. A perfect example is the use of Latinx, which many Hispanic people have spoken out against, yet keeps getting tossed around because people _imagine_ that the word "hispanic" is offensive.
My partner has OCD and he heavily dislikes people misusing the term.
says the person with "fascist" in their name which could literally trigger someone whose ancestors had to deal with fascists
Should we really redefine everything to meet the sensibilities of the most easily offended?
Go read some Vonnegut.
Go read some Vonnegut.
“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well… in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?”
Serious question, and maybe this is ignorant because I do not have an academic background but: Are these people not just a vocal minority? And if so, who cares? It seems like the internet is always up in arms about woke-ism but I honestly don't notice much of it in my daily life. At work, sure there are rules and regulations, but they make sense.
Treat people with respect is always my default stance. If I make an assumption about someone and call them 'he' while they want to be called 'she' - that's fine. Tell me and I'll do that from now on. Don't see the big issue, and I don't think 99% of people who desire such things (e.g. trans people) will try to cancel you for making a mistake. It's always the extremists that put others in a bad daylight and that's a shame.
Treat people with respect is always my default stance. If I make an assumption about someone and call them 'he' while they want to be called 'she' - that's fine. Tell me and I'll do that from now on. Don't see the big issue, and I don't think 99% of people who desire such things (e.g. trans people) will try to cancel you for making a mistake. It's always the extremists that put others in a bad daylight and that's a shame.
It depends. Local politics can be pretty touchy depending on the place. I feel like I have to be pretty careful and use the right incantations to stay safe in public (“hi I’m name, he/him pronouns, dialing in from unceded lands). I can’t advocate for LGBT people, have to advocate for LGBTQIA2S+ people, which isn’t a big deal but turns into quite the mouthful when you have to use it repeatedly and can’t be caught slipping. I can’t be caught calling an idea crazy or unhinged because that perpetuates stigma against people living with mental illness.
The real issue is it turns some spaces into a bit of a knife fight situation, and it is very tempting to call others out for slip ups when you need to press an advantage or discredit a politically inconvenient perspective. But then there’s a whole prostration/apology dance that maybe neutralizes things?
If you’re good at bullshit it doesn’t matter, but it can really grate on some people.
Separately, at work, I had to add code to maintain a relationship between an owning context and child nodes. I’ve been stressed about it because I worry that “owner” might be one of the racist programming words, so tomorrow I’m probably going to do a commit to change to “originatingContext”. Not a big deal but add that up a few tens of thousands of times and you’re talking real dead weight loss for the economy. See GitHub changing from master to main. Not really problematic but also a cost without benefit.
The real issue is it turns some spaces into a bit of a knife fight situation, and it is very tempting to call others out for slip ups when you need to press an advantage or discredit a politically inconvenient perspective. But then there’s a whole prostration/apology dance that maybe neutralizes things?
If you’re good at bullshit it doesn’t matter, but it can really grate on some people.
Separately, at work, I had to add code to maintain a relationship between an owning context and child nodes. I’ve been stressed about it because I worry that “owner” might be one of the racist programming words, so tomorrow I’m probably going to do a commit to change to “originatingContext”. Not a big deal but add that up a few tens of thousands of times and you’re talking real dead weight loss for the economy. See GitHub changing from master to main. Not really problematic but also a cost without benefit.
You'd be wrong to assume people are reasonable about this. I work at a place that is a bit progressive, but much less so than SV bigcos...also this is in Texas. I interviewed a person whose resume had a clearly female name, appeared more feminine than many tomboy type women I know, and otherwise gave no signals to us about gender identity(they went by a nickname which was gender neutral, which in hindsight is a signal, but subtle, not at all clear). Turns out they considered themselves nonbinary. During the round table afterwards I got called out for writing "she" in my summary of their interview and had to listen to someone grandstand for a couple of minutes about respecting nonbinary persons' pronouns in front of about a dozen senior people in the company. The interview panel leader advised us all to always say "the candidate" and never use pronouns in the future. Funny thing is "the candidate" seemed like a chill person that probably wouldn't have taken offense anyway.
> Are these people not just a vocal minority?
Productive professors and administrators are very busy with doing research, teaching and taking care the students and try to avoid political bullshit like the plague. That leaves busybody with nothing better to do plenty of time to come up with such initiatives.
Productive professors and administrators are very busy with doing research, teaching and taking care the students and try to avoid political bullshit like the plague. That leaves busybody with nothing better to do plenty of time to come up with such initiatives.
It's about the fact that institutions (incl. corporations) hold all the power in the world, and the people within them are recruited from academia. If academia becomes (is) an indoctrination school, it will produce mainly activists and those who don't mind submitting to activists. These people will then eventually rebuild this system in their workplaces (since 'wokeism' is an inherently corruptive and hard-to-resist system). After this, you will start to see the fruits of their labor pop up all around - OpenAI censoring their model to oblivion, movies selecting for overtly activist plot points, social media companies beginning to censor more and more stuff...
You wouldn't see activism in normal everyday discussions, though, due to people being rather agreeable in real-life face-to-face conversations. Political undertones, no matter how strong, are always in the background, not forefront, of conversations anyway. You wouldn't expect people to proactively discuss Putin with you if you went to Russia, for instance.
And yet, if the general public either agrees with or is neutral towards ideals which DON'T conform to real reason, those ideals can be weaponized in the fringes. And they indeed are.
(Note: Below, I'm using the term 'fascism' to describe the societal phenomenon. I'm NOT referencing nazism nor saying that the current political atmosphere is anywhere close to it.)
Westerners are conditioned to think about fascism as originating from one well-defined party, mainly due to the fact that autocracies of the world do indeed operate that way, but fascism is just the blind power-hunger and violence of the human condition enabled by any group of people and accepted by the majority. The hallmark of fascism is that it is never hostile to the majority, but continuously extremely violent to whoever happens to be the edge case at the time. It guides the general discourse through these edge cases, not the center. Thus, if you are in the center, you don't really see anything bad happen to you - as long as you course-correct every once or twice from the edge cases.
You wouldn't see activism in normal everyday discussions, though, due to people being rather agreeable in real-life face-to-face conversations. Political undertones, no matter how strong, are always in the background, not forefront, of conversations anyway. You wouldn't expect people to proactively discuss Putin with you if you went to Russia, for instance.
And yet, if the general public either agrees with or is neutral towards ideals which DON'T conform to real reason, those ideals can be weaponized in the fringes. And they indeed are.
(Note: Below, I'm using the term 'fascism' to describe the societal phenomenon. I'm NOT referencing nazism nor saying that the current political atmosphere is anywhere close to it.)
Westerners are conditioned to think about fascism as originating from one well-defined party, mainly due to the fact that autocracies of the world do indeed operate that way, but fascism is just the blind power-hunger and violence of the human condition enabled by any group of people and accepted by the majority. The hallmark of fascism is that it is never hostile to the majority, but continuously extremely violent to whoever happens to be the edge case at the time. It guides the general discourse through these edge cases, not the center. Thus, if you are in the center, you don't really see anything bad happen to you - as long as you course-correct every once or twice from the edge cases.
I don’t subscribe to so called woke gender ideology so I will be calling “non binary” people by their “assigned at birth” gender pronoun. It’s my freedom to do so and I refuse to change my core beliefs for someone’s own personal deviances.
I had a conversation recently with somebody who said they didn’t want to be friends with people who weren’t willing to go the extra mile to be decent to people by using these sorts of speech rules. They were very angry about the subject and had some really nasty words for people who disagreed with them
It’s an absolute nothingburger, but lately tech seems to be outraged and obsessed over a “woke mind virus” that seems to be infecting the masses by the billions…
In their minds, because in real life this just doesn’t exist.
In their minds, because in real life this just doesn’t exist.
The problem becomes when this vocal minority is put in a position of influencing what others do and how they communicate. At best, they are making people less clear at communicating, but at worst they are trying to co-opt the use of language and forcing people to acknowledge that this world view is the right one through the use of language.
>> And if so, who cares? It seems like the internet is always up in arms about woke-ism but I honestly don't notice much of it in my daily life.
The only place I have noticed this is in the workplace. They allowed a small group ( < 10 people) to force everyone intro various DEI groups and meetings and events on a regular basis. As soon as the ringleaders left the company (just regular job switching, nothing dramatic) all of the DEI groups died. I'm onboard with most of this stuff because people deserve respect - but it is 100% a small vocal minority that makes all of this get way more airtime than it actually needs and than the majority want to give it.
The only place I have noticed this is in the workplace. They allowed a small group ( < 10 people) to force everyone intro various DEI groups and meetings and events on a regular basis. As soon as the ringleaders left the company (just regular job switching, nothing dramatic) all of the DEI groups died. I'm onboard with most of this stuff because people deserve respect - but it is 100% a small vocal minority that makes all of this get way more airtime than it actually needs and than the majority want to give it.
The outrage expressed in these threads seems pretty unique to techies and certain social groups prone to disliking change.
"retard (n) person with a cognitive disability, person with autism,"
Autism is not the same as mental retardation. That's really offensive Stanford.
Shouldn't we really pinpoint exact people & groups who push for these kind of things? We need to put faces on this ideology. Who exactly is responsible for this?
Autism is not the same as mental retardation. That's really offensive Stanford.
Shouldn't we really pinpoint exact people & groups who push for these kind of things? We need to put faces on this ideology. Who exactly is responsible for this?
The managerial class.
And so the euphemism treadmill turns.
A basic axiom of linguistics is that language evolves to suitably convey what people wish to convey. The “harm” in harmful language lies not in the words themselves, but the intent behind them and the context of their usage.
A basic axiom of linguistics is that language evolves to suitably convey what people wish to convey. The “harm” in harmful language lies not in the words themselves, but the intent behind them and the context of their usage.
Would be interesting to see Stanfords list of banned ideas.
This is a very helpful site - just like I include a goto in every script or application I write to mess with the “goto considered harmful” people, now I have a list of trigger words I can use in variables and comments to mess with the college kiddies.
BTW “Balls to the wall” has nothing to do with anatomy, it’s a reference to a WWII fighter plane which had ball shaped handles on the throttle levers, when preparing to take off you would push the levers all the way forward until they almost touched the instrument panel - a mnemonic device, not something you ask for on the third date - looking at you Stanford, very disappointed your mind went there. tisk tisk.
BTW “Balls to the wall” has nothing to do with anatomy, it’s a reference to a WWII fighter plane which had ball shaped handles on the throttle levers, when preparing to take off you would push the levers all the way forward until they almost touched the instrument panel - a mnemonic device, not something you ask for on the third date - looking at you Stanford, very disappointed your mind went there. tisk tisk.
"Pedal to the metal" comes to mind immediately.
Obviously there's much to laugh at in this initiative and a legitimate worry about thought being policed. That said, if you are open to changing your mind, there's an excellent 9-minute bit of stand-up comedy from Stewart Lee about political correctness you might want to watch [1] where he discusses why for example it's not "political correctness gone mad" to refer to a prostitute as a sex worker [2].
I do think the general impulse to try and create a kinder language is worthwhile, even if in practice it can spiral out of control due to virtue signaling and people with too much time on their hands.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc&t=309s
I do think the general impulse to try and create a kinder language is worthwhile, even if in practice it can spiral out of control due to virtue signaling and people with too much time on their hands.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc&t=309s
What I'm not seeing anybody mentioning is how hard that kind of stuff make it to speak English for non-native speakers.
Coming from French, it's already weird enough that you're allowed to say "n word" or "s word" but not the actual words, as if it was some loophole. That's just not done in French, at least in Quebec. In Quebec, you say the word, you don't or for swear words people use a slightly transformed version of the swear word (like saying shout instead of shit or Oh my gosh instead of Oh my god), but mentioning the word indirectly just isn't a thing.
You're considered evil if you refer to a non-binary person by he or she... but in French there is literally no polite non-gendered pronoun. Our "they" is also gendered. The result is you're seen as mean for thinking in French and just translating as you go. You basically have to think in English to be politically correct, which is pretty hard to do.
Or even the fact that in English black people can say the n word but not white people. Or the fact you can call Australians Aussies and New-Zealanders kiwis, but calling Japanese people Japs is super racist. I haven't ever seen seen something like that in French so it gets really confusing.
I feel like keeping track of all these intricate rules is basically harder than learning English itself and by adding even more, they're accentuating a class divide between native and non-native speakers.
Coming from French, it's already weird enough that you're allowed to say "n word" or "s word" but not the actual words, as if it was some loophole. That's just not done in French, at least in Quebec. In Quebec, you say the word, you don't or for swear words people use a slightly transformed version of the swear word (like saying shout instead of shit or Oh my gosh instead of Oh my god), but mentioning the word indirectly just isn't a thing.
You're considered evil if you refer to a non-binary person by he or she... but in French there is literally no polite non-gendered pronoun. Our "they" is also gendered. The result is you're seen as mean for thinking in French and just translating as you go. You basically have to think in English to be politically correct, which is pretty hard to do.
Or even the fact that in English black people can say the n word but not white people. Or the fact you can call Australians Aussies and New-Zealanders kiwis, but calling Japanese people Japs is super racist. I haven't ever seen seen something like that in French so it gets really confusing.
I feel like keeping track of all these intricate rules is basically harder than learning English itself and by adding even more, they're accentuating a class divide between native and non-native speakers.
> ...they're accentuating a class divide between native and non-native speakers.
Possibly even a class divide amongst native speakers: those with the time to ponder and research acceptable terminology and those without. I suspect the typical rejoinder there is something along the lines of "Well, society should be made more equal to prevent those without", conveniently ignoring the near geologic time it will take to get there.
Possibly even a class divide amongst native speakers: those with the time to ponder and research acceptable terminology and those without. I suspect the typical rejoinder there is something along the lines of "Well, society should be made more equal to prevent those without", conveniently ignoring the near geologic time it will take to get there.
One of the driving forces of these language initiatives is to create division within native English speakers, too.
> whitespace
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
How exactly is whitespace good? It's like they pick out every word where "white" is used and say "but wait1!!!11! you can't use this because you're reinforcing the dynamic that white=good"
It's like they're telling people "don't think of the white elephant" with this white=good thing. Nobody was thinking about it before they brought it up, now we're thinking about it
In order for anyone to "get the message" of this and be able to create their own rules, they have to internalize the idea of white=good. Wasn't this the exact reason for creating the rules in the first place, that is to say not telling people white=good?
edit: I don't think the point of this is to come up with a system that makes sense, the point is to come up with a system that doesn't make sense. The point is to be as contradictory and annoying as possible in order to get as much attention as possible. If stupid people in academia want to be annoying and act like children, they should just be ignored and treated like the children they are. We're in the wrong here even giving these people attention to begin with
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
How exactly is whitespace good? It's like they pick out every word where "white" is used and say "but wait1!!!11! you can't use this because you're reinforcing the dynamic that white=good"
It's like they're telling people "don't think of the white elephant" with this white=good thing. Nobody was thinking about it before they brought it up, now we're thinking about it
In order for anyone to "get the message" of this and be able to create their own rules, they have to internalize the idea of white=good. Wasn't this the exact reason for creating the rules in the first place, that is to say not telling people white=good?
edit: I don't think the point of this is to come up with a system that makes sense, the point is to come up with a system that doesn't make sense. The point is to be as contradictory and annoying as possible in order to get as much attention as possible. If stupid people in academia want to be annoying and act like children, they should just be ignored and treated like the children they are. We're in the wrong here even giving these people attention to begin with
I lived many years of my life in the country (Soviet Union) where there were a lot of rules what words were insulting and what words were appropriate. The only real use of these rules were to bully people by authorities and assholes. These rules just gave them a seemingly morally superior standpoint and an excuse.
"Karen"
Context: "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
Consider using: "demanding or entitled White woman"
This example is truly a tell all for this movement. To redefine language from a position of moral superiority where they can make no mis judgment.
Context: "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
Consider using: "demanding or entitled White woman"
This example is truly a tell all for this movement. To redefine language from a position of moral superiority where they can make no mis judgment.
Already I disagree with their re-interpretation of the first word (addict). Have they ever actually interacted with, or been addicted to something? Your life revolves around the substance. If "addict" is dehumanizing then so is "carpenter".
Had to get to #6 (committed suicide - I worked delivering technology for the blind and visually impaired, no one is offended by "I see" or "I'm going in blind") before thinking "ok, this makes sense" since that framing implies a crime. But that's not their re-interpretation, which again doesn't make sense.
I had an old British colleague who used to say "what you Yanks need is a good old land war to set you straight again". I think he might be right
Had to get to #6 (committed suicide - I worked delivering technology for the blind and visually impaired, no one is offended by "I see" or "I'm going in blind") before thinking "ok, this makes sense" since that framing implies a crime. But that's not their re-interpretation, which again doesn't make sense.
I had an old British colleague who used to say "what you Yanks need is a good old land war to set you straight again". I think he might be right
Or severe enough economic down turn. We don’t need land to fight over we just need a realignment of incentives. That will separate the wheat from the chaff. There’s no real value to the people who write such rubbish lists however they are still paid to do so. They still make what I imagine is a decent living to create hot air that the public gets to argue over. Money is still too easy to come by. When it isn’t these people will have to actually work and gain real value and we won’t be arguing or criticizing their nonsense anymore.
Can we please change the name "Stanford" to something else? It offends me. "Stan" looks like "Satan" and "ford" is an automobile brand which makes me think of combustion engines and global warming. I cannot stand it anymore...
It's much worse. Stanford, the actual founder, was a vile person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Native_America...
I think you can work on this a bit. Henry Ford was an accomplished anti-Semite.
Many of these look like good guidelines for someone, especially one in a position of public communications, to use as guidelines. Or for some sort of social worker, I can see these being some reasonable guidelines to consider.
But I would recoil at the idea of these being hard and fast rules considered for everyday speech. And the idea that casual, every day speech must be as equitable as possible doesn't sit right with me either. I would push back on any notion that use of these words/phrases would necessarily constitute a micro-aggression (they may in context, but not universally). For example, they have "straight" listed as a word that should be replaced by "heterosexual". Okay -- I get how this recommendation might make sense in a social worker setting, but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
If you're speaking publicly or on behalf of an organization - be careful, considerate, and deliberate with your language. If you're having a quick huddle with the 3 or 5 folks on your product team about today's activities -- always be considerate, but there's a lot more leeway. And hopefully you know the folks close to you well enough that there's mutual respect, even if a word used might not be ideal.
I think with some comment sense applied, this list is good guidance. As something to be applied with draconian enforcement, this would be nightmarish.
But I would recoil at the idea of these being hard and fast rules considered for everyday speech. And the idea that casual, every day speech must be as equitable as possible doesn't sit right with me either. I would push back on any notion that use of these words/phrases would necessarily constitute a micro-aggression (they may in context, but not universally). For example, they have "straight" listed as a word that should be replaced by "heterosexual". Okay -- I get how this recommendation might make sense in a social worker setting, but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
If you're speaking publicly or on behalf of an organization - be careful, considerate, and deliberate with your language. If you're having a quick huddle with the 3 or 5 folks on your product team about today's activities -- always be considerate, but there's a lot more leeway. And hopefully you know the folks close to you well enough that there's mutual respect, even if a word used might not be ideal.
I think with some comment sense applied, this list is good guidance. As something to be applied with draconian enforcement, this would be nightmarish.
> but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
It’s _never_ a “micro aggression” under any context. I think I’d slap one of these Stanford wankers if they spoke to me like this doc dictates.
It’s _never_ a “micro aggression” under any context. I think I’d slap one of these Stanford wankers if they spoke to me like this doc dictates.
Yeah, this thread is nuts to me how many people in this thread are mad. Sure, some of the words are a bit of a stretch but while going through the most I was nodding along being like, “yeah, makes sense.”
Like nobody is gonna string you up not following the guidelines but in my own writing I follow these pretty much naturally because, yeah, it’s kinda weird that we describe things with limited or reduced functionality as crippled.
Like nobody is gonna string you up not following the guidelines but in my own writing I follow these pretty much naturally because, yeah, it’s kinda weird that we describe things with limited or reduced functionality as crippled.
Is it also weird that we describe things that completely cease to function as dead?
I think if a race of aliens saw us calling our phones dead when they break they would be a little confused since they were never alive; so in that sense yes.
The reason language has to constantly evolve for certain topics is that every time people come up with new words that don't carry stigma people invariably start using them in everyday language; so $word that was coined specifically to be neutral becomes $word (pejorative). So for example if people would just stop using whatever word is used to describe people with intellectual disabilities as an insult the vocabulary wouldn't have to keep changing.
* "What are you blind (pejorative)?"
* "What are you deaf (pejorative)?"
* "They're delusional (pejorative)!"
* "They're deranged (pejorative)!"
* "She's hysterical (pejorative)."
* "He's demented (pejorative)."
* "They're absolutely mental (pejorative)."
* "She kind of a skitso (pejorative)."
* "They're special (pejorative)."
* "What, do you need a handicap (pejorative)?"
I don't think it's a good idea to use those words even after they fall out of fashion. It just seems cruel for no reason and it's easy enough to just say something different.
The reason language has to constantly evolve for certain topics is that every time people come up with new words that don't carry stigma people invariably start using them in everyday language; so $word that was coined specifically to be neutral becomes $word (pejorative). So for example if people would just stop using whatever word is used to describe people with intellectual disabilities as an insult the vocabulary wouldn't have to keep changing.
* "What are you blind (pejorative)?"
* "What are you deaf (pejorative)?"
* "They're delusional (pejorative)!"
* "They're deranged (pejorative)!"
* "She's hysterical (pejorative)."
* "He's demented (pejorative)."
* "They're absolutely mental (pejorative)."
* "She kind of a skitso (pejorative)."
* "They're special (pejorative)."
* "What, do you need a handicap (pejorative)?"
I don't think it's a good idea to use those words even after they fall out of fashion. It just seems cruel for no reason and it's easy enough to just say something different.
Every word can be pejorative in the right context. Especially if it is a characteristic that one does not identify with. Like calling a box champion a "delicate flower", other people would consider it a compliment
As soon as you ban any word, both pejorative and intended use, the similar next one will be used in a pejorative way, which will give you the same problem later on
Seems unnecessary effort to ban most of the language because some people don't use it correctly. Especially because people are not born knowing those stigmas. So they naturally disappear
As soon as you ban any word, both pejorative and intended use, the similar next one will be used in a pejorative way, which will give you the same problem later on
Seems unnecessary effort to ban most of the language because some people don't use it correctly. Especially because people are not born knowing those stigmas. So they naturally disappear
> it’s kinda weird that we describe things with limited or reduced functionality as crippled.
You just typed out how that secondary meaning came into being.
You just typed out how that secondary meaning came into being.
"Nuts"?
There would be less emphasis on symbolic politics, such as this project, if we could make material progress on social inequity. It does not cost any money to change language. It would be difficult and costly to seriously reinvest in people who have been left behind.
For example, if it was politically possible guarantee schools in poor neighbourhoods were funded just as well as schools in wealthy neighbourhoods, do you people would organize around education equality, or would they organize to change language?
Also the website doesn't work in Firefox.
For example, if it was politically possible guarantee schools in poor neighbourhoods were funded just as well as schools in wealthy neighbourhoods, do you people would organize around education equality, or would they organize to change language?
Also the website doesn't work in Firefox.
The problem with schools in poor neighborhoods has nothing to do with funding. You can see charter schools in the same neighborhood which get less funding radically outperform.
> You can see charter schools in the same neighborhood which get less funding radically outperform.
Per student, or total? Legitimately asking, because this is surprising to me.
Per student, or total? Legitimately asking, because this is surprising to me.
High performing schools usually achieve their results by kicking out the idiots and disrupters. Not only does this obviously boost averages by removing the bottom results, but everyone else is able to learn better by having disruptions removed.
Of course then some public school has to be the one to attempt to educate these people.
Of course then some public school has to be the one to attempt to educate these people.
https://nyccharterschools.org/policy-research/fact-sheets/ch...
$17,626 Per pupil funding (2022-23 School Year)
NYC averages for public schools: $32,757 per pupil
The only reason there aren't more charter schools is because there is a cap on the number of them.
We should attach the funding to the pupil and their needs, and then let the parents choose the school for them to attend. This is commonly referred to funding students and not systems, or backpack funding.
There will alway be problems with education - challenges with parents, children, faculty, curriculum.
The state can provide funding and provide testing, let the parents choose the school that they want.
$17,626 Per pupil funding (2022-23 School Year)
NYC averages for public schools: $32,757 per pupil
The only reason there aren't more charter schools is because there is a cap on the number of them.
We should attach the funding to the pupil and their needs, and then let the parents choose the school for them to attend. This is commonly referred to funding students and not systems, or backpack funding.
There will alway be problems with education - challenges with parents, children, faculty, curriculum.
The state can provide funding and provide testing, let the parents choose the school that they want.
It's not funding. A teacher friend's literally been told that he should let a student stab him before defending himself.
The WSJ article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptabl...
https://archive.ph/YJWo7
For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.
For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.
> Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
I have a physical disability and several mental conditions that are considered disabling and I'm here to tell you they're all both abnormal and negative!
I have a physical disability and several mental conditions that are considered disabling and I'm here to tell you they're all both abnormal and negative!
Thank you. Sad how increasingly the obvious must be stated for being disputed.
Also, all the best from my heart in dealing with your conditions.
Also, all the best from my heart in dealing with your conditions.
These types of linguistic obfuscations remind me of the increasingly complex bodies of law in America. (like tax code for example). It seems like they're designed specifically so that one can always go after one's enemies by interpreting whatever they say in the worst possible faith.
There's a great George Carlin bit on how changing the names to less severe sounding terms can actually be harmful. He gives the example of shell-shock being changed to PTSD which sounds more benign and doesn't capture how horrible the condition is. Also the race baiting in black box and red team is so unintentionally hilarious.
Let me remind all citizens of the dangers of magical thinking. We have scarcely begun to climb from the dark pit of our species' evolution. Let us not slide backward into oblivion, just as we have finally begun to see the light.
Is there a list of universities that don't do this kind of thing? I wouldn't want to send my kids to a university that published this, I want them to think for themselves. I certainly will strongly discourage them from applying to Stanford. Are there others I should be wary of?
(incidentally, not _all_ of the list is ridiculous, but most of it clearly is)
(incidentally, not _all_ of the list is ridiculous, but most of it clearly is)
Check out ratings by FIRE [1] and the Heterodox Academy [2].
1: https://www.thefire.org/news/just-released-2022-2023-college...
2: https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/10-colleges-where-you-w...
1: https://www.thefire.org/news/just-released-2022-2023-college...
2: https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/10-colleges-where-you-w...
I had never heard of FIRE before, and assumed they were going to rank free speech by prominence of conservative idea representation on campus as most of these types of rankings tend to do.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that was not the case. Schools with high acceptance of conservative speakers trend lower on the list. The highest ranking schools are typically the ones close to the middle. Thanks for sharing.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that was not the case. Schools with high acceptance of conservative speakers trend lower on the list. The highest ranking schools are typically the ones close to the middle. Thanks for sharing.
> people of color ... BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color)
Wow, so "people of color" should be avoided and "BIPOC" used instead? Even though the "POC" in "BIPOC" is literally "people of color"?
That didn't last long. The Euphemism Treadmill ( http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th... ) seems to be moving faster and faster.
Wow, so "people of color" should be avoided and "BIPOC" used instead? Even though the "POC" in "BIPOC" is literally "people of color"?
That didn't last long. The Euphemism Treadmill ( http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th... ) seems to be moving faster and faster.
The express purpose of the term BIPOC is to de‐emphasize Asians and other “less‐oppressed” people of color.
I won’t bother criticizing the term—such criticisms practically write themselves.
I won’t bother criticizing the term—such criticisms practically write themselves.
How much collective value has been used on politically correct speech? How much just from this thread of replies?
How many starving children have died who would instead be saved by that same collective value?
I want to say millions because I truly believe it would be close to billions(assuming that many could be saved).
Instead we encourage replacement words which over time become just as offensive. Of course, insults don't need to be limited to just English words either. Thus proving the entire endeavor is impossible since aggressors control more word choices than moderators.
Save a child. The UN says that is going to cost you about $160USD on average. (Based on 6.6B for 42M and please don't turn this into a dingbat/secondcoming thread)
How many starving children have died who would instead be saved by that same collective value?
I want to say millions because I truly believe it would be close to billions(assuming that many could be saved).
Instead we encourage replacement words which over time become just as offensive. Of course, insults don't need to be limited to just English words either. Thus proving the entire endeavor is impossible since aggressors control more word choices than moderators.
Save a child. The UN says that is going to cost you about $160USD on average. (Based on 6.6B for 42M and please don't turn this into a dingbat/secondcoming thread)
From a sociological & political perspective, I’m most concerned here by the expansive notion of “harm” embedded in these guidelines.
Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my rights end at yours. If using an inappropriate but common cultural idiom harms someone as opposed to being simply rude, that has a potentially revolutionary significance.
Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my rights end at yours. If using an inappropriate but common cultural idiom harms someone as opposed to being simply rude, that has a potentially revolutionary significance.
I think that's their goal though, right? The first step to controlling thought is controlling language.
> Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my rights end at yours.
That's the only definition of harm you think is valid?
That's the only definition of harm you think is valid?
I’d struggle to accept there is a reasonable definition of harm that includes using the word “brave” as harmful.
To be clear, TFA objects to “brave” as a noun, not as an adjective.
"braving" in "braving a storm" uses "brave" as a (nominalized) noun
[deleted]
"You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth. Even if it's an unpleasant truth ... I don't like words that hide the truth, I don't like words that conceal reality, I don't like euphemisms, and American English is loaded with euphemisms, because Americans have a lot of trouble with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it. And it gets worse with every generation."
— George Carlin on Soft Language (https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY)
— George Carlin on Soft Language (https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY)
One mustn't use the term "busy body" because it is ableist. Some people do not have bodies, but are ghosts floating upon the ether. Also, it is too often applied to us here in the Department of Thumb Twiddling and it hurts our feelings. Instead use the term "insufferable twatwaffle".
> whitespace
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously
racialized.
lmao what? I am 100% sure I've never met anyone who has a positive or negative opinion of whitespace. Maybe of whether or not it should be syntactically important but most people seem to think it shouldn't be anyways.
lmao what? I am 100% sure I've never met anyone who has a positive or negative opinion of whitespace. Maybe of whether or not it should be syntactically important but most people seem to think it shouldn't be anyways.
Seriously, how deranged must one be to think that?
From the document:
> balls to the wall | accelerate efforts | Attributes personality traits to anatomy.
I've always thought this term had nothing to do with anatomy; am I incorrect here?
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
> First attested in the 1960s in the context of aviation, in reference to ball-shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle. Pushing the "balls to the wall" would put the plane into a maximum-speed dive > Not related to the vulgar sense of balls (“testicles”).
> balls to the wall | accelerate efforts | Attributes personality traits to anatomy.
I've always thought this term had nothing to do with anatomy; am I incorrect here?
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
> First attested in the 1960s in the context of aviation, in reference to ball-shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle. Pushing the "balls to the wall" would put the plane into a maximum-speed dive > Not related to the vulgar sense of balls (“testicles”).
Ugh, taking this stuff too far is stupid.
Even just something like "blacklist", "whitelist"; it has nothing to do with the modern black skin white skin world of racism - literally every culture on this planet has similar associations with the colours white/black...
It's almost like primitive cultures could only observe the Sun and our planet's day/night cycle and based it all of daytime = safe, nighttime = unsafe.
Also: was the page always behind a login? Or was it moved behind one once it created controversy?
Man = "This term reinforces male-dominated language." ahaha, for a university they should study a little more: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mann#Old_English.
Also checking this list, and as a gay man myself, they've missed a whole class of people in their silly list.
Even just something like "blacklist", "whitelist"; it has nothing to do with the modern black skin white skin world of racism - literally every culture on this planet has similar associations with the colours white/black...
It's almost like primitive cultures could only observe the Sun and our planet's day/night cycle and based it all of daytime = safe, nighttime = unsafe.
Also: was the page always behind a login? Or was it moved behind one once it created controversy?
Man = "This term reinforces male-dominated language." ahaha, for a university they should study a little more: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mann#Old_English.
Also checking this list, and as a gay man myself, they've missed a whole class of people in their silly list.
No, a few days ago this page was public.
> on the warpath - mad, on the offensive
So "sanity", "crazy" and "handicapped" are offensive language, but "mad" is a preferred alternative for something else?
> victim - person who has experienced..., person who has been impacted by...
Person who has been impacted by murder? Many of those suggestions are so verbose and impersonal.
Those alternatives would just become the new slurs, just like people are called Karen nowadays this list would make people call others "boring" instead of retard. And then we have one problem more: how do you then call something boring without sounding offensive? I find this list very unenlightened.
So "sanity", "crazy" and "handicapped" are offensive language, but "mad" is a preferred alternative for something else?
> victim - person who has experienced..., person who has been impacted by...
Person who has been impacted by murder? Many of those suggestions are so verbose and impersonal.
Those alternatives would just become the new slurs, just like people are called Karen nowadays this list would make people call others "boring" instead of retard. And then we have one problem more: how do you then call something boring without sounding offensive? I find this list very unenlightened.
"mad" in the US English sense of angry, not in the UK English sense of crazy.
>Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.
From an anthropological perspective, it’s fascinating how the weakest and most sensitive people possible are now the ones in charge of policing language. Talib was right about this, on a long enough timeline most things do become a dictatorship of the small minority.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
From an anthropological perspective, it’s fascinating how the weakest and most sensitive people possible are now the ones in charge of policing language. Talib was right about this, on a long enough timeline most things do become a dictatorship of the small minority.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
What makes you think they are weak?
I'm not the above commenter, but it's very surprising to me that people can undergo such serious harm just from reading phrases like "trigger warning" or "tarball"...
Or even the existence of languages with gendered nouns. Why are we coddling xenophobes who are afraid of Spanish grammar rules? IMO that's not a fear that is healthy or rational.
Or even the existence of languages with gendered nouns. Why are we coddling xenophobes who are afraid of Spanish grammar rules? IMO that's not a fear that is healthy or rational.
[deleted]
I clicked on the link thinking: "sigh, another woke propaganda campaign".
"Brave", oh wow, and no alternatives either. "Geronimo", ok, I can kinda get behind that one: I mean, we don't want someone using "Gandalf" or "Gandhi" in similar vein, I suppose. "For god & country, gandhi, gandhi, gandhi" would be kinda weird (chuckled softly).
"Guru" -- :O -- I have always felt we diminished the weight of this word in the western, English speaking world. "Pundit"/"Pandit" & "Guru" have the same connotations as "sir" in my home country but when I came to the US I was mildly disappointed they had very different connotations than "sir" did -- even outside formal contexts.
Then it hit me: Oh snap! Now I get it! I get why someone else may feel the same way about "Geronimo" or "Brave" or "Bury the hatchet". Those are words that _I_ obviously discovered through Western/English-speaking cultures. Perhaps, if the medium was not-English then those words wouldn't carry with them the same connotations that didn't originate from the rightful heirs of that culture.
[The point]: I literally went from thinking "oh, great, more policing of words", when I read the headline, to "Hm, I get it" / "I support this effort". I'm seeing a lot of HN comments tend to lean on the side of taking issue with the post & the effort. I hope sharing my (contrasting) perspective helps.
"Brave", oh wow, and no alternatives either. "Geronimo", ok, I can kinda get behind that one: I mean, we don't want someone using "Gandalf" or "Gandhi" in similar vein, I suppose. "For god & country, gandhi, gandhi, gandhi" would be kinda weird (chuckled softly).
"Guru" -- :O -- I have always felt we diminished the weight of this word in the western, English speaking world. "Pundit"/"Pandit" & "Guru" have the same connotations as "sir" in my home country but when I came to the US I was mildly disappointed they had very different connotations than "sir" did -- even outside formal contexts.
Then it hit me: Oh snap! Now I get it! I get why someone else may feel the same way about "Geronimo" or "Brave" or "Bury the hatchet". Those are words that _I_ obviously discovered through Western/English-speaking cultures. Perhaps, if the medium was not-English then those words wouldn't carry with them the same connotations that didn't originate from the rightful heirs of that culture.
[The point]: I literally went from thinking "oh, great, more policing of words", when I read the headline, to "Hm, I get it" / "I support this effort". I'm seeing a lot of HN comments tend to lean on the side of taking issue with the post & the effort. I hope sharing my (contrasting) perspective helps.
Pundit can mean the same thing as in English, it's just that it's not the primary meaning
Even if we take some of this list in good faith, this kind of manual is so over-the-top compared to anything in current American society. The cognitive load of constantly having to think about what you are saying in order to avoid microaggressions does more damage to free thought and discourse than any damage it prevents by policing it.
And then there are more examples of absolute stupidity than there are legitimate grievances. The policing of color references due to "perceived superiority" is ridiculous.
It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession.
There was an article yesterday in the New York Times where some people took issue with the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope because he headed NASA when there was a government-wide policy against homosexuals.
A well-credentialed and respected black man wrote an article saying "No, JW did not actively participate in purges of gay employees and in fact may have dragged the feet of NASA in any implementations of such policies" (I am paraphrasing). He also expressed frustration toward an unnamed scientist who “propagated unsubstantiated false information" regarding James Webb.
The rebuttal from said scientist, a self-proclaimed left wing activist and cosmologist? “The leader of a professional society and a senior scientist,” she wrote, is “going out of his way to justify historic homophobia” and “attack a junior queer Black woman professor.”
---
For some people, they only have their perception of their own persecution to lean on. She didn't argue the merits. She makes anyone who disagrees with her out to be someone who abuses power dynamics, hates LGBT people, black people, women, and women in high professions.
---
The point: Even if some of this makes sense in a lab setting, it is a net harm on the discourse, and those who would champion it wholeheartedly are the kinds of people who live their lives as perpetually persecuted, and are willing to ruin careers and lives if you do not consent to their total authority over language.
And then there are more examples of absolute stupidity than there are legitimate grievances. The policing of color references due to "perceived superiority" is ridiculous.
It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession.
There was an article yesterday in the New York Times where some people took issue with the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope because he headed NASA when there was a government-wide policy against homosexuals.
A well-credentialed and respected black man wrote an article saying "No, JW did not actively participate in purges of gay employees and in fact may have dragged the feet of NASA in any implementations of such policies" (I am paraphrasing). He also expressed frustration toward an unnamed scientist who “propagated unsubstantiated false information" regarding James Webb.
The rebuttal from said scientist, a self-proclaimed left wing activist and cosmologist? “The leader of a professional society and a senior scientist,” she wrote, is “going out of his way to justify historic homophobia” and “attack a junior queer Black woman professor.”
---
For some people, they only have their perception of their own persecution to lean on. She didn't argue the merits. She makes anyone who disagrees with her out to be someone who abuses power dynamics, hates LGBT people, black people, women, and women in high professions.
---
The point: Even if some of this makes sense in a lab setting, it is a net harm on the discourse, and those who would champion it wholeheartedly are the kinds of people who live their lives as perpetually persecuted, and are willing to ruin careers and lives if you do not consent to their total authority over language.
> it is a net harm on the discourse
I fundamentally disagree.
>It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession.
I will concede to you that society must de-pressurize the situation to make people not feel like apologies are immediately necessary or job-threatening consequences await for getting it wrong. The existence of this list from Stanford doesn't necessarily make the situation worse.
This list is a starting point. It's an acknowledgement of past mistakes and an attempt to begin reparations. It is laudable.
I fundamentally disagree.
>It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession.
I will concede to you that society must de-pressurize the situation to make people not feel like apologies are immediately necessary or job-threatening consequences await for getting it wrong. The existence of this list from Stanford doesn't necessarily make the situation worse.
This list is a starting point. It's an acknowledgement of past mistakes and an attempt to begin reparations. It is laudable.
OCD is not the same as detail oriented. OCD is the disorder of having to have certain things in a certain way.
Detail oriented is just that, you care about details. Like someone who paints your house can go fast on the large surfaces, but you get the detail-oriented person to do your window trims in a different color without it splattering over the white facade.
Detail oriented is just that, you care about details. Like someone who paints your house can go fast on the large surfaces, but you get the detail-oriented person to do your window trims in a different color without it splattering over the white facade.
Yes that's right.
The thing is that people have been using the term OCD as a pejorative term for someone who is "detail oriented" and that need to be avoided. (When not referring to the disorder specifically)
You are correct, this list is suggesting the casual is the problem. Eg, "oh my gosh, I'm soooo OCD about my Starbucks order".
"Do you have a term you'd like added to the list? Please fill out our suggestion form."
I wonder how many people Stanford has working on this. Much of this is disconnection from reality. Something an educational institution should not be pushing. As an alum, I'm embarrassed.
I wonder how many people Stanford has working on this. Much of this is disconnection from reality. Something an educational institution should not be pushing. As an alum, I'm embarrassed.
I wonder which suggestions that choose to adopt vs. reject, and on what basis.
See also: The college administration cancer and cost disease in general. I think to myself "man these people must be fun at parties", then I remember one of their main self-appointed goals is to prevent things like parties. It seems they've been successful enough at it to move on to other forms of humans' interaction.
Alternatively, let culture exist and evolve. Call shitheads out as shitheads, including shitheads [0] who grandstand by tone policing. Assume good faith [1]. Endeavor to punch up. Accept mistakes, both by others and your own.
Also, I have to hope there is growing dissent to this nonsense by normal society, that doesn't devolve into beating the "woke" strawman and other societally-destructive spite. That's the ultimate rub with this hyperpolarized off-in-the-weeds online-driven nonsense culture - as a person who generally wants to be left alone, I don't want to sign up for either the blue or red flavored cults of idiotic memes.
[0] Sorry, I've realized that was offensive to those with feces in their head, that don't have a head, feces, and feces enthusiasts. I promise that I've paid for an indulgence.
[1] Someone will inevitably call this out as contradictory with the previous sentence. The world is full of contradictions. Embrace them.
Alternatively, let culture exist and evolve. Call shitheads out as shitheads, including shitheads [0] who grandstand by tone policing. Assume good faith [1]. Endeavor to punch up. Accept mistakes, both by others and your own.
Also, I have to hope there is growing dissent to this nonsense by normal society, that doesn't devolve into beating the "woke" strawman and other societally-destructive spite. That's the ultimate rub with this hyperpolarized off-in-the-weeds online-driven nonsense culture - as a person who generally wants to be left alone, I don't want to sign up for either the blue or red flavored cults of idiotic memes.
[0] Sorry, I've realized that was offensive to those with feces in their head, that don't have a head, feces, and feces enthusiasts. I promise that I've paid for an indulgence.
[1] Someone will inevitably call this out as contradictory with the previous sentence. The world is full of contradictions. Embrace them.
> Endeavor to punch up.
I'm skeptical of the concept of "punching up" in general. It seems to assume a single sorting criterion. As a counter-example, suppose someone high up in an organization is from a historically disenfranchised ethnicity. Is attacking them "punching up" or "punching down"?
I'm skeptical of the concept of "punching up" in general. It seems to assume a single sorting criterion. As a counter-example, suppose someone high up in an organization is from a historically disenfranchised ethnicity. Is attacking them "punching up" or "punching down"?
There is obviously no single sorting criterion for people. I do agree there is a huge moral hazard where people in privileged positions (eg college administrators) want to fall back on a less-relevant "identity" to deflect legitimate criticism.
Ultimately, it's not about the person, but rather what you're attacking. Are you attacking their position and policies, or are you attacking their ethnicity? The former is punching up, the latter is punching down.
If you're attacking their ethnicity because you don't like their policies, that's essentially still punching down, and makes for a terribly ineffective criticism of their policies.
If you're attacking their policies because you don't like their ethnicity, you could be trying to punch down while cloaking it in an aura of punching up. But your criticism would still need to be evaluated on its own merits regardless. It's likely that your criticism of the policies won't be that great, and people will see right through them.
Ultimately, it's not about the person, but rather what you're attacking. Are you attacking their position and policies, or are you attacking their ethnicity? The former is punching up, the latter is punching down.
If you're attacking their ethnicity because you don't like their policies, that's essentially still punching down, and makes for a terribly ineffective criticism of their policies.
If you're attacking their policies because you don't like their ethnicity, you could be trying to punch down while cloaking it in an aura of punching up. But your criticism would still need to be evaluated on its own merits regardless. It's likely that your criticism of the policies won't be that great, and people will see right through them.
If somebody is demanding you to say "property owner" rather than "landlord", that person is your enemy.
What if the suggested replacement is problematic?
The suggested replacement for 'manmade' is 'made by hand'.
Surely 'made by hand' is ableist.
The suggested replacement for 'manmade' is 'made by hand'.
Surely 'made by hand' is ableist.
[deleted]
I can't believe the Ryzen CPU in the PC I am typing this on was made by hand. Those able bodied humans must have very small hands indeed.
"Balls to the wall" has nothing to do with anatomy (nor does balls-out).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-to-the-wall#English
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out#English
Imagine wanting to live in an environment where the foundations are always shifting, never knowing if something you say now will lead to your downfall in a decade, constantly having to devote mental capacity to policing the thoughts in your head, social structures entirely built around the policing of acceptable words.
Fuck that.
Fuck that.
I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture wars, just read through the list on that page.
-------
">Instead of: Philippine Islands
>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines
>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."
---------
">Instead of: "preferred" pronouns
>Consider using: pronouns
>Context: The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference."
---------
">Instead of: Karen
>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman
>Context: This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
(Have we landed in backwards land? So "white" is ok to use here?)
---------
">Instead of: blackbox
>Consider using: hidden, mystery box, opaque box, flight recorder
>Context: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term."
---------
">Instead of: red team
>Consider using: cyber offense team
>Context: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups."
---------
">Instead of: war room
>Consider using: situation room
>Context: Unneccesary use of violent language."
----------
-------
">Instead of: Philippine Islands
>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines
>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."
---------
">Instead of: "preferred" pronouns
>Consider using: pronouns
>Context: The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference."
---------
">Instead of: Karen
>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman
>Context: This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
(Have we landed in backwards land? So "white" is ok to use here?)
---------
">Instead of: blackbox
>Consider using: hidden, mystery box, opaque box, flight recorder
>Context: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term."
---------
">Instead of: red team
>Consider using: cyber offense team
>Context: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups."
---------
">Instead of: war room
>Consider using: situation room
>Context: Unneccesary use of violent language."
----------
">Instead of: Philippine Islands
>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines
>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."
First of all, they're using "denotes" to mean "connotes", so we shouldn't expect a subtle understanding of English.
But second, what "Philippine Islands" does is center geography instead of nationhood or identity. What it connotes is that political boundaries are historically-contingent. Similarly, the "British isles" will always be there, barring geological catastrophe, regardless of whether the United Kingdom ceases to exist, say because Scotland and Wales secede.
If you want to work hard at it, you could make an argument that geography-centering language is "colonialist", because, precisely by revealing that borders are contingent, it might suggest that some more powerful actor, an Empire, might reshape them arbitrarily. However, it also undermines nationalism, and many people would consider that to be a good thing. For example, it's a key sentiment behind liberal immigration policies.
>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines
>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."
First of all, they're using "denotes" to mean "connotes", so we shouldn't expect a subtle understanding of English.
But second, what "Philippine Islands" does is center geography instead of nationhood or identity. What it connotes is that political boundaries are historically-contingent. Similarly, the "British isles" will always be there, barring geological catastrophe, regardless of whether the United Kingdom ceases to exist, say because Scotland and Wales secede.
If you want to work hard at it, you could make an argument that geography-centering language is "colonialist", because, precisely by revealing that borders are contingent, it might suggest that some more powerful actor, an Empire, might reshape them arbitrarily. However, it also undermines nationalism, and many people would consider that to be a good thing. For example, it's a key sentiment behind liberal immigration policies.
You might want to talk to the Republic of Ireland about that British Isles bit
That's a good example. Ireland is part of the British Isles without being "Britain". And now Britain is part of Europe without being "Europe". (Canada has always been part of America without being "America".)
>red team
Baffled by this inclusion, never in my life have I made that association. I'm also hugely against sports teams naming themselves after Native American stereotypes, but here it's literally just a color.
>Karen
Totally agree with your points, in what world is white okay to use there when they're arguing against "blackbox". Also, Karen has a lot more connotations beyond just race, there's a class/aspirational class connotation. There's a reason it's not "Madelynn". Not saying it's okay, but it's part of a trend in this list of not understanding connotation and context, and a general lack of thought in their alternatives.
Baffled by this inclusion, never in my life have I made that association. I'm also hugely against sports teams naming themselves after Native American stereotypes, but here it's literally just a color.
>Karen
Totally agree with your points, in what world is white okay to use there when they're arguing against "blackbox". Also, Karen has a lot more connotations beyond just race, there's a class/aspirational class connotation. There's a reason it's not "Madelynn". Not saying it's okay, but it's part of a trend in this list of not understanding connotation and context, and a general lack of thought in their alternatives.
>>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman
It's insane that this is one of the most explicitly racist examples and it's in the "Consider using" column...
It's insane that this is one of the most explicitly racist examples and it's in the "Consider using" column...
Right, so instead of this:
Bob used to think of neural networks as black boxes, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work.
We should say: Bob used to think of neural networks as flight recorders, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work.
That obviously has the exact same meaning /s
We should say: Bob used to think of neural networks as flight recorders, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work.
That obviously has the exact same meaning /s
This is a good example of how those in the commanding heights can order changes to a society or economy, but fail to fathom all of the cascading ramifications of their decision.
Wow, when I saw this list, I thought it's a parody post. Then I went away and read the suggestions...
The black and red examples are silly. I’m white so I get that I’ve not had the lived experience but we might as well make the color itself unusable.
I have no evidence but I think that this is some white person’s idea of what is offensive, infantilizing everyone involved. But I guess that in lieu of actual policy that will help people this will do….(that last line is sarcasm)
Hi. I'm nonbinary. I do, in fact, honestly and genuinely think that Newspeaking the rest of you into believing that I'm not someone with some kind of horrible mental illness or whatever it is you want to believe these days is a Good Thing. And it's fewer words. So please stop saying "preferred pronouns." I've also heard people say "PGPs," meaning "preferred gender pronouns," which is silly and makes me think you're talking about encryption. Please also stop saying "identifies as." I don't identify as a damn thing, I am who I am.
You have no chance to survive, make your time, ha ha ha ha...
You have no chance to survive, make your time, ha ha ha ha...
"Preferred pronouns" is a friendly request, "pronouns" is a rhetorical strong-arm.
I appreciate that you want certain pronouns to be used. But why does your preference trump mine? I.e., why must I submit to you?
Edit: I realized my comment's tone seems a bit harsh. Just to clarify, my intention is to debate your proposal, not bash on you as a person.
I appreciate that you want certain pronouns to be used. But why does your preference trump mine? I.e., why must I submit to you?
Edit: I realized my comment's tone seems a bit harsh. Just to clarify, my intention is to debate your proposal, not bash on you as a person.
I don't want certain pronouns to be used, I am demanding their usage. I have a right to do this because those pronouns address me. This is the same as any other boundary set by anyone. You can call me by the wrong pronouns if you wish, in which case I will stop talking to you.
If you think this is militant behavior, it is, but I submit that you do the same thing and don't realize it. Consider how you would behave if the shoes were on the other feet.
If you think this is militant behavior, it is, but I submit that you do the same thing and don't realize it. Consider how you would behave if the shoes were on the other feet.
> I have a right to do this because those pronouns address me.
Actually they don't address you. They refer to you. A term of address is "you". Pronouns are terms of reference.
This is one of the things that people misunderstand about pronouns like him/her. If I'm talking about someone, I get to choose how to do it. I can refer to someone as a fool, as "that tall blonde girl", or as "the guy with the huge beard from the grocery store". None of these people get to police my speech about them.
Things are somewhat different if I am referring to someone and am in their presence. In that case I would just use the person's first or last name. But some people are now taking issue with talking around preferred pronouns by using a person's name. For me, that is a bridge too far.
Actually they don't address you. They refer to you. A term of address is "you". Pronouns are terms of reference.
This is one of the things that people misunderstand about pronouns like him/her. If I'm talking about someone, I get to choose how to do it. I can refer to someone as a fool, as "that tall blonde girl", or as "the guy with the huge beard from the grocery store". None of these people get to police my speech about them.
Things are somewhat different if I am referring to someone and am in their presence. In that case I would just use the person's first or last name. But some people are now taking issue with talking around preferred pronouns by using a person's name. For me, that is a bridge too far.
> If I'm talking about someone, I get to choose how to do it. I can refer to someone as a fool, as "that tall blonde girl", or as "the guy with the huge beard from the grocery store". None of these people get to police my speech about them.
I was curious about the legal situation w.r.t. forcing use of preferred pronouns. Apparently the U.S. government currently cannot do that [0], but Ireland is the opposite [1].
I'm unclear what the current situation is regarding employer-enforced pronoun usage, particularly in at-will-employment states. IIUC (and that's a big "if"), it's a messy legal topic because of competing protected classes.
[0] https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/the-6th-circuit-r...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ireland-teacher/fa...
I was curious about the legal situation w.r.t. forcing use of preferred pronouns. Apparently the U.S. government currently cannot do that [0], but Ireland is the opposite [1].
I'm unclear what the current situation is regarding employer-enforced pronoun usage, particularly in at-will-employment states. IIUC (and that's a big "if"), it's a messy legal topic because of competing protected classes.
[0] https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/the-6th-circuit-r...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ireland-teacher/fa...
Semantics aside, if you don't want to refer to someone the way they want to be referred to, then kindly consider not speaking to them.
You missed the point, which is that these pronouns are explicitly never used when speaking to you. They are not used for addressing you. They are in reference to you, so they will only occur when other people are speaking to one other.
True. I have in mind situations in which I am physically there. I should have said, "If you don't want to refer to someone properly, then don't refer to them at all."
> I don't want certain pronouns to be used, I am demanding their usage.
Thank you for stating this plainly!
I think that, very often, debates on these topics are hamstrung by one/both sides assuming that the other is being disingenuous.
I think our best hope of making progress on these things is to have an honest, shared understanding of everyone's positions and goals. I'm so grateful that you were willing to do that.
Thank you for stating this plainly!
I think that, very often, debates on these topics are hamstrung by one/both sides assuming that the other is being disingenuous.
I think our best hope of making progress on these things is to have an honest, shared understanding of everyone's positions and goals. I'm so grateful that you were willing to do that.
Looked at the list and..
Instead of "committed suicide" Use "died by suicide" Reason: "Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions."
...
How does "committed" trivialize the experience? If anything saying "by suicide" obfuscates and weakens the message.
This _reeks_ of a bureaucracy doing busywork and then burdening the rest of the institution with further valueless processes.
Sadly, the US is being strangled by bureaucracies in all sides. University admins, government officials, and even the big tech companies are all showing signs of middle-managers sucking the air out of the institution.
Instead of "committed suicide" Use "died by suicide" Reason: "Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions."
...
How does "committed" trivialize the experience? If anything saying "by suicide" obfuscates and weakens the message.
This _reeks_ of a bureaucracy doing busywork and then burdening the rest of the institution with further valueless processes.
Sadly, the US is being strangled by bureaucracies in all sides. University admins, government officials, and even the big tech companies are all showing signs of middle-managers sucking the air out of the institution.
IMO "died by suicide" trivializes it more than "committed suicide" because when you commit to something it shows intention. It shows the committer decided to kill themselves. I don't understand how that can be interpreted as trivial. By saying "died by suicide" it comes across as if they didn't have agency, it's as if their were a victim of certain circumstances, had no choice in the matter and that it was a foregone conclusion that they'd kill themselves.
With that said, I think it's all hair splitting in the first place. Whether someone says died by suicide or committed suicide. It's a tragic act and a tragic event and it makes me sad that it happens.
With that said, I think it's all hair splitting in the first place. Whether someone says died by suicide or committed suicide. It's a tragic act and a tragic event and it makes me sad that it happens.
This is the most insidious on the list in my opinion because it totally removes agency.
Makes it seem like free will has been thoroughly debunked and language should be adjusted appropriately.
Makes it seem like free will has been thoroughly debunked and language should be adjusted appropriately.
I consider myself a very leftist liberal, and some of this list sounds fair.
Some of it reads like bad satire.
"Died by suicide" is somehow LESS trivial than "committed suicide"? "Blind studies" are somehow bad things now, rather than admirable things?
And some of it reeks of linguistic arrogance. People aren't going to say "relationship with an abusive person" when "abusive relationship" is both much shorter and IDENTICAL.
And the IRONY in not only wanting to police content with trigger warnings, but to police the usage of the phrase "trigger warning" itself. How is this NOT satire?
Some of it reads like bad satire.
"Died by suicide" is somehow LESS trivial than "committed suicide"? "Blind studies" are somehow bad things now, rather than admirable things?
And some of it reeks of linguistic arrogance. People aren't going to say "relationship with an abusive person" when "abusive relationship" is both much shorter and IDENTICAL.
And the IRONY in not only wanting to police content with trigger warnings, but to police the usage of the phrase "trigger warning" itself. How is this NOT satire?
I work at a company with what is basically a woke bot that will suggest corrections. Some like cakewalk I was glad to learn about the history, others like whitelist/blacklist are just because colors are used with no racist past. There's a nugget of good intention, and a load of newspeak happening.
Does it fulfill you working for such a project?
I don't work on woke bot, I work on other backend projects that are many layers from any customer impact, but the hours are light and the pay is good.
If language can harm you, I don't see how one can't make the case that advertisements (especially billboards and non-consenual/contractual advertisements) aren't also harm and should be eliminated.
I feel harmed by the use of the word Stanford. I sincerely hope those behind this initiative will understand this and change the name of the school to something which does not cause me concern, anxiety and fear.
Another reason to not go into academia. Really surprised at how far reaching these things are, they really tried to think of as many things as possible despite almost nobody complaining. Like "tarball". Really? Double plus ungood, stanford.
I'd compare them with a gang that blocks roads to collect fees. Each word is like a road, and these types want to install toll boths on some words.
Literally "trigger warning" is on this list with the note "The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person."
This is not a serious publication.
This is not a serious publication.
What was the driving force for this? What was the percentage of staff and students asking for this level of policing of language?
I'm not American and even I am scared of how un-American such flagrant policing of language is. Some of the examples are shockingly benign, with invisible lines drawn and imaginary people invented to manufacture offense.
With the Twitter Files showing how the US government has colluded with a web of companies to violate the 1st Amendment, I wonder if any lines will end up being drawn between anomalous actions like Stanford's and the US government. Even as a non-American, I'm confused how this doesn't violate the very thing that being American is -> freedom.
This all reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I'm not American and even I am scared of how un-American such flagrant policing of language is. Some of the examples are shockingly benign, with invisible lines drawn and imaginary people invented to manufacture offense.
With the Twitter Files showing how the US government has colluded with a web of companies to violate the 1st Amendment, I wonder if any lines will end up being drawn between anomalous actions like Stanford's and the US government. Even as a non-American, I'm confused how this doesn't violate the very thing that being American is -> freedom.
This all reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
As an American, I am coming to appreciate the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, more than ever before. I can better see why, now, out of all amendments, this is the first. And why it is so absolute. I am also glad that we do not have "hate speech" laws. The Stanford word-banning list is a perfect example as to why. The university is the pinnacle of our institutions. The staff who composed this list are upper echelon members of society. They serve as gatekeepers to our future success and now wish to dictate what is good and bad. If hate speech laws were to be enacted, who do you think would have significant influence on what gets added to the list? I'd bet it would be individuals like these. People and institutions closest to Washington D.C. I am already under threat for losing my job for saying "master branch". But a "hate speech" law could very well charge me with a crime as well.
Circling back to why the First Amendment is absolute. I appreciate it is this way because it compensates for the fact that composing a list of what shouldn't or cannot be said is impossible to compose. And any attempts to do so will only lead to tyranny and undermine the point of the amendment itself.
Circling back to why the First Amendment is absolute. I appreciate it is this way because it compensates for the fact that composing a list of what shouldn't or cannot be said is impossible to compose. And any attempts to do so will only lead to tyranny and undermine the point of the amendment itself.
The First Amendment isn't absolute. The US has always had numerous laws that regulate and limit speech in various ways[0].
And the First Amendment explicitly doesn't prevent private citizens or organizations like Stanford from regulating speech themselves. It only prevents the government from doing so, with exceptions as mentioned.
And the premise that this could somehow lead to a dystopian future in which you are thrown in jail simply for uttering the phrase "master branch" is absurd. Even granting the slippery slope, that isn't a realistic fear.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
And the First Amendment explicitly doesn't prevent private citizens or organizations like Stanford from regulating speech themselves. It only prevents the government from doing so, with exceptions as mentioned.
And the premise that this could somehow lead to a dystopian future in which you are thrown in jail simply for uttering the phrase "master branch" is absurd. Even granting the slippery slope, that isn't a realistic fear.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Back when the First Amendment was concieved, I imagine that they didn't have nor forsee the centralization and size of institutions and companies that we have today.
You only have to see recent occurences with well-known online personas that saying the wrong thing can get your bank account frozen, internet access restricted, and use of a multitude of services denied.
When institutions and companies get so centralized, large, and act homogenously, a "pseudo-government" capable of restricting your freedom emerges.
This idea of "First Amendment doesn't apply because not government" is IMHO an incredibly poisonous one. An idea that, by way of disclosures like the Twitter Files, we have found out the US government has exploited by using a complex web of companies and agencies to police speech on platforms like Twitter.
Institutions like Stanford policing language is effectively indistinguishable from the government doing it in a multitude of ways. Yes you don't get charged with a crime, but you will end up unable to get higher education there. What if Harvard does the same?
If you allow this seed to take, then you quickly slip down the "First They Came..." slope. First they came for schools. Then for tech platforms. Where do you think it ends? Just there?
This is essentially a long definition of the (quite polarizing and controversial) term "woke mind virus", since it spreads from company to company and institution to institution until there is nobody left, and through no "technical" violation of the First Amendment, you have effectly not got it any more.
You only have to see recent occurences with well-known online personas that saying the wrong thing can get your bank account frozen, internet access restricted, and use of a multitude of services denied.
When institutions and companies get so centralized, large, and act homogenously, a "pseudo-government" capable of restricting your freedom emerges.
This idea of "First Amendment doesn't apply because not government" is IMHO an incredibly poisonous one. An idea that, by way of disclosures like the Twitter Files, we have found out the US government has exploited by using a complex web of companies and agencies to police speech on platforms like Twitter.
Institutions like Stanford policing language is effectively indistinguishable from the government doing it in a multitude of ways. Yes you don't get charged with a crime, but you will end up unable to get higher education there. What if Harvard does the same?
If you allow this seed to take, then you quickly slip down the "First They Came..." slope. First they came for schools. Then for tech platforms. Where do you think it ends? Just there?
This is essentially a long definition of the (quite polarizing and controversial) term "woke mind virus", since it spreads from company to company and institution to institution until there is nobody left, and through no "technical" violation of the First Amendment, you have effectly not got it any more.
I'm offended by how they assume visitors to the page will all be literate. Why is there no audio or, for the hearing impaired, a video of a person signing?
Looks like the inmates are running the asylum at Stanford. <ducks and runs for cover>
Your statement is offensive to victims of nuclear war, and also some types of birds.
You mean temporarily incarcerated persons?
Reading through the suggestions a lot seem out of date, ignorant of the actual experience of people, and insufficiently justifies the change. It’s true that many of these things have been accepted by peer institutions but that was long ago (some of these suggestions track to the 1950s and have little to no salience in 2022).
> Instead of: African-American
> Consider using: Black
Was this previously the other way around?
> Consider using: Black
Was this previously the other way around?
Calling some groups by a color is OK. Calling other groups by their color, not OK. Capitalization of the color should be used when referring to one group. But for a different group, capitalization is not to be made.
There is no logically consistency.
I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparently this changed in the matter of two years. So not only are we faced with a logical inconsistency, but we are also on a language treadmill. It's creating landmines everywhere in general discourse.
There is no logically consistency.
I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparently this changed in the matter of two years. So not only are we faced with a logical inconsistency, but we are also on a language treadmill. It's creating landmines everywhere in general discourse.
> I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparently this changed in the matter of two years
No, it was never right in the first place, it didn’t change in 2 years. Racial labels have always been a matter where there are a variety of strong preferences shaped by different personal experiences.
The actual rule is listen to abd be respectful of your specific audience; being aware of the general discourse and issues (of which, any particular author's preferred terminology alone is the least important bit) is part of doing that for general or new audiences.
No, it was never right in the first place, it didn’t change in 2 years. Racial labels have always been a matter where there are a variety of strong preferences shaped by different personal experiences.
The actual rule is listen to abd be respectful of your specific audience; being aware of the general discourse and issues (of which, any particular author's preferred terminology alone is the least important bit) is part of doing that for general or new audiences.
Bloom County covered this pretty well in 1988 [0].
[0] https://2.bp.blogspot.com/3DPJBMraNogoZ4jNUjGALP_eaVRdd0RroT...
[0] https://2.bp.blogspot.com/3DPJBMraNogoZ4jNUjGALP_eaVRdd0RroT...
"Black" was similarly offensive ten years later. This was especially awkward in English speaking countries other than the US.
Colored used to be the preferred term, then negro, then black, then African-American, now we're back to "black" being preferred...I guess?
According to this article, it was various political/social leaders who pushed for new words.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/octo...
According to this article, it was various political/social leaders who pushed for new words.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/octo...
Yes, in the 1970s plus or minus black was the preferred term.
Yeah, well, it sort of falls apart once people start pointing out that Elon Musk is the richest African-American.
But what about mix raced, or just lighter skinned “black” people?
Race is crude social construct. It's practically useless and needs to be phased out.
There seems to be very strong resistance to the concept of "racial color blindness". I don't think this will happen within our lifetimes.
> Pocahontas
> This is a slur and should not be used to address an Indigenous woman unless that is her actual name.
How dare they assume this name is exclusive to people who choose she/her/hers pronouns.
They already conflict with their own rules below!
> she
> Unless you know the person you're addressing uses "she" as their pronoun, it is better to use "they" or to ask the person which pronouns they use.
> This is a slur and should not be used to address an Indigenous woman unless that is her actual name.
How dare they assume this name is exclusive to people who choose she/her/hers pronouns.
They already conflict with their own rules below!
> she
> Unless you know the person you're addressing uses "she" as their pronoun, it is better to use "they" or to ask the person which pronouns they use.
So many of the grounds for elimination are just plain wrong. "Balls to the wall" is banned for "attributing personality traits to anatomy", because some woke activist never bothered to learn that it refers to ball-shaped grips on an aircraft's joystick and throttle, being pushed to their limit.
It's astounding how little effort was taken to put a word or an idiom that millions use on this huge list to be eliminated. This elimination project was as lazy and sloppy as much as its intended impact is vast and invasive.
The future of tyranny is a shadow committee of ignorant, sloppy woke moralists controlling our free expression with a few lazy keystrokes.
It's astounding how little effort was taken to put a word or an idiom that millions use on this huge list to be eliminated. This elimination project was as lazy and sloppy as much as its intended impact is vast and invasive.
The future of tyranny is a shadow committee of ignorant, sloppy woke moralists controlling our free expression with a few lazy keystrokes.
Satire. The way to fight this is with satire. Perhaps we should post this list to Github, make whatever ridiculous additions we can think of, and take pull requests from all quarters. Then we just need to find a way to broadcast it.
Are we sure this isn't satire?
> child prostitute, child who has been trafficked, Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics.
I'm sorry, but I'm aghast (is that term okay, or is it too close to "ghost", which suggests "death", which might be triggering for somebody who knows somebody who died?) that somebody was able to type this out - a suggestion of a "more sensitive" term for a child involved in prostitution, ostensibly to "not define people by just one of their characteristics" - and wasn't immediately shocked into deleting it right away.
I'm sorry, but I'm aghast (is that term okay, or is it too close to "ghost", which suggests "death", which might be triggering for somebody who knows somebody who died?) that somebody was able to type this out - a suggestion of a "more sensitive" term for a child involved in prostitution, ostensibly to "not define people by just one of their characteristics" - and wasn't immediately shocked into deleting it right away.
It's unfortunate how this conflates a lot of confounding things with sensible ideas.
"People first" language is a concept I'm actually a fan of; here it's used arbitrarily in the most ridiculous ways.
This type of thing just sets back progress towards an actually inclusive culture. And ignores the reality of how language and the meanings of words change over time.
"People first" language is a concept I'm actually a fan of; here it's used arbitrarily in the most ridiculous ways.
This type of thing just sets back progress towards an actually inclusive culture. And ignores the reality of how language and the meanings of words change over time.
Word lists, ai, free speech, Orwell, NLP, newspeak, the great firewall, FBI in every social media, feds riddled throughout our newsrooms, shadowbanning, content moderation, needing karma to post, brigading by special interest groups, Epstein, social credit rating systemS, no fly lists, warrantless search… I don’t like the future.
Does anyone else find it amusing that I shouldn’t use phrases with “trigger” in them, as they promote violent imagery, but then the reason why I shouldn’t say “killing it” uses “trigger” to describe why it’s bad?
Gotta love how the page for "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" has a content warning:
"Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace."
It's not going well so far.
"Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace."
It's not going well so far.
The content warning is reasonable and it works: because I ain’t reading that crap. I have standards. I prefer to avoid being angry with fools, today.
>” I prefer to avoid being angry with fools, today.”
That is my inclination as well, but truth be told something feels very unsettling and insidious about this document. I can get on board with some word choice changes if they seem reasonable. However just about everything in this list seems unjustifiable and purely driven by some neo-puritanical moralism.
One day I can envision this list being codified into the grammar and spell check programs we use for word processing and email.
If people don’t speak up, this will end up becoming something that gets enforced. Not legally enforced, mind you, but first it will become mandatory in academia, then in journalism, then in the business word, and eventually new generations will speak it natively.
That is my inclination as well, but truth be told something feels very unsettling and insidious about this document. I can get on board with some word choice changes if they seem reasonable. However just about everything in this list seems unjustifiable and purely driven by some neo-puritanical moralism.
One day I can envision this list being codified into the grammar and spell check programs we use for word processing and email.
If people don’t speak up, this will end up becoming something that gets enforced. Not legally enforced, mind you, but first it will become mandatory in academia, then in journalism, then in the business word, and eventually new generations will speak it natively.
> That is my inclination as well, but truth be told something feels very unsettling and insidious about this document.
The problem is: it never ends. There will be new words and phrases next year, and the year after.
The problem is: it never ends. There will be new words and phrases next year, and the year after.
Business as usual. I'm waiting to receive the list of words I can use. Probably contains "yes", "my" and "lord".
Welcome to Clown World
> “A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke.” - Kierkegaard
Maybe just remove English from IT altogether. I'm sure one can find harmful roots everywhere given enough time and research.
It's absurd how this people don't know absolutely anything about linguistics. "Men" in menpower doesn't mean "the power of men". It means the power of people. Words can have different meanings when written in different contexts, even more when combined. Go on, downvote, be like the many preachers, iconoclasts and witch burners of the past, see you in ten or maybe a little more years when we can focus again on stuff that matters for mankind.
My sense is this is actually still the majority opinion in men’s hearts. It just doesn’t get said as much because of the mind virus going around.
tone deaf > unenlightened > Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities.
What about blind people, you can't talk about light! This page is terribly insensitive, borderline offensive!
What about blind people, you can't talk about light! This page is terribly insensitive, borderline offensive!
The comedy of this list is perfected by them banning the use of the phrase "calling a spade a spade".
Expanding on the parent comment: [0]
[0] https://grammarist.com/idiom/call-a-spade-a-spade
[0] https://grammarist.com/idiom/call-a-spade-a-spade
"Long time no see" is bad. Their suggested replacement: "I haven't seen you in so long."
Wow. "No can do" is out, replaced with "I can't do it". OMG.
"Prisoner" replaced with "person who is incarcerated". It goes without saying that "prisoner" is someone with many characteristics, who happens to be in prison - a significant life situation. When released, they are no longer prisoners.
In regards to "blackbox", the meaning is about absence of light, not "black is bad". The Stanford list is embarrassing, and I would argue harmful.
One on the list I agree with is "stand-up meeting". Literally standing up in a meeting doesn't improve the quality of the meeting. Happy to see that go. Inviting someone in a wheelchair to a "stand-up" would be a low point for everyone involved. This is an exception on the list. Things like "sanity-check" are not the equivalent because "sanity" is very broad, not as clear-cut or narrow as "sit/stand".
Wow. "No can do" is out, replaced with "I can't do it". OMG.
"Prisoner" replaced with "person who is incarcerated". It goes without saying that "prisoner" is someone with many characteristics, who happens to be in prison - a significant life situation. When released, they are no longer prisoners.
In regards to "blackbox", the meaning is about absence of light, not "black is bad". The Stanford list is embarrassing, and I would argue harmful.
One on the list I agree with is "stand-up meeting". Literally standing up in a meeting doesn't improve the quality of the meeting. Happy to see that go. Inviting someone in a wheelchair to a "stand-up" would be a low point for everyone involved. This is an exception on the list. Things like "sanity-check" are not the equivalent because "sanity" is very broad, not as clear-cut or narrow as "sit/stand".
The point here isn't actually to not offend, it's to have some byzantine set of rules to force on others
I remember at a job orientation a year or so ago, the HR people and management spent a long time talking at us about DEI shit. They asked for questions and one of the people in the audience brought up unconscious bias (which wasn't in their presentation for some convenient reason). They got kind of shitty with the guy. Not in any sort of non-plausibly-deniable way, they just changed the subject really fast
This is DEI in practice: it's some upper management head game where anyone who doesn't answer "I MOST CERTAINLY AGREE!!!1!1!" is doing it wrong
The real solution imo is DEI accelerationism: just crank the wokeness to the absolute maximum, to the point where management starts to reconsider opening their mouths about it. You can be a ridiculous asshole, just make sure you're on the woke side and there's very little they can do to retaliate
I remember at a job orientation a year or so ago, the HR people and management spent a long time talking at us about DEI shit. They asked for questions and one of the people in the audience brought up unconscious bias (which wasn't in their presentation for some convenient reason). They got kind of shitty with the guy. Not in any sort of non-plausibly-deniable way, they just changed the subject really fast
This is DEI in practice: it's some upper management head game where anyone who doesn't answer "I MOST CERTAINLY AGREE!!!1!1!" is doing it wrong
The real solution imo is DEI accelerationism: just crank the wokeness to the absolute maximum, to the point where management starts to reconsider opening their mouths about it. You can be a ridiculous asshole, just make sure you're on the woke side and there's very little they can do to retaliate
This doesn’t seem real. Maybe it’s a distraction to engage people who spend a lot of time on things like this so they don’t get involved in real activities and gum up the works.
I’ve seen this used where there is an anti-productive person who makes other people waste time. When there’s one of these on a project, it can be a real drain. But if there’s two, you can plug them into each other and they’ll sort of create a perpetual motion machine of stupidity of important sounding make work.
It’s important to set a task so it doesn’t suck in others. But forming a committee on conference room naming or something might work.
Cynically, I suspect I’ve been out on these types of tasks. So any time I’m stuck on a Sisyphean task, I try to step back and see if I’ve been stuck on ark ship B [0].
[0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_...
I’ve seen this used where there is an anti-productive person who makes other people waste time. When there’s one of these on a project, it can be a real drain. But if there’s two, you can plug them into each other and they’ll sort of create a perpetual motion machine of stupidity of important sounding make work.
It’s important to set a task so it doesn’t suck in others. But forming a committee on conference room naming or something might work.
Cynically, I suspect I’ve been out on these types of tasks. So any time I’m stuck on a Sisyphean task, I try to step back and see if I’ve been stuck on ark ship B [0].
[0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_...
Does it seem like we’re living in a world where these guys have no influence?
committed suicide -> died by suicide: even in death we are removing their agency.
Agreed, I actually found this one the most interesting of the list. What is the reasoning for this one? What is avoided by this change?
I was surprised by the fact I actually agreed with much more of the list than I thought I would. Maybe a bit over half.
The worst of the list (as in, the one I agree the most and which irks me the most) is OCD.
Probably because I have slight OCD but it’s still the extremely specific medical term why use it for when you like pink post-its?
I was surprised by the fact I actually agreed with much more of the list than I thought I would. Maybe a bit over half.
The worst of the list (as in, the one I agree the most and which irks me the most) is OCD.
Probably because I have slight OCD but it’s still the extremely specific medical term why use it for when you like pink post-its?
It's interesting to see that you agree the most with the one term you are actually personally afflicted with.
Maybe it's the same for so many other terms when the people are actually affected?
Maybe it's the same for so many other terms when the people are actually affected?
The one I agree with the least in the entire list is also the one I’m affected personally. So it’s a toss up?
Stop trying to make latinx a thing. Any latino or latin american would be horrified by that term.
Stop trying to make latinx a thing. Any latino or latin american would be horrified by that term.
From what I've heard (and a quick DDG search confirms this) the switch was actually to get away from the fact that killing oneself has actually been a crime (that one "committed") in the past.
I guarantee you that most of those actually affected by suicide care far more about the passivization of their loved one's final act than a tortured etymological concern.
How long before this percolates into normal life?
Ridiculous nonsense!
Guess my mum was lying when she told me as a kid that sticks and stones could break my bones but words could never hurt me. Looks like words are worse than torture, the way things are going. No need to pull out fingernails in secret black sites, just say some naughty words and see how long they last! Haha.
Ridiculous nonsense!
Guess my mum was lying when she told me as a kid that sticks and stones could break my bones but words could never hurt me. Looks like words are worse than torture, the way things are going. No need to pull out fingernails in secret black sites, just say some naughty words and see how long they last! Haha.
If somebody told me I was not thinking properly rather than going off the reservation, I'd definitely be more offended. I'm not Native American, I'd be interested in their opinion.
The words themselves are never harmful. Its in their context of use where the potential "harm" lies.
What has led academia in particular to drive decontextualization of language like this? How have we, in just a few years, completely started to disregard contextual meaning of languange? Surely this has to be an active research field as well.
What has led academia in particular to drive decontextualization of language like this? How have we, in just a few years, completely started to disregard contextual meaning of languange? Surely this has to be an active research field as well.
And, obviously, this decisions kill the universities forever. If free speech is organised around a rule, a norm or a law, then it's not free anymore and I don't want to participate as a free individual.
And many people is gonna decide the same way looking for parallel ways of demonstrating their knowledge out of the formal.
Did you know that Linda's husband became devoted to Oxycontin after his shoulder surgery?
Consider using "Linda's partner" instead.
Oh never mind, forgot I was not supposed to say "using" anymore...
Oh never mind, forgot I was not supposed to say "using" anymore...
This is starting to become verbal gaslighting: if you don't mention it, it doesn't exist.
There are too many suggested replacements that I find are overly prescriptive, contextually blind, and needlessly aggrandizing.
Some, I admit, have merit. (Senile, grey-beard etc.) To me they are common sense. Perhaps, the rest of the terms were common sense to the authors.
Several suggestions about cultural appropriation are hypocritical. People of all cultures say the Lord's name in vain all the time. But saying guru or totem pole or spirit animal is an infringement. Why?
There are many turns of phrase where the offensive implication is not even implicit. "Bury the hatchet", "take a shot", "rule of thumb". Does anyone have to do mental labor to separate the violence in the words from their meaning?
Some replacements are suggested to prevent a word from singularly describing a person, because people have multiple characteristics. Yet the verbosity makes the attempt more conspicuous. "Immigrant -> person who immigrated". Why?
Some, I admit, have merit. (Senile, grey-beard etc.) To me they are common sense. Perhaps, the rest of the terms were common sense to the authors.
Several suggestions about cultural appropriation are hypocritical. People of all cultures say the Lord's name in vain all the time. But saying guru or totem pole or spirit animal is an infringement. Why?
There are many turns of phrase where the offensive implication is not even implicit. "Bury the hatchet", "take a shot", "rule of thumb". Does anyone have to do mental labor to separate the violence in the words from their meaning?
Some replacements are suggested to prevent a word from singularly describing a person, because people have multiple characteristics. Yet the verbosity makes the attempt more conspicuous. "Immigrant -> person who immigrated". Why?
> Some, I admit, have merit. (Senile, grey-beard etc.) To me they are common sense.
Speak for yourself.
To me "grey beard" is a word which refers to someone with great authority on a subject, whose experience is certain to exceed anyone else.
If someone were to refer to me as a gray beard, I would consider that a sign of respect.
Speak for yourself.
To me "grey beard" is a word which refers to someone with great authority on a subject, whose experience is certain to exceed anyone else.
If someone were to refer to me as a gray beard, I would consider that a sign of respect.
Yes, I am speaking for myself.
I would dearly love to see this list correlated with the percentage of the offended demographic who agree that it is harmful.
I can get behind some of these, because it's always been common sense not use them, but it feels like they're just mixed in there to lend legitimacy to the nonsense next to them.
Some of these are very strange to me - is really preferable (or even appropriate) to say that someone is devoted to heroin instead of addicted?
It's badly written. They are saying that you shouldn't use the term "addicted" for anything except actual addiction. They object to, for instance, saying you are addicted to a TV show.
<thumbsup> Facebook likes this.
Many of the examples appear to be ignorant and even outright offensive-- but in that case I believe it's suggesting an alternative usage for non-addiction contexts.
E.g. Don't say that you're addicted to CheezePuffs(tm) say you're ... devoted. Uh well not the best but you get my point. The motivation for that one is to avoid conflating something someone likes a lot with heroin like addiction.
E.g. Don't say that you're addicted to CheezePuffs(tm) say you're ... devoted. Uh well not the best but you get my point. The motivation for that one is to avoid conflating something someone likes a lot with heroin like addiction.
thanks for explaining, that actually makes some sense (if you accept the premise that we should change words that people might be offended by).. but then don't you immediately run into the problem of deciding which addictions are real and which are trivial?
Worse. The mechanism through which "substance addictions" and "behavioral addictions" happen (and are maintained) pretty much involves the same neurotransmitter paths:
"Preclinical evidence has demonstrated that marked increases in the expression of ΔFosB through repetitive and excessive exposure to a natural reward induces the same behavioral effects and neuroplasticity as occurs in a drug addiction."
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction)
The way I see it, it is literally harmful to try to make it seem like "behavioral addictions" are any less dangerous than (or significantly different from) "substance addictions", because they are not.
"Preclinical evidence has demonstrated that marked increases in the expression of ΔFosB through repetitive and excessive exposure to a natural reward induces the same behavioral effects and neuroplasticity as occurs in a drug addiction."
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Behavioral_addiction)
The way I see it, it is literally harmful to try to make it seem like "behavioral addictions" are any less dangerous than (or significantly different from) "substance addictions", because they are not.
[deleted]
Or the 1st suggestion (which you omitted): Hooked.
Yeah - that one at least makes sense (in terms of conveying the intended meaning) but it's arguable more casual than 'addict' so I'm really not sure whose feelings we're trying to preserve here.
SJWs are alive and well at Stanford. Oh sorry, they/them are existing in a non-unsatisfactory status.
I keep reading, but all I understand is "never hire anyone who associates their education/work experience with this organisation".
Wow! Have you seen the list of words? This is completely stupid. Most of them anyway. Some of them are legit - eg. it annoys me when someone addresses a group of girls and says - "guys". But this is just a mistaken slang, it is not an established word.
Imagine - don't use the word "brave" - which is a really strong positive word.
Or take this - replace "stupid" with "boring, uncool" - you must be joking! uncool? Is there such a word? I bet many linguists and dictionaries authors must be going mad when seeing this article..
Ah but then I read this (first line in the article):
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.
So this is just a restrained group of people. Not sure why is this posted here anyway.
Ah but then I read this (first line in the article):
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.
So this is just a restrained group of people. Not sure why is this posted here anyway.
"Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace."
The list can go on and on and we will one day witness the Standford IT Community doing "The Chief Apologies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBGOryiqZZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBGOryiqZZI
I'm actually glad someone puts it into one list.
I grew up in a society that used words like "disabled" left and right, as an insult. As a child I never saw ramps for the wheelchairs, and seldom saw people on a wheelchair (only in hospitals). That was part of the culture of ostracising "different people" and making sure "normal" people don't see them.
It's still the case for mental issues though, and I have friends with kids at different levels of ASD who are literally prohibited to enter cafes so they "don't scare normal people". Using "autist" as an insult is still widespread in my country.
And I'm glad to see how this is changing. Accessibility becomes a topic of discussion and a new norm. I was glad to learn to use "people with disabilities" instead of "disabled". Somehow I felt like I'm a part of this change, undoing wrongs that were common in our society towards that group of people.
I have the same feeling towards gender pronounces. When I use "person-hours" instead of "man-hours", even if it sounds the same to me, I feel like my communication becomes a little bit better and respectful to everyone. I have no troubles learning doing something in a new way.
I also embraced "master" to "main" default branch naming switch at Github, and I like it. Main is shorter and makes more sense. Branch renaming is not painful, so why not, if it makes someone's experience a bit more pleasant.
In figure skating, for example, almost century old names of "Choctaw" and "Mohawk" steps where renamed recently to S-step and C-step, because the history of those names where rooted in the history of oppression of Indian tribes in North America. I then read a reddit comment from one of the indigenous people from skating community in Canada sharing her experience and feelings about this change - in short, she was extremely happy. There are 1.6 million people like her in Canada alone. And guess what, many coaches reported that kids where super happy too, because making sense and remembering words like "choctaw" and "mohawk" was difficult for them. "S-step" and "C-step", instead, make a lot of sense, because those steps looks exactly like S and C on the ice (hence the naming). Those names were never good.
So to me changing language is a reflection of changes in society. I understand that sometimes it can go too far, but I disagree with majority of comments here that this list is something "absolutely disgusting". I think it's fine, and serves a good purpose as a recommendation.
I grew up in a society that used words like "disabled" left and right, as an insult. As a child I never saw ramps for the wheelchairs, and seldom saw people on a wheelchair (only in hospitals). That was part of the culture of ostracising "different people" and making sure "normal" people don't see them.
It's still the case for mental issues though, and I have friends with kids at different levels of ASD who are literally prohibited to enter cafes so they "don't scare normal people". Using "autist" as an insult is still widespread in my country.
And I'm glad to see how this is changing. Accessibility becomes a topic of discussion and a new norm. I was glad to learn to use "people with disabilities" instead of "disabled". Somehow I felt like I'm a part of this change, undoing wrongs that were common in our society towards that group of people.
I have the same feeling towards gender pronounces. When I use "person-hours" instead of "man-hours", even if it sounds the same to me, I feel like my communication becomes a little bit better and respectful to everyone. I have no troubles learning doing something in a new way.
I also embraced "master" to "main" default branch naming switch at Github, and I like it. Main is shorter and makes more sense. Branch renaming is not painful, so why not, if it makes someone's experience a bit more pleasant.
In figure skating, for example, almost century old names of "Choctaw" and "Mohawk" steps where renamed recently to S-step and C-step, because the history of those names where rooted in the history of oppression of Indian tribes in North America. I then read a reddit comment from one of the indigenous people from skating community in Canada sharing her experience and feelings about this change - in short, she was extremely happy. There are 1.6 million people like her in Canada alone. And guess what, many coaches reported that kids where super happy too, because making sense and remembering words like "choctaw" and "mohawk" was difficult for them. "S-step" and "C-step", instead, make a lot of sense, because those steps looks exactly like S and C on the ice (hence the naming). Those names were never good.
So to me changing language is a reflection of changes in society. I understand that sometimes it can go too far, but I disagree with majority of comments here that this list is something "absolutely disgusting". I think it's fine, and serves a good purpose as a recommendation.
These changes don't reflect changes in society. The vast majority of us do not have any involvement in instituting these changes. These are thought up by the deranged and unintelligent and socially enforced by instilling fear of ostracism. The rest of us are simply expected to go along with it and I, for one, refuse to participate. You ninnies can have fun.
I feel violated by your embracement of thought policing.
This is not a "change in culture" or describing people voluntarily changing their views. This is fascism in new clothes - "Kauft nicht bei Juden!".
The reason for authoring documents like the discussed is not to better yourself, it's to ostracise those who do not abide. Get them fired from their jobs, burn down their homes and cars, slander them so they may never ever dare to call someone obviously male "Mister". This is getting completely out of hand, and it will end bloody I presume.
I rename every git main back to master in my projects, I use blacklists, I will not give one foot to the batshit insane.
This is not a "change in culture" or describing people voluntarily changing their views. This is fascism in new clothes - "Kauft nicht bei Juden!".
The reason for authoring documents like the discussed is not to better yourself, it's to ostracise those who do not abide. Get them fired from their jobs, burn down their homes and cars, slander them so they may never ever dare to call someone obviously male "Mister". This is getting completely out of hand, and it will end bloody I presume.
I rename every git main back to master in my projects, I use blacklists, I will not give one foot to the batshit insane.
> burn down their homes and cars, slander them
Do you suggest that people read recommendations from Stanford and start burning your home, because you disagree with those? Stanford really has that level of control over people minds? Impressive if yes.
> This is getting completely out of hand
Whose hand?
Do you suggest that people read recommendations from Stanford and start burning your home, because you disagree with those? Stanford really has that level of control over people minds? Impressive if yes.
> This is getting completely out of hand
Whose hand?
> As a child I never saw ramps for the wheelchairs, and seldom saw people on a wheelchair (only in hospitals). That was part of the culture of ostracising "different people" and making sure "normal" people don't see them.
US had ramps long before wokeness infected the minds. You might be saying that wokeness leaking to other countries helps them become more accessible, but this could be a spurious correlation.
> Branch renaming is not painful, so why not, if it makes someone's experience a bit more pleasant.
How do you know it's not painful and that pros outweigh the cons? All the polls I've seen were overwhelmingly against rename.
The only way to be offended by "master" branch is to choose to be offended. Nobody means anything offensive, but I can twist their words to pretend I'm hurt and make them feel bad for my own benefit. That's a disgusting manipulative behavior, and I have absolutely no respect for people who do that. Accommodating those narcissists is harmful for society.
US had ramps long before wokeness infected the minds. You might be saying that wokeness leaking to other countries helps them become more accessible, but this could be a spurious correlation.
> Branch renaming is not painful, so why not, if it makes someone's experience a bit more pleasant.
How do you know it's not painful and that pros outweigh the cons? All the polls I've seen were overwhelmingly against rename.
The only way to be offended by "master" branch is to choose to be offended. Nobody means anything offensive, but I can twist their words to pretend I'm hurt and make them feel bad for my own benefit. That's a disgusting manipulative behavior, and I have absolutely no respect for people who do that. Accommodating those narcissists is harmful for society.
Thank you for posting a different view on this topic. The comment section here feels very one-sided and makes me believe that people aren’t here to critically discuss all views. Honestly I feel very intimidated to write any comments that challenge the opinions here because of the imbalance.
> "User" consider using "client". While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
>client. Short for client state
>client state. A state that is economically, politically and/or militarily dependent on another, more powerful state
I think "client" falls under their colonialism category and should be avoided as well. "Customer" then?
>client state. A state that is economically, politically and/or militarily dependent on another, more powerful state
I think "client" falls under their colonialism category and should be avoided as well. "Customer" then?
> "Customer" then?
No. Albeit obsolete, that used to be slang for "lewd woman" or... consults table "person who engages in sex work".
How about "human"?
No. Albeit obsolete, that used to be slang for "lewd woman" or... consults table "person who engages in sex work".
How about "human"?
All words are harmful in some context or other. I suggest we abandon language and return to good old argument by flinging feces at one another.
That's ableist.
[deleted]
Amusingly “git” isn’t on here. Perhaps British insults get a pass at Stanford.
I kind of find it ironic the these 'inclusivity initiatives' are driven by some of the most exclusive instructions in the world, with a long history of murky and nepotistic admissions practices.
From one of the most selective universities in the country. A prestige from the fact that they are one of the most exclusive institutions that exist.
Looking at it from a different angle, I don’t like the more wordy suggestions.
> convict…person who is/was incarcerated
> senile…person suffering from senility
Before I hit send I try to make my writing clear, concise, and full of meaning. I do it in the hope that the folks on the other end read and understand me.
Swapping one term for a slightly longer one won’t be a breaking point, but sentences like:
> I went to visit the incarcerated person suffering from senility
build up cruft that you don’t get with something shorter.
> I went to visit the senile convict.
Maybe they should punctuate the article as Orwell did in his rules for writing:
> Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous
> convict…person who is/was incarcerated
> senile…person suffering from senility
Before I hit send I try to make my writing clear, concise, and full of meaning. I do it in the hope that the folks on the other end read and understand me.
Swapping one term for a slightly longer one won’t be a breaking point, but sentences like:
> I went to visit the incarcerated person suffering from senility
build up cruft that you don’t get with something shorter.
> I went to visit the senile convict.
Maybe they should punctuate the article as Orwell did in his rules for writing:
> Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous
The verbose alternative also draws more attention to the condition being described. Since most of these are negative conditions, you could argue that you're emphasizing the negative by dedicating so many words to it.
It's also wrong, because someone can have been incarcerated without having been convicted.
Do not hire people that attend schools that push insane agendas such as these, period.
There are hundreds of other good schools around the world that don't institute crazy policies such as these - it's time for parents and their children to start pushing back and letting schools with agendas know that this is not okay and there will unfortunately have to be negative consequences for their students who "just go along" with it for the prestige of going to Stanford. These power-crazed schools are becoming indoctrination camps.
There are hundreds of other good schools around the world that don't institute crazy policies such as these - it's time for parents and their children to start pushing back and letting schools with agendas know that this is not okay and there will unfortunately have to be negative consequences for their students who "just go along" with it for the prestige of going to Stanford. These power-crazed schools are becoming indoctrination camps.
This is just demonstrating American's need for euphemisms as pointed out by George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
So let’s get rid of the word “black”, as it means scorched (blakeren). Very harmful.
The next time someone asks, "What do you mean by woke? Isn't that just about being aware and kind?"
I thought so at first too, but no. It's use the words we tell you to use. Have the opinions we tell you to have. Otherwise it's harmful and you're a bad person.
This initiative is what is meant by “woke” and ones similar to it. It's a dangerous totalitarianism that presents itself with exactly this kind of empathetic language and emotional blackmail. It's intolerance disguised as tolerance.
I thought so at first too, but no. It's use the words we tell you to use. Have the opinions we tell you to have. Otherwise it's harmful and you're a bad person.
This initiative is what is meant by “woke” and ones similar to it. It's a dangerous totalitarianism that presents itself with exactly this kind of empathetic language and emotional blackmail. It's intolerance disguised as tolerance.
> This initiative is what is meant by “woke”
No, this is institutional PR by an institution that is very much the antithesis of woke; it may be trying to avoid criticism from people who are woke, but it’s interests are served just as well by discrediting the entire idea (which reduces pressure on it the same way as accommodation does, and more durably), and its actions reflect that.
No, this is institutional PR by an institution that is very much the antithesis of woke; it may be trying to avoid criticism from people who are woke, but it’s interests are served just as well by discrediting the entire idea (which reduces pressure on it the same way as accommodation does, and more durably), and its actions reflect that.
Can someone please steelman the argument that language can be harmful, because I just don’t get it.
There’s physical and psychological harm, clearly it’s not physical so it’s saying that people are being harmed in a psychological way from a certain type of language.
Ok, so are they developing disorders, or what kind of harm are we talking about? My understanding is that we’re talking about language that causes offense, discomfort, things of that nature.
So if you’re going to pursue this line of thought, where do you draw the line? Whose discomfort do you take into account, what offense is enough?
There’s physical and psychological harm, clearly it’s not physical so it’s saying that people are being harmed in a psychological way from a certain type of language.
Ok, so are they developing disorders, or what kind of harm are we talking about? My understanding is that we’re talking about language that causes offense, discomfort, things of that nature.
So if you’re going to pursue this line of thought, where do you draw the line? Whose discomfort do you take into account, what offense is enough?
> to call a spade a spade/ calling a spade a spade
> to call something what it is / calling something what it is
> Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.
I have no idea what this is referring to.
.
> white paper
> position paper
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
Whitepapers are considered good now? I thought they were vendor marketing material.
.
> whitespace
> empty space
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
If they'd said it discriminates against dark-mode users they might almost have a point.
> to call something what it is / calling something what it is
> Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.
I have no idea what this is referring to.
.
> white paper
> position paper
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
Whitepapers are considered good now? I thought they were vendor marketing material.
.
> whitespace
> empty space
> Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.
If they'd said it discriminates against dark-mode users they might almost have a point.
"Spade" has been used as a derogatory term for blacks.
"White space" is treating white as good? You're replacing white with "empty", no content, meaningless, and you think white is being used to indicate good? Nope. You (Stanford, not the parent) just took a list of phrases and grepped for "white", but didn't actually think.
"White space" is treating white as good? You're replacing white with "empty", no content, meaningless, and you think white is being used to indicate good? Nope. You (Stanford, not the parent) just took a list of phrases and grepped for "white", but didn't actually think.
[deleted]
I would consider use of whitespace as negative to white. As it is useless space that is wasteful...
If you think white space is useless, try reading a document without any.
> If you think white space is useless, try reading a document without any.
So, Perl?
So, Perl?
>So,PerlWhitespacecanstillbeusedinperl,withgreatutility.
It's like banning shovels because someone can get hit with a shovel. It's not a language problem, and it cannot be solved by chopping the language up on the Procrustean bed. All it's going to do is annoy people and rally them against what used to be perceived as a good cause. And guess what, sometimes one needs to get hurt by being called a fucking idiot especially, if they act like a fucking idiot. Real life is not kindergarten. You have responsibility, not just rights.
Can we talk about Latinx?
This is entirely something that English speakers have made up for Spanish speakers. My wife, who works in healthcare for the state, and largely with farm workers, regales me constantly with stories that essentially have the punchline “Que es Latinx?” in which she has to explain to them that this means them and that it was made up (perhaps at Stanford) out of some crazy attempt to remove -a and -o endings FROM THEIR LANGUAGE because it hurts their English ears.
This is entirely something that English speakers have made up for Spanish speakers. My wife, who works in healthcare for the state, and largely with farm workers, regales me constantly with stories that essentially have the punchline “Que es Latinx?” in which she has to explain to them that this means them and that it was made up (perhaps at Stanford) out of some crazy attempt to remove -a and -o endings FROM THEIR LANGUAGE because it hurts their English ears.
English speakers from the US that is, btw.
>English speakers from the US that is, btw.
To be more precise, usually white liberal English speakers from the US.
To be more precise, usually white liberal English speakers from the US.
Yes - good point.
As a Mexican, I can tell you that actual people from latino-america dislike the Latinx thing. Use Hispanic, Latina, Latino, Latino-american, or actual country of origin.
As a non-American I must say that this is as funny as our ridiculous attempts to translate words that everyday uses anyway ("because they are <some complicated linguistics word> of English")
The difference is that someone using "mail" instead of "courriel" in France goes unnoticed because everyone understands that some orgs in the administration sometimes have to pretend to work.
The difference is that someone using "mail" instead of "courriel" in France goes unnoticed because everyone understands that some orgs in the administration sometimes have to pretend to work.
Relevant comedy sketch from the past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKkb0qXbyUY
Reading that really makes you wonder what the hell (sorry if that offends some atheists or buddhists!) they are talking about in official meetings at the Stanford IT department. Gray beards? Pocahontas??? In my 20 years in IT, not once have I heard that anyone ever felt the need to discuss "hermaphrodites" in a meeting or document.
The corporate memphis art and the content warning is just the cherry on top of this steaming pile of crap.
Projects like this are doomed, because they fundamentally ignore how language works, how language evolves, and how humans work.
My favourite example is "idiot". Once upon a time it was a clinical diagnosis used by physicians to describe people. This word of course turned into a slur, so the diagnosis word had to be changed, and people at that time chose "retard". ...Which promptly became a slur, forcing people to yet again pick a new word. Is "mentally handicapped" ok these days? This list suggest "people who have a cognitive disability", that sure rolls easily off the tongue.
But it's interesting to note that even though this list calls out "retard", it doesn't call out "idiot". Because the time that word was replaced by its politically correct replacement is so long ago that the people who made this list aren't aware of it and therefore think it has always been a slur, and that it's therefore, somehow, magically not disparaging towards the cognitively disabled.
Another great example of idiocy (!) from this list is "basket case". They're claiming you shouldn't use it because it's offensive to quadriplegics, because that's what it originally meant.
WHEN?!? IN THE 1800's?!? That expression hasn't meant or referenced quadriplegics in a long, long time. But apparently someone with a stick up their ass dug up the etymology of it and decided to include it in the list. But forgot about "idiot".
This is white-knighting feel-good slacktivism at its finest. You haven't accomplished anything by putting together this list.
Projects like this are doomed, because they fundamentally ignore how language works, how language evolves, and how humans work.
My favourite example is "idiot". Once upon a time it was a clinical diagnosis used by physicians to describe people. This word of course turned into a slur, so the diagnosis word had to be changed, and people at that time chose "retard". ...Which promptly became a slur, forcing people to yet again pick a new word. Is "mentally handicapped" ok these days? This list suggest "people who have a cognitive disability", that sure rolls easily off the tongue.
But it's interesting to note that even though this list calls out "retard", it doesn't call out "idiot". Because the time that word was replaced by its politically correct replacement is so long ago that the people who made this list aren't aware of it and therefore think it has always been a slur, and that it's therefore, somehow, magically not disparaging towards the cognitively disabled.
Another great example of idiocy (!) from this list is "basket case". They're claiming you shouldn't use it because it's offensive to quadriplegics, because that's what it originally meant.
WHEN?!? IN THE 1800's?!? That expression hasn't meant or referenced quadriplegics in a long, long time. But apparently someone with a stick up their ass dug up the etymology of it and decided to include it in the list. But forgot about "idiot".
This is white-knighting feel-good slacktivism at its finest. You haven't accomplished anything by putting together this list.
This is a never-ending euphemism treadmill [1]. Now I've noticed younger people calling each other "remedial" as an insult. Any term or phrase used to indicate a form of mental handicap is going to become the new insult, thus prompting the creation of a new euphemism.
1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
In my peer group, “special” or “speshul” is an insult (usually with added sarcasm prosody), as a reaction to the PC usage of the word back in the 90s. I presume the same usage in the USA (given special snowflake).
A huge number of current rude terms have medical origin, including an entire measured scale, including idiot, as you called out:
Moron (from Wikipedia): --- It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists. ---
Similarly cretin as someone with congenital iodine deficiency syndrome, but now far less polite and just generically dumb.
The list misses huge numbers of terms. It feels very much like a small group of people sat down and brainstormed for 5 minutes writing out the things that bothered them individually, or knew about individually, and that was it.
Moron (from Wikipedia): --- It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists. ---
Similarly cretin as someone with congenital iodine deficiency syndrome, but now far less polite and just generically dumb.
The list misses huge numbers of terms. It feels very much like a small group of people sat down and brainstormed for 5 minutes writing out the things that bothered them individually, or knew about individually, and that was it.
This isn’t accidental and it’s not about being kind or inclusive. Just the opposite actually. It’s about being able to distinguish the haves from the have-nots. Kids who know and are hip to the latest round of preferred euphemisms are “the type of kids who go to Stanford” (a.k.a rich, educated parents, respectful of the academic world). In other words, they’re cultural signifiers.
This is not to say that there aren’t changes to language that have real effects, but most of these banned words are not intrinsically different from their replacements.
This is not to say that there aren’t changes to language that have real effects, but most of these banned words are not intrinsically different from their replacements.
> But apparently someone with a stick up their ass dug up the etymology of it and decided to include it in the list.
Don’t you realize what “a stick up their ass” originally meant?!
Don’t you realize what “a stick up their ass” originally meant?!
Presumably comes from the upright posture taught as good bearing - no etymology I saw suggested anything different - comment implies it isn’t that old either: https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/38mzi9/comment/c...
Oh, I don't think it means anything, I was just being a jerk :-)
How dare you! :-)
Maybe doctors are realizing how language works? I bet "mentally handicapped" is less likely to become a slur because it's not short, catchy and convenient like "idiot" or "retard".
Maybe... "Are you mentally handicapped" sounds more insulting to me than "Are you retarded" but maybe it's from playing video games too much
Oh, don't worry, children are infinitely inventive and will make a slur out of that too, given enough time.
You can't stop the euphemism treadmill.
You can't stop the euphemism treadmill.
The irony, since retard was chosen as a gentle way of saying "slow".
Mabye you're right, more syllables, less catchy.
Mabye you're right, more syllables, less catchy.
These kind of institutes have lost all touch with reality. Call it woke, postmodernist, critical (race) theory, I don't know what the correct term is. Their mechanisms are escalating out of control because nobody dares to stop them out of fear of being called an ableist, sexist, colonist, whichever-ist. It's like a virus.
Rather than progressive, it is regressive. It politically alienates a growing group of people in the center, center-left, independents. It's like a perfect recruitment movement for the right-wing, which is on the rise everywhere.
Progressives should stop this nonsense and return to the basics, which is to improve access to livable wages, good education, healthcare. For ALL, regardless of identity. Further, the explosive growth of the administrative function in these institutes needs to be dialed back. Always follow the money. It looks to me like right now, we're paying through the nose for anti-progress.
Rather than progressive, it is regressive. It politically alienates a growing group of people in the center, center-left, independents. It's like a perfect recruitment movement for the right-wing, which is on the rise everywhere.
Progressives should stop this nonsense and return to the basics, which is to improve access to livable wages, good education, healthcare. For ALL, regardless of identity. Further, the explosive growth of the administrative function in these institutes needs to be dialed back. Always follow the money. It looks to me like right now, we're paying through the nose for anti-progress.
The fragility of the American mind.
If Stanford was supposed to the beacon of knowledge it sounds like they decided to turn off the lights. Utterly ridiculous.
I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm".
This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team.
Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injured, i.e. "maybe somone will hear the word tarball and think of tarbaby and then they'll feel bad" despite the fact that this has never once happened in recorded history.
This way you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals (people whose work is better than yours).
This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team.
Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injured, i.e. "maybe somone will hear the word tarball and think of tarbaby and then they'll feel bad" despite the fact that this has never once happened in recorded history.
This way you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals (people whose work is better than yours).
My issue with the list is that we're increasing the harm associated with the words in the list. If we perpetuate the story that people are harmed, and introduce new harmful associations that most people don't have, then we're broadening the blast radius ( oh sorry sphere of effect ).
The stories we tell ourselves matter, and I don't see why everyone has to tell the most pessimistic, helpless story possible when these words come up by believing that harm is inevitable for each word on this (or any) list.
If we really need to police (sorry, regulate) language this much an alternative narrative would be that "these words are embarrassing for the speaker because they may appear old fashioned or niche".
The stories we tell ourselves matter, and I don't see why everyone has to tell the most pessimistic, helpless story possible when these words come up by believing that harm is inevitable for each word on this (or any) list.
If we really need to police (sorry, regulate) language this much an alternative narrative would be that "these words are embarrassing for the speaker because they may appear old fashioned or niche".
This is why we should have rejected changing master to main. No one was offended by that in the first place! They created the problem and negative association entirely out of thin air.
But we accepted it, updated our tooling, retrained our muscle memory from git checkout master to git checkout main to appease them. We gave them a taste of power and they're going to keep exercising it until meeting sufficient resistance.
Enough people need to call it out and say No. It shouldn't be that hard. This is a small power drunk group that's colonizing the language. Point it out. No one gets to dictate our language from the top down.
But we accepted it, updated our tooling, retrained our muscle memory from git checkout master to git checkout main to appease them. We gave them a taste of power and they're going to keep exercising it until meeting sufficient resistance.
Enough people need to call it out and say No. It shouldn't be that hard. This is a small power drunk group that's colonizing the language. Point it out. No one gets to dictate our language from the top down.
I was bullied at work for rejecting this. Actually not even so much for rejecting it, just saying that if we were going to do it that we should not to make such a big, self-congratulatory public statement about on our company blog.
I'm the "CI/CD guy" (sorry, person) and so far I'd guess I've spent about 40 hours fixing builds as a result of this change, pretty much always unexpectedly. Every time this happens I feel burned again.
I'm the "CI/CD guy" (sorry, person) and so far I'd guess I've spent about 40 hours fixing builds as a result of this change, pretty much always unexpectedly. Every time this happens I feel burned again.
> I was bullied at work for rejecting this.
Good: what you call bullying is what people from an older generation would have called the start of a robust and healthy conversation about why playing along with PC crap is bad for everyone.
Good: what you call bullying is what people from an older generation would have called the start of a robust and healthy conversation about why playing along with PC crap is bad for everyone.
"It's just 25 cents..."
This is the biggest issue with this list in my opinion. We are teaching kids to be offended by things they wouldn't think twice about.
And this does two kinds of damage. Some kids will end up actually becoming vulnerable to things they otherwise wouldn't - this is just needlessly increasing the sum total of suffering in the world. But some other kids will figure out the same thing people pushing for and enforcing such lists have: that this gives them power over others.
And it'll just get worse when these kids grow up and become academics and make these lists even more overbearing. This is a stretch but I really don't have a hard time imagining a world where professors have to have a minimum amount of political pins/patches/posters/etc ("flair" a la "Office Space") to keep their jobs. Because as we all know, silence is violence.
The more of this we normalize for children, the worse it'll get as they grow up and do the same.
The more of this we normalize for children, the worse it'll get as they grow up and do the same.
Exactly right.
And what irks me, is that I feel that we've seen this before (or at least read about it): even if it's not the same, it rhymes with what's been happening around the world for most of the 20th century. The methods of psychologically forcing people to eschew logic and rational thought, and submit to a half-baked ideology instead, are pretty much the same - even if it's not state-sponsored and nobody is pulling guns just yet.
I don't think people pushing this insanity (err, wild thing) realize how close they are in methods to the historical groups and present-day boogeypeople they claim to oppose.
And what irks me, is that I feel that we've seen this before (or at least read about it): even if it's not the same, it rhymes with what's been happening around the world for most of the 20th century. The methods of psychologically forcing people to eschew logic and rational thought, and submit to a half-baked ideology instead, are pretty much the same - even if it's not state-sponsored and nobody is pulling guns just yet.
I don't think people pushing this insanity (err, wild thing) realize how close they are in methods to the historical groups and present-day boogeypeople they claim to oppose.
I grew up in a very oppressive, very controlling cult. They made heavy use of control over language to exert psychological pressure on people and it was exactly like this, 100%. You could identify who was a member and who wasn't by these weird little phrases people would use. Each phrase had a story behind it, usually about what a horrible person you supposedly were in some way (for which the fix was the submitting to the church's doctrine of course).
Oh, we're already there. When applying for jobs at many universities, you have to include a "diversity statement"
https://careerservices.upenn.edu/application-materials-for-t...
https://careerservices.upenn.edu/application-materials-for-t...
> But some other kids will figure out the same thing people pushing for and enforcing such lists have: that this gives them power over others.
Tbf this seems baked in to human development, some children just love enforcing authorities' rules and tattling on other children
Tbf this seems baked in to human development, some children just love enforcing authorities' rules and tattling on other children
I agree. Which is why lists like this should be outright rejected - they will inevitably be abused.
There's a lot of silliness in college that goes away when you get your first job and have to take on more consequential and realistic priorities.
We've had bubble over the past 20 years where big tech companies and news organizations have indulged the silliness internally to reduce friction for the graduates they hire but that is drying up with the economic downturn. We're reverting to the mean.
We've had bubble over the past 20 years where big tech companies and news organizations have indulged the silliness internally to reduce friction for the graduates they hire but that is drying up with the economic downturn. We're reverting to the mean.
People have said that for 15 years now. But these people run HR departments in virtually every medium sized and up organization in America.
This whole movement is just about control and power over other people - from people who have no control in their life and desperately want it. If they tell you that you cant say a word, and you abide, it gives them power over you and that stokes their ego. Its the same with pronouns. Its just an avenue to bully people and tell them what to do. At first it was somewhat reasonable, and now its just hijacked by selfish people who are making the whole thing crazier every day.
Damn, the really bizarre uncomfortable hacker news browsers are really out in force on this one. Hopefully they never try to gather all in one place, the smell would be unbearable.
I think the comment you were replying to was going to doom itself, you probably didn't need to insult the whole community.
There's a lot of weird transphobia going on in this thread fam. It's pretty clear a lot of people who post here are deeply uncomfortable people on this site. If our "community" is so good, expecting more respect and care for the groups who were unironically targeted by Hitler is a pretty solid start
Someone pointing out a perspective on the topic and then calling that person the classic "hitler" is why you're getting a lot of broad backlash these days.
Instead of insulting someone for an opinion, maybe try making a counter point thats on topic and relevant to the comment? I know its tiring to have a conversation on the issue and its easier to attack people but thats how discussion goes.
Instead of insulting someone for an opinion, maybe try making a counter point thats on topic and relevant to the comment? I know its tiring to have a conversation on the issue and its easier to attack people but thats how discussion goes.
I think the list of people classically discriminated against by fascists is a really A+ place to have extreme vigilance. If someone is trying to deny religious minority, trans, or gay peoples' rights, a not so subtle reminder of the company they keep is in order. Anyone who doesn't have a nuanced response for why this line of reasoning doesn't apply to them is probably someone who shouldn't be allowed to engage in a broader democratic society.
"trying to deny rights" You dont have a right to force people to call you by pronouns that are getting more absurd by the day or not say certain words. Maybe drop the victim card and stop being a controlling fascist yourself? "someone who shouldnt be allowed to engage" another absolutely classic and oppressive line thats not at all unexpected from someone with your views. Sadly this has become typical and a stereotype is being reinforced.
No one has the right to force anyone to do anything. If you steal you go to jail, if you're being weird about marginalized groups exploring their identity and asking you to respect it, I'm gonna call you smelly. Simple as.
Is this only your feeling or has there been any psychological research to back up this feeling.
There has been extensive research into PTSD and other trauma syndromes. If what you are saying is true, then surely some psychological research has at least explored the possibility of the phenomena.
There has been extensive research into PTSD and other trauma syndromes. If what you are saying is true, then surely some psychological research has at least explored the possibility of the phenomena.
I don't think a question about evidence or roots of my assumptions is a bad one.
I'm basing my assertions on my experience with Meditation, Cognitive behavioral therapy, and similar things. From my understanding, mental health is severely damaged by negative internal narratives, and CBT and meditation attack (sorry, treat) these negative internal associations and narratives directly, and produce reliable positive interventions for PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. Check out Happiness Hypothesis for a thorough grounding on all these statements.
In this case, I'm suggesting that by focusing on harm, and introducing new harmful associations with otherwise benign words, we're circumventing the intent of the speaker, and introducing the negative narrative. It's like reverse CBT.
Here's info on CBT:
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cog...
(Seriously, look at that page and tell me that "identifying all possible negative associations, cataloging them, and relying on collective authority to minimize harm to self" is a helpful psychological strategy)
And yes, there has been research that trigger warnings (sorry, content warnings) have the opposite effect -- they almost encourage people to feel anxiety over the content that follows. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harvard-pr...
That is why I believe that the story we tell ourselves about an event is actually more harmful than the event itself in most cases.
I'm basing my assertions on my experience with Meditation, Cognitive behavioral therapy, and similar things. From my understanding, mental health is severely damaged by negative internal narratives, and CBT and meditation attack (sorry, treat) these negative internal associations and narratives directly, and produce reliable positive interventions for PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. Check out Happiness Hypothesis for a thorough grounding on all these statements.
In this case, I'm suggesting that by focusing on harm, and introducing new harmful associations with otherwise benign words, we're circumventing the intent of the speaker, and introducing the negative narrative. It's like reverse CBT.
Here's info on CBT:
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cog...
(Seriously, look at that page and tell me that "identifying all possible negative associations, cataloging them, and relying on collective authority to minimize harm to self" is a helpful psychological strategy)
And yes, there has been research that trigger warnings (sorry, content warnings) have the opposite effect -- they almost encourage people to feel anxiety over the content that follows. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harvard-pr...
That is why I believe that the story we tell ourselves about an event is actually more harmful than the event itself in most cases.
I don't actually think any trauma specialists actually back this approach to eliminating all triggers for everybody. The general treatment model for traumatic stress issues like this is to steadily reduce the association between the trigger and the trauma so you can eventually go through life without having breakdowns over innocuous stimuli. The "safe space" approach is meant for acute episodes where patients need a supportive area to recover and relax (as in, be removed from stressors so they can come down from the trauma response). But it's not a model for "this is how your life should be from now on."
Some of them are deliberate slurs but most of them are just colourful language.
This list is 95% absolutely ridiculous and I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice.
It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.
This list is 95% absolutely ridiculous and I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice.
It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.
It's typical "I'm helping!" feel-good activism achieving exactly nothing at best, negative gains at worst.
But hot damn some are terrible. I'd even go as far to say that some are worse insult as original, calling someone "non-vocal, non-verbal" instead of just "dumb" sounds like a better burn than original.
"This proposition was clearly written by someone neither vocal nor verbal"
But hot damn some are terrible. I'd even go as far to say that some are worse insult as original, calling someone "non-vocal, non-verbal" instead of just "dumb" sounds like a better burn than original.
"This proposition was clearly written by someone neither vocal nor verbal"
The word “abort”, as in “abort mission” is on the list. It’s as if a whole generation somehow avoided the concept of words having multiple meanings.
Anybody who actually thinks normal people use "dumb" to mean non-vocal is dumb, and I can only wish I meant they were non-vocal.
I heard it used in the non-vocal sense once in a Perry Mason episode, and it took me a minute or two to realize what they meant.
I grew up with the phrase “deaf and dumb” and it did not once occur to me the other meaning of dumb in the context of this phrase or similar “non-vocal” context. But ever since someone corrected me that’s all I can think.
Also very telling on those that created it that there isn't a classism section.
See, you're already seeing it as insulting someone; that's a you issue. Intent is important there.
If your intent is to describe someone as non-vocal, you can use inoffensive language; you'll sound more cleverer, too.
If your intent is to describe someone as non-vocal, you can use inoffensive language; you'll sound more cleverer, too.
Mankind is being retarded by committees manned by supposed gurus that are actually just Karens who circle the wagons and beat the dead horse of insisting that the rest of the world is just a bunch of racist ableist hicks.
As a rule of thumb, I tend to ignore blacklists like this and just go about my business.
Btw it looks like Stanford has thrown up a login wall on the site, which is … amusing.
Btw it looks like Stanford has thrown up a login wall on the site, which is … amusing.
"Alt-right/neo-nazi/white-supremacist trolls flood Stanford's inclusive language page with hateful comments, University limits the page to students and faculty only."
Welcome to the basket of deplorables!
Welcome to the basket of deplorables!
I am confused by your comment. He is demonstrating that the alternative words can be used offensively if that is one’s desire. Why is that a “you” issue?
The list is truly absurd.
That aside, it's also wrong in some cases. For example, under "Gender" they have the phrase "balls to the wall", explaining that it's not to be used because "Attributes personality traits to anatomy." That's just incorrect; I haven't been able to find even one source suggesting it's anything other than a term pilots used. Wiktionary reflects this:
> Perhaps coined by pilots whose throttle levers had round, ball-like tops, and for whom putting the "balls to the wall" (the firewall of the aircraft) meant making the aircraft fly as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, I feel like some terms really do originate in mistreatment of folks, and no one seems to care. So we end up banning terms like "blacklist" (which has little or nothing to do with race as far as I can tell) and keep around terms like "grandfathered-in", which really do have roots in oppression:
> Originally referred to a clause added to the constitutions of some Southern US states that exempted people with relatives that had voted before 1867 from strict new voting requirements, in effect disproportionately limiting the ability of African Americans to vote.
That aside, it's also wrong in some cases. For example, under "Gender" they have the phrase "balls to the wall", explaining that it's not to be used because "Attributes personality traits to anatomy." That's just incorrect; I haven't been able to find even one source suggesting it's anything other than a term pilots used. Wiktionary reflects this:
> Perhaps coined by pilots whose throttle levers had round, ball-like tops, and for whom putting the "balls to the wall" (the firewall of the aircraft) meant making the aircraft fly as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, I feel like some terms really do originate in mistreatment of folks, and no one seems to care. So we end up banning terms like "blacklist" (which has little or nothing to do with race as far as I can tell) and keep around terms like "grandfathered-in", which really do have roots in oppression:
> Originally referred to a clause added to the constitutions of some Southern US states that exempted people with relatives that had voted before 1867 from strict new voting requirements, in effect disproportionately limiting the ability of African Americans to vote.
> So we end up banning terms like "blacklist" (which has little or nothing to do with race as far as I can tell) and keep around terms like "grandfathered-in", which really do have roots in oppression:
FWIW, they included that one on the list.
FWIW, they included that one on the list.
Ah, I think I had searched for it before I had expanded all the categories. Thanks for pointing that out!
> That's just incorrect; I haven't been able to find even one source suggesting it's anything other than a term pilots used.
I’m trying to imagine how this could be used when referring to male anatomy, but I’m drawing a blank. Why would you ever put you balls to the wall? Much less in a hurry.
I’m trying to imagine how this could be used when referring to male anatomy, but I’m drawing a blank. Why would you ever put you balls to the wall? Much less in a hurry.
I'm waiting for when "absurd" is denounced as "ableist"
According to clown logic, isn't it, by implication?
Careful, you'll get blackballed.
> Some of them are deliberate slurs but most of them are just colourful language.
Some of them are just simple language.
>> user
>> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
Seriously?
> It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.
Unfortunately, they can't notice because they lack a sense of humor.
Some of them are just simple language.
>> user
>> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
Seriously?
> It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.
Unfortunately, they can't notice because they lack a sense of humor.
The “user” example surprised me because they suggested “client” as an alternative, which might unintentionally imply the person frequents prostitutes.
Whoa there pal, did you say "prostitute"? I think you mean "person who engages in sex work".
> Seriously?
Context matters in that case. I don't believe its intent is to remove the word "user" from vocabulary, but only when referencing people who peruse substances.
Context matters in that case. I don't believe its intent is to remove the word "user" from vocabulary, but only when referencing people who peruse substances.
They recommend avoiding the word “abort” because it might call pregnancy termination to mind. I think you’re being too charitable.
But the suggested alternative was “client.” I don’t think they’re saying we should call people who abuse substances “clients.”
But when is that definition coming up in IT documents?
The movement is a joke. The very idea of "making language inclusive" is so full of hipocracy, contradiction, the desire to control others, there is no "good" version of it. It's possible to treat others with respect naturally without self censoring or censoring others. That's not what these movements are about, they're the opposite of inclusive and respectful, in any form.
puchatek(3)
I'd like to think all of us are proponents of social justice. That's the most tragic thing about all of this stuff - it undermines good work and progress. Even more reason for all of us to reject it.
Well, you'd better hope the "real social justice proponents" start rejecting it loudly and publicly because otherwise more institutions are going to follow suit. The problem here is that you and anyone who disagrees with this list are now on the side of people who aren't proponents of social justice, and so we're probably stuck with it now.
The English language is deep in a crisis of lacking effective profanity. We neutered "fuck" by using it too much, Aussies use "cunt" as an adverb at the dinner table, all we're left with is ethnic slurs.
My teenagers consider "retard" to be far more offensive than either of those words.
“Retarded” was initially a professional term used to describe certain mental disabilities. As it entered common usage, it then transitioned to the slur that it is today. I would expect that whatever the current professional terminology is today will be considered a slur in 5-10 years.
Which is a shame. It should go the way of dumb, idiot, moron, and be wrong to apply medically but ok to say casually. As Michael Scott said, "you don't call retarded people retarded, you call your friends retarded that are acting retarded"
When the reaction to a slur is pure confusion, then you've won.
That's interesting to me, since teenagers were really the only ones who ever used it. It's not just the subtext, since everybody says "idiot" and "moron". But I have a hard time imagining an f-bomb-throwing 50-year-old casually saying "retard" after a meeting or something like that.
> I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice.
These "purity" movements will eventually come for everybody.
I don't think it is even fair to call what these "far left" people are doing "far left" because they're not actually pushing any new position and if anything are drifting to the right on a number of economic issues that were previously center stage. They are just employing extremist tactics on already broadly accepted positions, and looking for opportunities to edge lord.
These "purity" movements will eventually come for everybody.
I don't think it is even fair to call what these "far left" people are doing "far left" because they're not actually pushing any new position and if anything are drifting to the right on a number of economic issues that were previously center stage. They are just employing extremist tactics on already broadly accepted positions, and looking for opportunities to edge lord.
Oh I've been come for before. Try being a white cis-presenting dude trying to mediate between trans people who have braids who are being personally harrassed and threatened by members the local university queer PoC society who say they felt threatened by their presence at the last trans-pride march. There's some seriously bad eggs in student politics, who often create a culture of extremism by guilting their peers into feeling they aren't towing the line enough or going far enough.
You just have to ride the wave, take stock, take a break and then someday keep fighting the good fight once your mental health recovers.
And be thankful nobody has guns.
You just have to ride the wave, take stock, take a break and then someday keep fighting the good fight once your mental health recovers.
And be thankful nobody has guns.
> I don’t think it is even fair to call what these “far left” people are doing “far left”
Institutional efforts at managing the internal environment and PR by notable right-wing institution Stanford University (home of the Hoover Institution) are not being done by people that are, claim to be, or are assumed by anyone else to be “far left”.
Institutional efforts at managing the internal environment and PR by notable right-wing institution Stanford University (home of the Hoover Institution) are not being done by people that are, claim to be, or are assumed by anyone else to be “far left”.
> people that are...
Well that is my point.
> ...claim to be, or are assumed by anyone else
Gotta disagree there, in 2021 the self-identified breakdown was:
60.6% Democrat, 21.6% Independent, 9.1% Socialist, 4.9% Republican, 3.8% Other
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/16r96A47pFcXQF2Z2Ei7ZvoXyBe8...)
Well that is my point.
> ...claim to be, or are assumed by anyone else
Gotta disagree there, in 2021 the self-identified breakdown was:
60.6% Democrat, 21.6% Independent, 9.1% Socialist, 4.9% Republican, 3.8% Other
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/16r96A47pFcXQF2Z2Ei7ZvoXyBe8...)
Even if that was the same population as crafting this policy, the vast majority of those identities are not “far left” by any sane definition.
I like the list b/c it provides some etymology and is therefore educational. I knew about many but some (e.g., "basket case") were a surprise.
But words change over time and therefore nit-picking by declaring a particular past meaning of a word or phrase as the only meaning is incorrect.
For example "basket case" is common usage and hardly means today what it once may have.
Nonetheless the entire idea of using such a list to censor speech is absurd.
But words change over time and therefore nit-picking by declaring a particular past meaning of a word or phrase as the only meaning is incorrect.
For example "basket case" is common usage and hardly means today what it once may have.
Nonetheless the entire idea of using such a list to censor speech is absurd.
Keep in mind that some of the etymology is speculative at best. With that in mind, I agree - I learned a few new things from the "Context" section too. It's not all bad as a list, but it is dangerous in the form and context in which it was created.
ModernMech(3)
Although a lot of this list seems silly, it also has slurs like "retard" and "jewed" on it, which i think are very reasonably considered offensive.
I think the tarball thing is rediculous, but the opposite extreme of no words can be hurtful is also rediculous.
I think the tarball thing is rediculous, but the opposite extreme of no words can be hurtful is also rediculous.
Retard was not a slur. It was a medical term, "mental retardation" (it's still actually used in some of the literature).
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?
I also find it a little ironic that the class who police language like this also are pretty hesitant to actually talk about the commonplace eugenics of eliminating fetuses with Down’s Syndrome (and a medical system that effectively encourages this by pushing prenatal genetic testing). For all the talk of ableism, we are most certainly still ableist in the way it most matters, not just words but deeds. And we lack the self-honesty to talk clearly about this, using endless euphemisms instead, acting like we solve the moral dilemma by just policing our language.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
Indeed, but even here on the board you'll encounter those who are (on the surface) simultaneously pro-choice but oppose (in principle) the notion of selective abortion. As they would tell it, caring for someone with Down's is only ever a treasure, and they care not that some are utterly incapable of caring for themselves into adulthood, or how hard it can be to care for them in general. I would not wish it on an enemy. In their minds though, they can't reconcile notions that it's not good to have Down's, yet it's possible to love and value someone who has it. Everything is black-and-white to the extreme.
The one that stands out to me is "Trigger Warning" - that's not something you should say because it might cause people feelings of anxiety. Of course, the reason it causes people feelings of anxiety is because they know it's a phrase used to indicate that something bad is going to come in upcoming content. Instead they want you to use "Content Note" (though I will note that they weren't even competent enough to follow their own guidelines - they use "Content Warning" at the top of the list). So... what happens when people start to associate "Content Note" with the fact that something bad is upcoming? Do we move to "Upcoming Information Alert"?
The only thing this list does is give credence to Tucker Carlson and co's complaints about performative wokeism.
The only thing this list does is give credence to Tucker Carlson and co's complaints about performative wokeism.
Ford flipped the switch which he saw was now marked "Mode Execute Ready" instead of the now old-fashioned "Access Standby" which had so long ago replaced the appallingly stone-aged "Off"
~ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
~ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Full agreement here. Content Warning was and is a perfectly sufficient term. We’ve had them on TV shows for as long as I remember as “Viewer discretion is advised.” messages. They’ve been on the internet too as NSFW and NSFL.
Their primary purpose is for deciding if you want to view material in the first place.
Example from university: One of my media classes was going to show a clip of “Passion of the Christ”. We got a handout explaining the content of the movie and purpose of showing it and were told to opt out if we weren’t conformable. It all handled perfectly reasonably.
This list is not a reasonable way to handle this. It lacks nuance.
Their primary purpose is for deciding if you want to view material in the first place.
Example from university: One of my media classes was going to show a clip of “Passion of the Christ”. We got a handout explaining the content of the movie and purpose of showing it and were told to opt out if we weren’t conformable. It all handled perfectly reasonably.
This list is not a reasonable way to handle this. It lacks nuance.
Any euphemism will become a slur, and so will the euphemism that replaces it.
Right, witness “retarded”, which just means “delayed”. It was applied as a nice polite term for people whose development was slower than average, with the implication that they’d get there in the end.
[deleted]
Like the "person of visible wavelength" armsrace?
At first it's not the euphemism, but the intent behind it. Over a long enough time period, if people are called the euphemism enough with said intent, the word itself has lost its original meaning and associations.
This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Insults are only effective because of their meaning. Terms like "idiot" and "stupid" mean exactly what they have from the outset in the medical field. You cannot divorce derogatory use from meaning, much as you would like to. But to follow your rationale, we'd be right on track by now for "retarded" being kosher, as other terms have replaced it. That has not happened.
Please stop the harmful use of the word kosher when not referring to Jewish dietary law. It trivializes the experience of people who deal with Kashrut issues.
I think I'm getting the hang of it ...
I think I'm getting the hang of it ...
That's a little different, it's more like saying "Hey, the horse is escaping!" when the barn was already leveled to build a KFC which later became, briefly, a beeper store, and is now a place that sells THC-related goods.
The word master is on that list. It has common non-offensive meanings for almost a thousand years.
Darn, and I was so hoping to be a chess grand-good-at-things-person. How are the Guardians and the Commanders doing?
Have you considered that all what you described is not happening in a vacuum, but rather, is a standard reaction of language to censor its users and circumvent the meaning they tried to convey. Humans are very adaptable and that is partially why this is a never ending endeavor ( and if I was a more cynical person, I would say this is also why it is pushed -- its a cushy position with no chance of ever being completed ).
But you know why it is really a bad thing? The actual loss of this weird focus on controlling language?
It is us. I am about to start a volunteer position with mentoring kids from underprivileged backgrounds and after the interview with the organization, I am genuinely considering dropping despite very clear positive impact this would have on the kids ( which is why I am preparing for it to begin with ). Thing will be virtual ( and recorded ), I was given a speech about white supremacy ( and asked how I feel about it ) and now I am worried that any bad word may result in career sanctions ( in other words, it is a net negative for me ).
This is just one example. It is suddenly possible that I can't pass on any real knowledge for fear of fucking myself and my family over.
<< This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Those outlets certainly amplify it, but are you saying there is no objective reason for it happening ( for example, "being against fascism" often is being accompanied by 'punch a nazi' -- is that ok )? It is a real question and I am curious about your answer.
But you know why it is really a bad thing? The actual loss of this weird focus on controlling language?
It is us. I am about to start a volunteer position with mentoring kids from underprivileged backgrounds and after the interview with the organization, I am genuinely considering dropping despite very clear positive impact this would have on the kids ( which is why I am preparing for it to begin with ). Thing will be virtual ( and recorded ), I was given a speech about white supremacy ( and asked how I feel about it ) and now I am worried that any bad word may result in career sanctions ( in other words, it is a net negative for me ).
This is just one example. It is suddenly possible that I can't pass on any real knowledge for fear of fucking myself and my family over.
<< This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Those outlets certainly amplify it, but are you saying there is no objective reason for it happening ( for example, "being against fascism" often is being accompanied by 'punch a nazi' -- is that ok )? It is a real question and I am curious about your answer.
In the words of the immortal Michael Scott:
>You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they're acting retarded.
>You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they're acting retarded.
It oddly doesn't have a lot of other slurs, like the n-word, etc. Does that mean they are acceptable?
I don't think most people need to be told that "jewed" or "retard" are not appropriate professional words. Certainly not anyone who works at Stanford, just like nobody needed to be told not to say any of the other slurs that aren't on the list.
I don't think most people need to be told that "jewed" or "retard" are not appropriate professional words. Certainly not anyone who works at Stanford, just like nobody needed to be told not to say any of the other slurs that aren't on the list.
I dont disagree, but you literally wrote "I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm"." Those were words on this list, so i disagree with that statement.
I also don't think anyone is arguing that the authors of this list intended it to be exhaustive.
I also don't think anyone is arguing that the authors of this list intended it to be exhaustive.
Yeah I still don’t think that’s harm. Feeling offended is not harm. It’s just information about the world. Learning that someone has prejudices or is rude or just careless about their speech does not harm you.
That rhetoric is incredibly similar to bullies in school arguing that they were just playing and nobody is harmed by their little jokes.
You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Wether them being hurt justify such and such action is another issue.
You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Wether them being hurt justify such and such action is another issue.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Are you trying to suggest that this is a dichotomy? It seems to me that the common-sense position is (used to be?) that neither the person performing an action nor the person at the receiving end can be considered impartial and trusted to make that call.
Either way, the idea that "being hurt" is a state that the individual has full discretion to declare themselves as being in seems incompatible with our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A; otherwise, anyone could trivially claim constantly being hurt by everyone and therefore entitle themselves to an arbitrary amount of restitution. One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
Are you trying to suggest that this is a dichotomy? It seems to me that the common-sense position is (used to be?) that neither the person performing an action nor the person at the receiving end can be considered impartial and trusted to make that call.
Either way, the idea that "being hurt" is a state that the individual has full discretion to declare themselves as being in seems incompatible with our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A; otherwise, anyone could trivially claim constantly being hurt by everyone and therefore entitle themselves to an arbitrary amount of restitution. One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
> our existing widespread moral intuition that A hurting B results in a moral and potentially legal claim to redress from B towards A
This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end.
IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps.
That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.
This would be the part where differ. I understand the argument, but as you point out it would lead us to a dead end.
IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation. As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them. We can both recognize they’re hurt, some words hit them differently, and have no redressment to them outside of sympathy perhaps.
That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
I get to decide if I’m hurt or not, but that doesn’t automatically make me a victim entitled to reparations.
> IMHO someone being hurt doesn’t mean they need reparation.
There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent.
> As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them.
In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent.
> That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent.
> As an example, people mourning are deeply hurt, and they will also be extra sensible to specific words that are mundane but resonate differently to them.
In this and similar cases (bad breakup, loss of health or future prospects or sentimental property, etc.), other people are making a time-limited concession to let the grieving person process their experience. Beyond that time limit, one should not expect others to keep carefully controlling their language for one's sake. One should especially not count on making those concessions permanent.
> That’s an extreme example, but I would see a lot of steps on the spectrum, including for instance my boss hurting my feelings by coldly and factually pointing out how bad of a job I did.
Happened to me the other day, and while I did suffer internally, not for a second I thought they should've been prohibited from saying what they said, or from saying it the way they did. It's not the words that hurt me, but awareness that I'm seen as less reliable in the eyes of the other (coupled with anxiety/fear related to the prospects of my future employment).
> There needs to be some kind of end, some kind of closure to hurt - otherwise we have a positive feedback loop that amplifies suffering and eventually turns violent.
I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words. The reasonable response to someone saying they're impacted negatively by a phrase is to find a way to rephrase it, maybe this isn't always possible, but 90% of the time it is and doing so will result in a more positive outcome for both parties pretty much always.
> I don't see why the end can't be education on the part of the person saying those words.
In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread:
> One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.
In specific cases it can, and is, what happens. But in general case it cannot - for the reason '4bpp already phrased well upthread:
> One of the two therefore has to go for society to function: either you don't get to make the call if you are hurt, or it's a priori morally neutral to hurt you.
Or, put another way: you can't both 1) be able to unilaterally declare you're being hurt, and 2) expect any moral or practical response from others to you being hurt. It's either one or the other - because allowing someone to have both means giving them power to easily control and hurt others without consequence.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Of course the person at the receiving end is capable of determining without bias what impact something had on them - practically by definition they are the only ones.
If they're hurt by words, maybe it's irrational that they're hurt by them, but they still are. Assuming that they're being honest, "you weren't actually hurt by that" is a nonsensical statement - the person saying that has absolutely 0 evidence to make that call, and the hurt person has perfect knowledge.
I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
If they're hurt by words, maybe it's irrational that they're hurt by them, but they still are. Assuming that they're being honest, "you weren't actually hurt by that" is a nonsensical statement - the person saying that has absolutely 0 evidence to make that call, and the hurt person has perfect knowledge.
I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
Have you ever seen a little kid fall down? And they start bawling uncontrollably? So you go over and check them out, make sure nothing is broken, and maybe you say something like "it's all right buddy, you're ok", because they aren't actually hurt.
The kid, despite having perfect knowledge, has incorrectly judged the severity of the situation. This happens with kids, because they don't have enough experience or emotional maturity to appropriately gauge their emotional responses, much like the people who write lists like this.
The kid, despite having perfect knowledge, has incorrectly judged the severity of the situation. This happens with kids, because they don't have enough experience or emotional maturity to appropriately gauge their emotional responses, much like the people who write lists like this.
With my toddler, the perfectly-okay response is "No. I am NOT okay," just to hold onto the grievance, which also happens online.
If you define being hurt via the subjective mental state, then the statement indeed becomes trivially true, as you point out - but then it seems quite misleading to have a single word ("hurt") cover objectively measurable physical injury, qualia of pain that we understand to be a proxy for the former (and so we have, at least in the current revision of "Elimination of Harmful Language" lists, no qualms with terminology such as "phantom pain" which implies that pain which does not correspond to real injury is in some sense less legitimate), and purely psychogenic phenomena. This makes it seem like it is a matter of consistency or principledness to respond to the last category similarly to how you would to the first, even though they are not very alike.
> I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
What exactly is a "real punishment"? It seems like there are certainly calls for extrajudicial liability, insofar as there is no shortage of examples where people call for damage to be done to those who "engage in harmful behaviours" (referring to hurtful words) that is in excess of what would be necessary to stop the "harmful behaviours" and more seems to be aimed at causing disutility to someone who is taken to deserve it. I assume that a Stanford employee, in any capacity, who refuses to abide by this guideline and draws any amount of attention in the process would find themselves at the receiving end of the actions of a large number of people who would try to get them fired rather quickly. Is this not a real punishment?
> I think tying it up into legal language of restitution is a mistake, no one is advocating for legal liability or even any real punishment here.
What exactly is a "real punishment"? It seems like there are certainly calls for extrajudicial liability, insofar as there is no shortage of examples where people call for damage to be done to those who "engage in harmful behaviours" (referring to hurtful words) that is in excess of what would be necessary to stop the "harmful behaviours" and more seems to be aimed at causing disutility to someone who is taken to deserve it. I assume that a Stanford employee, in any capacity, who refuses to abide by this guideline and draws any amount of attention in the process would find themselves at the receiving end of the actions of a large number of people who would try to get them fired rather quickly. Is this not a real punishment?
But, categorically speaking, the issue with bullies is more the bullying and less their word choice. If someone is bullying using bland language that is exactly the same magnitude of problem as any other form of bullying.
All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. Telling someone that they are uncool will have as much sting as retarded, because it will mean exactly the same thing if the word retarded leaves the lexicon.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
I've spent a huge amount of time, literal years, learning to think in a flexible way so that I can wind my mind away from taking offence. It takes a lot of practice to develop that sort of engulfing calm. Also very rewarding, I recommend the practice. Good for a comfortable life and all that.
Sure they can make the call that they are offended, but I am conciously making the call that I am not offended. Is it really fair that after all that effort I have to contort my speech to avoid setting people off? I'm already worrying about my own offended-ness and now I'm supposed to be working around theirs as well. What are they going to do to balance all that effort out?
It is better if we all worry about our own emotions and work with what other people say. We all have responsibilities to civil discourse. Those responsibilities include tolerant listening. Getting antsy because someone runs a blind study is a long way from tolerant listening and an academic setting deserves better than that.
All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them. Telling someone that they are uncool will have as much sting as retarded, because it will mean exactly the same thing if the word retarded leaves the lexicon.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
I've spent a huge amount of time, literal years, learning to think in a flexible way so that I can wind my mind away from taking offence. It takes a lot of practice to develop that sort of engulfing calm. Also very rewarding, I recommend the practice. Good for a comfortable life and all that.
Sure they can make the call that they are offended, but I am conciously making the call that I am not offended. Is it really fair that after all that effort I have to contort my speech to avoid setting people off? I'm already worrying about my own offended-ness and now I'm supposed to be working around theirs as well. What are they going to do to balance all that effort out?
It is better if we all worry about our own emotions and work with what other people say. We all have responsibilities to civil discourse. Those responsibilities include tolerant listening. Getting antsy because someone runs a blind study is a long way from tolerant listening and an academic setting deserves better than that.
> All these new terms are going to be discriminatory in a few years as the bullies learn to use them.
This is called the euphemism treadmill. Soon, lots of the recommended new phrases in this list will be considered offensive and harmful.
This is called the euphemism treadmill. Soon, lots of the recommended new phrases in this list will be considered offensive and harmful.
You’re right that bullying will never be eradicated by any kind of rigid policies, be it by policing communication, or banning specific behaviors. Someone with enough motivation will find other ways. Now those ways might not be as efficient or bring the same results or require way more work, but all in all that’s a complicated matter.
On being hurt or not…I think your efforts will mostly benefit you, and not being easily hurt should make it that much easier for you to reach your goals I’d assume.
I’d compare it to physical fitness, being able to avoid people’s punches is an advantage in itself, you wouldn’t feel unfair that the others are getting hit in the face as they haven’t worked as hard.
On being hurt or not…I think your efforts will mostly benefit you, and not being easily hurt should make it that much easier for you to reach your goals I’d assume.
I’d compare it to physical fitness, being able to avoid people’s punches is an advantage in itself, you wouldn’t feel unfair that the others are getting hit in the face as they haven’t worked as hard.
"My emotional response is your responsibility" is incredibly similar to what abusers tell their victims. "This is your fault, you made me angry".
I’m sure everyone would agree it’s a bit of both? We’re responsible for not intentionally hurting others, and we’re responsible for not being excessively controlling or sensitive about others’ behaviours?
Precisely. And weaponizing the ambiguity - whether by hurting others with words and saying "but it's up to their reaction", or being excessively controlling and justifying it by saying words can hurt more than physical attacks - that's abusive behavior. Intent matters.
The equity training I've experienced says it's not the intent that matters, but rather the impact, which sounds a lot like, "you made me angry". It turns the whole you're responsible for how you react to things on it's head, making other people responsible for your reactions.
As you point, that’s also a toxic extreme. Assigning blames is IMO different from judging one’s mental state.
It's not the words the bully uses, but the intent and context that matter.
Civilization runs on grace, removing the ability to express yourself freely removes some of that grace, and lessens all of us.
Civilization runs on grace, removing the ability to express yourself freely removes some of that grace, and lessens all of us.
I would assume a larger portion of being graceful would be to not intentionally use words that you know have a negative impact on someone.
So I'm not supposed to call myself a man or greybeard?
This is a man-in-the-middle attack on the English language, and my American identity... but oooh... that's offensive too.
To quote General McAuliffe's response to a German call for the surrender of the 101st Airborne troops defending Bastogne
NUTS!
This is a man-in-the-middle attack on the English language, and my American identity... but oooh... that's offensive too.
To quote General McAuliffe's response to a German call for the surrender of the 101st Airborne troops defending Bastogne
NUTS!
How does the term "handicap parking" have a negative impact on someone?
Not fully agreeing with parent, so it's more adressing directly your comment.
In casual conversation with people you have the context on, it's probably fine.
As a wording for official documents and dispkay that will sit prominently on public/semi-public places it might have wider effects: some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc.
Signaling disabilities or special conditions is a real minefield to navigate properly. And thing is, you're putting time and effort yo have the widest acceptance possible, so what people think is kinda central.
In casual conversation with people you have the context on, it's probably fine.
As a wording for official documents and dispkay that will sit prominently on public/semi-public places it might have wider effects: some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc.
Signaling disabilities or special conditions is a real minefield to navigate properly. And thing is, you're putting time and effort yo have the widest acceptance possible, so what people think is kinda central.
> some people might not want to use it because of the naming, while it was set aside for them. Some people will be more aggressive towards user of this space if they feel they don't deserve it (not visibly handicapped enough) etc.
I'll accept this premise for the sake of discussion. How does replacing the word 'handicapped' fix any of these issues? Lets say we re-print all the signs to say 'accessible parking' and all the hangtags to say 'requires accessible parking'.
People still may potentially get upset that a seemingly able-bodied person used the special parking spot. People who require the special parking spot may still potentially feel bad about it and choose a regular spot.
Playing games with the labels does nothing to help people, and serves only to satisfy the self-righteous people writing the new labels.
I'll accept this premise for the sake of discussion. How does replacing the word 'handicapped' fix any of these issues? Lets say we re-print all the signs to say 'accessible parking' and all the hangtags to say 'requires accessible parking'.
People still may potentially get upset that a seemingly able-bodied person used the special parking spot. People who require the special parking spot may still potentially feel bad about it and choose a regular spot.
Playing games with the labels does nothing to help people, and serves only to satisfy the self-righteous people writing the new labels.
I’m remembering a place going for “priority parking” panel, with smaller details on who had priority access. It was marked in a different color and still had the official wheelchair mark on the ground, but there was additional signage to explain anyone with a disability marker could use it.
The effect to my eyes was that when a car is parked, there was no wheelchair mark in sight, and no prominent “disability” wording (it’s still there, just not the “in your face” type), and people caring enough still had the small prints to explain it’s not just people in wheelchairs.
I agree with you that it won’t stop everyone for getting upset, I mean some people don’t need any excuse to get upset, so will always be edge cases. But I also think urban design has an effect, even on the people using it.
I have elder parents that can barely walk anymore, but they won’t use priority seats in the buses because they don’t want the “disabled” label sticking to them. Instead they skip buses after buses at the stop until normal seats seem available from the outside. It’s stupid, so stupid, but that’s how they think. Changing labeling can feel like a dirty hack, but if 10% more elderly people would use them as a result, I see it as a win.
It’s to me the equivalent of making the “delete” button red on a page, it’s good design taking into account the average user psychology.
The effect to my eyes was that when a car is parked, there was no wheelchair mark in sight, and no prominent “disability” wording (it’s still there, just not the “in your face” type), and people caring enough still had the small prints to explain it’s not just people in wheelchairs.
I agree with you that it won’t stop everyone for getting upset, I mean some people don’t need any excuse to get upset, so will always be edge cases. But I also think urban design has an effect, even on the people using it.
I have elder parents that can barely walk anymore, but they won’t use priority seats in the buses because they don’t want the “disabled” label sticking to them. Instead they skip buses after buses at the stop until normal seats seem available from the outside. It’s stupid, so stupid, but that’s how they think. Changing labeling can feel like a dirty hack, but if 10% more elderly people would use them as a result, I see it as a win.
It’s to me the equivalent of making the “delete” button red on a page, it’s good design taking into account the average user psychology.
I do agree for sure that compiling a list of words that could potentially be harmful is overstepping, and it's probably better overall for people to advocate for themselves and say what has a negative impact on them.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that people who do experience actual negative impacts should put up with it in the name of being "graceful". That puts all the responsibility of societal grace on them.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that people who do experience actual negative impacts should put up with it in the name of being "graceful". That puts all the responsibility of societal grace on them.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Well that's precisely the problem isn't it? Anyone can get offended over anything, and the solution is not to try and compile a list to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
Well that's precisely the problem isn't it? Anyone can get offended over anything, and the solution is not to try and compile a list to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
I’m kinda surprise people react so strongly to stylistic guidelines of an academic institution.
It’s stated clearly that the initiative applies to “Stanford websites and code.”, so they’re not declaring new rules for the world, they’re telling their very select community to avoid a set of words in writing.
To answer your point, no, I don’t think they’re trying to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
It’s stated clearly that the initiative applies to “Stanford websites and code.”, so they’re not declaring new rules for the world, they’re telling their very select community to avoid a set of words in writing.
To answer your point, no, I don’t think they’re trying to make sure no one gets offended ever again.
That's what I thought 5 years ago, that these kind of things are just restricted to select communities. Now my workplace has a bot that yells at you if you put the words "dummy value" into your code. The current list of banned terms is small enough that it's not a huge burden, but if we get to a point where there's 50 or 100 niche subcultural heresies that I have to keep in mind when I'm coding, that's going to severely impact how productive I can be.
“niche subcultural heresies” is quite a description.
I also kinda see why a company wouldn’t want a “dummy message” popup accidentally appearing in production when someone forgot to remove the debug code before the release.
In all my workplaces, these kind of productivity impacting initiatives had a consulting and consensus taking period to make sure we’d either be on board or at least understanding of the underlying logic and why it’s put in place. If you still feel it’s a dumb move going in the wrong direction, I feel for you for the potential stream of decisions that as you point out, won’t probably go in the direction you wish for.
I also kinda see why a company wouldn’t want a “dummy message” popup accidentally appearing in production when someone forgot to remove the debug code before the release.
In all my workplaces, these kind of productivity impacting initiatives had a consulting and consensus taking period to make sure we’d either be on board or at least understanding of the underlying logic and why it’s put in place. If you still feel it’s a dumb move going in the wrong direction, I feel for you for the potential stream of decisions that as you point out, won’t probably go in the direction you wish for.
It’s because a segment of our population is fighting a culture war and these sorts of lists are like atomic bombs dropped by their enemy (the work, educated left)
Are we pretending this phenomenon is strictly relegated to stylistic guidelines of academia? Be serious.
[deleted]
There is a nuance which is motive and intent. If I say, "can we bury the hatchet on this one." I am trying to solve a problem. My intent isn't to offend anyone, it isn't to harm anyone. A bully who attacks you verbally only goal is to hurt you.
If you dig a bit deeper it is likely the bully has very low self worth and attacks others to try and have control in their lives which they feel is out of control. Ultimately both the victim and the bully deserve our sympathy because they are both hurting.
If you dig a bit deeper it is likely the bully has very low self worth and attacks others to try and have control in their lives which they feel is out of control. Ultimately both the victim and the bully deserve our sympathy because they are both hurting.
> You can’t be the one deciding if people are hurt or not, it’s their call.
Your comment is harming me. It's my call, and I say so. Therefore you should be banned.
Your comment is harming me. It's my call, and I say so. Therefore you should be banned.
Feeling offended is not harm
If a stranger on the internet uses some controversial word, you can decide it's no big deal.
But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people.
(It is also worth noting that this list of harmful language is targeted specifically at the "Stanford IT Community" which is a workplace. This is not their attempt to regulate the speech of the world at large.)
Now, having said that, I also understand the flip side of things. Some of the entries such as "tarball" struck me as absurd.
And on a personal note, I'm partially blind and I don't give a rat's ass about terms like "blind studies" and so forth. In fact, the phrase "keep an eye on things" always makes me chuckle since I'm blind in one eye: if you tell me to keep an eye on things, I'm likely to ask you "which one" because you're going to get a very different level of attention depending on which eye we choose. I also don't mind that we as a society have decided that "see" is a synonym for "understand."
> But now imagine your boss is using terms like "jewed down" or some other thing thing that applies to you, specifically. Are you harmed? It's very possible that you are harmed in a very literal sense; your career path is intertwined with a person that seems to think cheapness and haggling is synonymous with your people.
You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically. If anything, letting people use the word makes it easier to gather evidence of any prejudice against you, so making the word taboo makes such prejudice easier to hide.
You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken against you, like skipping you for advancement, but not by the use of the word specifically. If anything, letting people use the word makes it easier to gather evidence of any prejudice against you, so making the word taboo makes such prejudice easier to hide.
You would harmed by the prejudicial actions taken
against you, like skipping you for advancement,
but not by the use of the word specifically
Words can reinforce attitudes and actions. When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people.
I do not support some kind of zero-tolerance approach to language. (After all, "tolerance" is the goal!) However, I do find quite a few of these changes worthwhile.
For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad." So I've tried to weed that one out. Is it going to solve all of her problems? Is that even in her top 100 problems in life? No and no. But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?
> When your boss uses the term "jewed down" they are also sending the message that it's okay to stereotype people.
Yes, but the only problem with stereotypes is, again, the actions that result. You can think whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind as long as you don't let it influence your actions in the performance of your duties. Maintain an understanding of the difference between belief and knowledge; stereotypes are clearly only beliefs.
> For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad."
Understandable, although I wouldn't say lame is a synonym for "bad" so much as "undesirable". I'm not sure anyone actually desires the restricted movements of disabled limbs, so that doesn't seem like a technically improper use.
> But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?
Sure, we make all kinds of allowances for fellow humans, even irrational allowances, particularly for friends and family. That's etiquette.
Describing words as "harmful language" is an attempt to raise certain rules of etiquette to the level of ethics, which is a much stricter set of norms that we enforce on each other. Violating etiquette might get you called an asshole, but otherwise has no consequences; by contrast, violations of ethical rules have serious consequences.
Like you, I don't think the suggested changes are all bad as a matter of etiquette, but I'm not at all convinced that they've met the bar for enshrining them as ethics.
Yes, but the only problem with stereotypes is, again, the actions that result. You can think whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind as long as you don't let it influence your actions in the performance of your duties. Maintain an understanding of the difference between belief and knowledge; stereotypes are clearly only beliefs.
> For example, a recently disabled friend pointed out how it kind of sucks for her to hear words like "lame" used as a synonym for "bad."
Understandable, although I wouldn't say lame is a synonym for "bad" so much as "undesirable". I'm not sure anyone actually desires the restricted movements of disabled limbs, so that doesn't seem like a technically improper use.
> But I mean, like why not try and make a little change like that?
Sure, we make all kinds of allowances for fellow humans, even irrational allowances, particularly for friends and family. That's etiquette.
Describing words as "harmful language" is an attempt to raise certain rules of etiquette to the level of ethics, which is a much stricter set of norms that we enforce on each other. Violating etiquette might get you called an asshole, but otherwise has no consequences; by contrast, violations of ethical rules have serious consequences.
Like you, I don't think the suggested changes are all bad as a matter of etiquette, but I'm not at all convinced that they've met the bar for enshrining them as ethics.
Yes, but the only problem with stereotypes is,
again, the actions that result.
Is this okay as long as he doesn't actually do any of those things? After all, only actions matter... right?
No. Clearly there is a line across which speech alone is rotten enough that we don't allow it. [1]
If you think that repeatedly equating "Jewishness" to "being a greedy money-grubber" doesn't cross that line, fine.
But don't pretend the line doesn't exist. It's disingenuous at best.
___
[1] Of course, context matters. Suppose your job is music producer, and your coworker sings/raps about heinous things as a part of their art. That's probably okay! Or suppose some "offensive" thing was a slip of the tongue, or an honest mistake made through ignorance. I've been "that guy" more than once.
Isn't Stanford in the US, where people are very trigger-happy?
I've found that various American courses and certifications are very explicit, a lot more than non-American ones, for example European ones.
Then someone told me: they're afraid that if they don't include the absolute basics, someone will complain/sue/whatever about having been presented the basic concept, so that's why their education is incomplete or why they failed their certification exam.
This basically aligns with the same logic, saying this as an outside observer.
The US is <<full>> of defensive behavior, if you look at it as an outsider.
I've found that various American courses and certifications are very explicit, a lot more than non-American ones, for example European ones.
Then someone told me: they're afraid that if they don't include the absolute basics, someone will complain/sue/whatever about having been presented the basic concept, so that's why their education is incomplete or why they failed their certification exam.
This basically aligns with the same logic, saying this as an outside observer.
The US is <<full>> of defensive behavior, if you look at it as an outsider.
> The US is <<full>> of defensive behavior, if you look at it as an outsider.
Yeah. Like people getting sued for swimming pools because parents can't be bothered to teach their kids how to swim or to not go on private property unauthorized, or people being forced to file lawsuits against close relatives because they have no other way of recouping healthcare expenses... so many of the horror stories we Europeans read from across the pond leave us with a plain "WTF, are these guys nuts?" feeling.
Yeah. Like people getting sued for swimming pools because parents can't be bothered to teach their kids how to swim or to not go on private property unauthorized, or people being forced to file lawsuits against close relatives because they have no other way of recouping healthcare expenses... so many of the horror stories we Europeans read from across the pond leave us with a plain "WTF, are these guys nuts?" feeling.
Americans aren't nuts, the legal system is just filling the role that the government fills in other countries (enforcing regulations, welfare, etc)
Ok but many Americans are proud of their country, despite the fact it's failing to fulfill some of the most basic roles almost all other countries do. Nearly half of their voter base votes for people who explicitly support (the other half isn't much better, but at least some people there can blame it on the bipartisan system). That's nuts.
> Ok but many Americans are proud of their country, despite the fact it's failing to fulfill some of the most basic roles almost all other countries do.
That's mostly due to decades worth of brainwashing and propaganda ("American Exceptionalism"), as well as a factor of just how big the US actually is. Here in Europe? In like two or three hours worth of driving time from Munich, one can reach half a dozen other countries and see a complete contrast: other languages, other ways of organizing society, other activities, other sports, other varieties of alcohol, other political parties. We actually have competition here.
That's mostly due to decades worth of brainwashing and propaganda ("American Exceptionalism"), as well as a factor of just how big the US actually is. Here in Europe? In like two or three hours worth of driving time from Munich, one can reach half a dozen other countries and see a complete contrast: other languages, other ways of organizing society, other activities, other sports, other varieties of alcohol, other political parties. We actually have competition here.
[deleted]
Here's a short list of professional people in the last few years that needed to be informed that "jewed me down" is not a compliment to Jewish people.
https://forward.com/culture/522179/jew-you-down-antisemitic-...
https://forward.com/culture/522179/jew-you-down-antisemitic-...
> "jewed" or "retard" are not appropriate professional words
Real, professional example from the automotive world: 'the knock sensor can retard the ignition timing'
Is that still okay to say?
Real, professional example from the automotive world: 'the knock sensor can retard the ignition timing'
Is that still okay to say?
I'm assuming both you and the GP know that the 'retard' that's clearly offensive is the noun 'retard' referring to a person.
Which is the whole point. The offense is the context, not the word itself.
The explicit purpose of a list like this is to suggest that no, it isn't, for any context. That is the banality of it.
I mean it's a university, they kinda expect you to use half a brain when using words instead of mindlessly following their list of Words To Avoid like a robot.
>It oddly doesn't have a lot of other slurs, like the n-word, etc. Does that mean they are acceptable?
Depending on who's mouth they come out of they kind of are acceptable.
Which is kind of a glaring example of why this whole policing words bullshit is in fact bullshit. It's not the words that do harm. It's the context in which they are used.
Depending on who's mouth they come out of they kind of are acceptable.
Which is kind of a glaring example of why this whole policing words bullshit is in fact bullshit. It's not the words that do harm. It's the context in which they are used.
But that's how this type of ridiculous become standard practice: you include a few unambigous examples, then the rest lean on them for support. Did Stanford really need an official document telling their community that the word "jewed" probably should be avoided? If so, there are lots of worse words and phrases not included here, why not? How did they decide the word "tarball" should be included because it starts with the same three letters as a derogatory term, but "tarsands" (along with being technically inaccurate) is OK?
No one said words can't be hurtful. If you work or attend Stanford you know these words. This document is apparently about harm reduction though, and that harm would be mitigated far more effectively if Stanford admitted more people like the ones these words supposedly trivialize.
No one said words can't be hurtful. If you work or attend Stanford you know these words. This document is apparently about harm reduction though, and that harm would be mitigated far more effectively if Stanford admitted more people like the ones these words supposedly trivialize.
[deleted]
At the risk of sounding pedantic or critical (it is but only in the helpful well, I assure you) -- the word 'ridiculous' comes from the Latin 'rideo' which means to laugh, which is in contemporary French 'rire', Italian 'ridere' and English 'ridicule'. It has nothing to do with the color 'red', if that helps you remember that it does not have the word 'red' in it. As well, you can associate 'rideo' with 'video'.
This list was bound to mix reasonable proposals with wild ones. So that when you point out the wild ones, you can be told "hey, but what about this very reasonable thing?".
They do expect you to apply your own professional and university level discretion when using words.
I really don't understand this thread or threads like this. Suddenly people are all about using exact lists of acceptable discourse and following Rules and the like.
I really don't understand this thread or threads like this. Suddenly people are all about using exact lists of acceptable discourse and following Rules and the like.
So now we're pretending there couldn't be consequences and a strong incentive not to use any and all terms listed?
is the response then, "the universal reasonableness implies we don't need to guide and caution people from using it"?
"It is high time someone wrote this list to finally put an end to the commonly accepted and pervasive use of the words 'retard' and 'jewed' in academia."
Does this make sense to you?
Does this make sense to you?
The commingling of words and phrases which are often used outside of their domain of applicability in order to be offensive, with those that are not, just spreads the contagion to no useful end.
It is particularly bad when the given replacement is nowhere near synonymous. The first one that really got my eyes rolling was 'detail-oriented' for OCD: being detail-oriented is an aspect of safety in a number of areas, and this is nothing like OCD, which has a clinical definition.
If one cares about something, don't make it easy to ridicule and dismiss.
It is particularly bad when the given replacement is nowhere near synonymous. The first one that really got my eyes rolling was 'detail-oriented' for OCD: being detail-oriented is an aspect of safety in a number of areas, and this is nothing like OCD, which has a clinical definition.
If one cares about something, don't make it easy to ridicule and dismiss.
I think the intention with non-synonymous examples is to use those as replacements for non-literal uses of the term. E.g. reserving the use of the term "addicted" for someone who actually has an addiction; only saying someone has OCD if they actually do and otherwise calling them detail-oriented.
(I agree that the document is silly but I don't think it's quite as bad as your interpretation.)
(I agree that the document is silly but I don't think it's quite as bad as your interpretation.)
I agree that's not so bad in general. In this particular case, however, when one wants to say that someone is obsessively preoccupied with irrelevant issues (which could be a valid issue), OCD is not a good choice, but 'detail-oriented' misses the point entirely.
By banning words like "retard" you just create a void that will be filled with another word very quickly (the word itself used to be a medical term).
Imbecile, special needs, oligophrenic, whatever, something associated with intellectual disability will be used instead.
They are not trying to ban "harmful language" from being said or written, they are trying to have you suppress "harmful thoughts", or ideally render you incapable of harbouring them.
Do you want Stanford (or anyone else) to dictate what you can think?
Imbecile, special needs, oligophrenic, whatever, something associated with intellectual disability will be used instead.
They are not trying to ban "harmful language" from being said or written, they are trying to have you suppress "harmful thoughts", or ideally render you incapable of harbouring them.
Do you want Stanford (or anyone else) to dictate what you can think?
> By banning words like "retard" you just create a void that will be filled with another word very quickly (the word itself used to be a medical term).
You can see this happening in the Stanford list itself - some of the terms listed, particularly in the "Ableist" section, are clearly second or third iteration through the euphemism treadmill.
In fact, some could be about to complete another one - for example, my self-preservation instinct on the Internet tells me I shouldn't use "disabled" as an adjective, despite it being listed as a proper alternative to "crippled". I fully expect "disabled" to land in the left column of this or similar list in a couple of years.
You can see this happening in the Stanford list itself - some of the terms listed, particularly in the "Ableist" section, are clearly second or third iteration through the euphemism treadmill.
In fact, some could be about to complete another one - for example, my self-preservation instinct on the Internet tells me I shouldn't use "disabled" as an adjective, despite it being listed as a proper alternative to "crippled". I fully expect "disabled" to land in the left column of this or similar list in a couple of years.
I just checked and "differently abled" is apparently no-no already.
It's as if a choice of words can change the unfortunate fact that losing a leg sucks.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/differently-abled
It's as if a choice of words can change the unfortunate fact that losing a leg sucks.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/differently-abled
Then what do you use in a UI to label something “disabled”?
> I fully expect "disabled" to land in the left column of this or similar list in a couple of years.
I worked for a company that sold medical supplies and we got a phone call about a disabled user message on our website.
I worked for a company that sold medical supplies and we got a phone call about a disabled user message on our website.
It's also worth noting that insults don't need to be real language or any language.
Just laughing can be incredibly offensive.
So an aggressor has infinite words to use and is effectively impossible to censor.
I hesitate to mention SouthPark, but they do an episode where Cartman is especially cruel using laughter as his weapon. It's quite effective and obviously offensive. Unlike the list in the article.
Just laughing can be incredibly offensive.
So an aggressor has infinite words to use and is effectively impossible to censor.
I hesitate to mention SouthPark, but they do an episode where Cartman is especially cruel using laughter as his weapon. It's quite effective and obviously offensive. Unlike the list in the article.
I expect laughter will be a banned behavior on next year's version of the list.
The interesting thing to me with this instance of the euphemism treadmill is that people seem to have either amnesia or zero cognitive dissonance about words that were once deemed insensitive and mean the same damn thing. 'Retard' replaced 'moron', for instance, because moron was deemed insensitive in the medical world. Before that there was the gamut everyone knows of: idiot, stupid, etc. These words are only effective as insults because of their meaning, but proponents of suppression pretend the words live in a no-man's land of having no meaning, existing only as being derogatory.
The only thing more insane would be the expectation that insults of any kind, for any reason, no longer be tolerated (some do suggest this, which is at least consistent).
The only thing more insane would be the expectation that insults of any kind, for any reason, no longer be tolerated (some do suggest this, which is at least consistent).
They would be better off with a class on sensitivity training, that basically boils down to "stop being a dick". Besides lists of acceptable discourse or newspeak, they should teach students to be civil.
And if people still need a list or a class to be taught that e.g. the N word is offensive, they have no place in Stanford.
And if people still need a list or a class to be taught that e.g. the N word is offensive, they have no place in Stanford.
> it also has slurs like "retard"
Nobody has ever been genuinely harmed by hearing the word "retard." It's made up outrage.
Note: being butthurt is not being harmed.
Nobody has ever been genuinely harmed by hearing the word "retard." It's made up outrage.
Note: being butthurt is not being harmed.
I would agree insofar as they would not be harmed in excess of any other word used as an insult in its place. What "hurts" is being insulted (potentially) or bullied.
> you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals
This is straight out of totalitarian regimes' playbook.
It's not only taking social justice too far, I'd say it's a betrayal of the ideal of a just, inclusive and safe society.
This is straight out of totalitarian regimes' playbook.
It's not only taking social justice too far, I'd say it's a betrayal of the ideal of a just, inclusive and safe society.
> It's not only taking social justice too far, I'd say it's a betrayal of the ideal of a just, inclusive and safe society.
<insert "Always Has Been" meme here>
This has been quite obvious for at least a decade now; that's when the term "social justice" started to gain pejorative associations, and it did so for a reason.
<insert "Always Has Been" meme here>
This has been quite obvious for at least a decade now; that's when the term "social justice" started to gain pejorative associations, and it did so for a reason.
What seems unique here is that it is that it an unorganized mob. The democrats certainly try to get the wokes support, but there is no woke party. Obama even called them out as keyboard warriors. And this is why I disagree with Elon, I don't think the wokes are any more dangerous than any other performative religion or subculture. They are annoying but have no real goals other than winning the virtue signaling game.
> What seems unique here is that it is that it an unorganized mob. The democrats certainly try to get the wokes support, but there is no woke party. Obama even called them out as keyboard warriors.
I remember back in ~2010-2012 when this was seen as an exciting, new, positive development. That was back when we were talking about 4chan trolling Scientology <insert "Oh Fuck The Internet Is Here" meme here>, and the Arab Spring (back before it became apparent it wasn't just Twitter vs. authoritarian governments, and that people didn't come out of it better off). I remember cheering to a TED talk that talked up decentralized activism, comparing it to "murmurations", complete with video of starlings flying to "Pachelbel - Canon In D Major".
A decade later, I don't find it inspiring or exciting anymore. I find it utterly terrifying. Yes, even back then, I had the thought on the back of my mind, that this "unorganized mob" could be abused (something the TV show Continuum later reminded me of), and is capable of pushing for both the right and wrong thing. But there was this sense of optimism that it'll "arc towards justice". Oh how very wrong we were back then.
> And this is why I disagree with Elon, I don't think the wokes are any more dangerous than any other performative religion or subculture. They are annoying but have no real goals other than winning the virtue signaling game.
I don't know what Elon Musk has to say about this, but I disagree with what you wrote here, for two reasons.
1. They've already proven to be much more dangerous than "other performative religion or subculture". Other religions and subcultures didn't manage to make people afraid of speaking their mind on the Internet. Other religions and subcultures didn't manage to change hiring policies, standardize all kinds of weird trainings in corporations, or make a well-known university publish an absurd list of "bad words".
2. If anything I was taught about late 19th and early 20th century was accurate, socialism and communism started with decentralized, organic movements popping up all around the world. Those movements were then quickly co-opted by competing political upstarts, who first started to fight another - until, after a lot of bloodshed, one group emerged victorious, took power from the incumbents, and became a defining force of 20th century history.
My point being, decentralized, distributed mobs with no real goals but lots of pent up energy are a resource to political schemers. They are thus dangerous in the same way spilled gasoline is: on its own it just smells bad, but it creates an environment where a single spark can lead to a lot of devastation.
I remember back in ~2010-2012 when this was seen as an exciting, new, positive development. That was back when we were talking about 4chan trolling Scientology <insert "Oh Fuck The Internet Is Here" meme here>, and the Arab Spring (back before it became apparent it wasn't just Twitter vs. authoritarian governments, and that people didn't come out of it better off). I remember cheering to a TED talk that talked up decentralized activism, comparing it to "murmurations", complete with video of starlings flying to "Pachelbel - Canon In D Major".
A decade later, I don't find it inspiring or exciting anymore. I find it utterly terrifying. Yes, even back then, I had the thought on the back of my mind, that this "unorganized mob" could be abused (something the TV show Continuum later reminded me of), and is capable of pushing for both the right and wrong thing. But there was this sense of optimism that it'll "arc towards justice". Oh how very wrong we were back then.
> And this is why I disagree with Elon, I don't think the wokes are any more dangerous than any other performative religion or subculture. They are annoying but have no real goals other than winning the virtue signaling game.
I don't know what Elon Musk has to say about this, but I disagree with what you wrote here, for two reasons.
1. They've already proven to be much more dangerous than "other performative religion or subculture". Other religions and subcultures didn't manage to make people afraid of speaking their mind on the Internet. Other religions and subcultures didn't manage to change hiring policies, standardize all kinds of weird trainings in corporations, or make a well-known university publish an absurd list of "bad words".
2. If anything I was taught about late 19th and early 20th century was accurate, socialism and communism started with decentralized, organic movements popping up all around the world. Those movements were then quickly co-opted by competing political upstarts, who first started to fight another - until, after a lot of bloodshed, one group emerged victorious, took power from the incumbents, and became a defining force of 20th century history.
My point being, decentralized, distributed mobs with no real goals but lots of pent up energy are a resource to political schemers. They are thus dangerous in the same way spilled gasoline is: on its own it just smells bad, but it creates an environment where a single spark can lead to a lot of devastation.
> Other religions and subcultures didn't manage to make people afraid of speaking their mind on the Internet.
Have you ever heard of gamergate? Do you have any idea what it's like to be a woman on the internet?
Have you ever heard of gamergate? Do you have any idea what it's like to be a woman on the internet?
> Have you ever heard of gamergate?
Yes. It's what arguably started (this iteration of) this insanity. And it's very much "the wokes" GP was referring to, not "other religions and subcultures".
> Do you have any idea what it's like to be a woman on the internet?
No. I have some idea based on what I've been told by women close to me, but it's obviously a small sample limited by age and geography.
Yes. It's what arguably started (this iteration of) this insanity. And it's very much "the wokes" GP was referring to, not "other religions and subcultures".
> Do you have any idea what it's like to be a woman on the internet?
No. I have some idea based on what I've been told by women close to me, but it's obviously a small sample limited by age and geography.
Just to echo gp, America Christians have recently overturned roe. That is much worse from an individual freedom perspective than being forced by your employer to watch a video about how all white people should feel guilty of their white privilege.
It's virtue signalling. Talk to actual people from indigenous communities, they're probably more concerned about actual problems affecting communities than whether someone says "bury the hatchet". Talk to a blind activist association, they're more likely concerned about the unwalkability of public spaces than the usage of the phrase "blind review".
It's mostly white, mostly affluent people, competing in the political sensitivity olympics, probably without even realising they're harming the very causes they claim to fight for.
It's mostly white, mostly affluent people, competing in the political sensitivity olympics, probably without even realising they're harming the very causes they claim to fight for.
Yup, I think it's pretty well-known by now that only white, affluent, powerful people doing virtue signalling use "Latinx" for instance, and that this very word is rejected as meaningless, stupid and/or offensive and condescending by the vast majority of "Latinx" people.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin...
An old tactic to discredit an opponent and suppress norms of free speech. It goes like this:
"Thing that is not violence is violence."
The broader tactic is redefining the meaning of words to claim the moral high ground in a debate. They steal the entire intellectual history of a concept by just redefining it to support their argument.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
You know what's terrifying? I've seen the first line of this quote used straight, by otherwise seemingly intelligent people, to shut down someone who rightfully pointed they're being manipulative with words.
Yes, language is evolving, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. But the idea that you can use words in whichever way you want, and any misunderstanding is the listener's problem, is just shitting at the idea of communication, and nothing but a thinly veiled power grab.
Yes, language is evolving, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. But the idea that you can use words in whichever way you want, and any misunderstanding is the listener's problem, is just shitting at the idea of communication, and nothing but a thinly veiled power grab.
People are slowly coming to the realisation that there is no "open dialogue", no "marketplace of ideas". You've been had.
The reality is that when you're in power, you can use words in whichever way you want. This is what power means. Only now has is become so obvious that people can't help but notice.
The reality is that when you're in power, you can use words in whichever way you want. This is what power means. Only now has is become so obvious that people can't help but notice.
The marketplace of ideas is a nobel and ideal state. However, its weakness shows in a low trust culture - those like Kendi will exploit it to initially be heard then discard it once they’re in power.
Without strict controls over who is and isn’t allowed in our culture we’re left with a “at your feet or at your throat” predicament. Subversive individuals are death to a culture (the thing Popper was referring to in the paradox of tolerance - you have to draw the line at life or death, not simply because you disagree). Trust is everything.
Without strict controls over who is and isn’t allowed in our culture we’re left with a “at your feet or at your throat” predicament. Subversive individuals are death to a culture (the thing Popper was referring to in the paradox of tolerance - you have to draw the line at life or death, not simply because you disagree). Trust is everything.
Or to put it in different terms: democracy can AT BEST work somewhat ok in a homogenous high-IQ population. As soon as the constituency becomes multi-ethnic, people stop voting for "whats best" and start voting "which group is favoured". This is not a theory but a historical observation.
Popper was an idiot and his "Paradox Of Tolerance" can only lead to tolerance becoming the only permissible value and therefore decline, since tolerance is the absence of values. His university colleagues held him in such disregard that they threatened to quit unless he was cast out. Truly the patron saint of midwits and leftist.
Popper was an idiot and his "Paradox Of Tolerance" can only lead to tolerance becoming the only permissible value and therefore decline, since tolerance is the absence of values. His university colleagues held him in such disregard that they threatened to quit unless he was cast out. Truly the patron saint of midwits and leftist.
Right, it's not hard to demonstrate how absurd that idea is. There was an xkcd that nailed this - https://xkcd.com/1860/
Ibram X. Kendi and similar figures' redefinition of racism is the obvious example that comes to mind. I'd love to hear other examples, I'm struggling to think of them.
Even this list itself shows such an example. It calls out the expression "calling a spade a spade" as problematic, and the explanation given is "Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.". So they are inventing some redefinition of the phrase that could be problematic in order to jettison it.
Note: as a non-native speaker, I have no idea what is problematic about the word "spade". I have only ever seen it to mean either a tool for digging or a type of sword, but I will take them at their word that it does have some other meaning.
Note: as a non-native speaker, I have no idea what is problematic about the word "spade". I have only ever seen it to mean either a tool for digging or a type of sword, but I will take them at their word that it does have some other meaning.
As a native speaker, I am also unaware of any other meaning.
Spade is a rather dated term for a black person, historically from Harlem.
I've encountered the term 'spade' in the fetish community in reference to interracial cuckolding fantasies. Maybe that's it.
Or maybe it's that it's homophonous with 'spayed', language resists easy categorization.
Or maybe it's that it's homophonous with 'spayed', language resists easy categorization.
This is why lists like this exist. I’m aware of the term and it’s derogatory use. I can see how when used in a professional context it could be harmful. But many people might not be aware, so this list helps build awareness.
Fauci changing the definition of "gain of function" research after it was banned so he could claim he wasn't funding it, when he clearly was under the old definition from the previous year is probably the most blatant recent use of this tactic.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-sen...
"Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of 'a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.'
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses 'enhanced potential pandemic pathogen' research, which it defined as 'research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.'"
The research funded was forbidden under the old definition, and so they just changed the definition after they did the research.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-sen...
"Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of 'a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.'
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses 'enhanced potential pandemic pathogen' research, which it defined as 'research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.'"
The research funded was forbidden under the old definition, and so they just changed the definition after they did the research.
Misogyny and misandry (originally meant a hatred of *men), now it includes any perceived slight, or lack of respect.
That sounds like a scummy tactic to dismiss someone's argument based on their choice of words. I'm so glad debating isn't a thing much.
Except many people would contend that words can be used violently. For instance the crime of 'assault' requires no physical contact -- you can assault someone by making them fear that you will batter them by using words. I would think of a better argument.
People who are good at hurting you with words do not use words like the ones in the list.
Also, the assault example may be valid in your jurisdiction, but in mine it isn't assault but threats of violence. additionally, the threat must be made in a way that is threatening.
Your example, using my local laws, doesn't make sense.
Also, the assault example may be valid in your jurisdiction, but in mine it isn't assault but threats of violence. additionally, the threat must be made in a way that is threatening.
Your example, using my local laws, doesn't make sense.
I never said anything about the list, I said your argument could be better.
I really wish people would address the content of a discussion instead of what they want to be discussing.
I don't know what laws you are talking about because do not define them, nor your locality.
Regardless, there is a 'for instance' in my reply, and you addressed that specific notion instead of the core.
I really wish people would address the content of a discussion instead of what they want to be discussing.
I don't know what laws you are talking about because do not define them, nor your locality.
Regardless, there is a 'for instance' in my reply, and you addressed that specific notion instead of the core.
Hurting someone's feelings is not contingent on the specificity of words. It's contingent on insulting them, belittling them, etc. And that still is not violence. Words have meaning.
The politicians who want to ban specific words for being violent are the same people who want to ban guns for being violent, and it doesn't effectively address the problem in either case.
your argument make me fear that you will batter me with words. please stop using it.
Do you find this kind of technique results in compelling discourse? I don't. Do you want conversations to proceed in fashion where someone makes a point that is grounded in reality and asks a question (at what point does violence not require physical action?) and in reply gets a dishonest quip that does not address the question but seeks to trivialize it?
I don't take their comment as dishonest at all. I take their claim at face value, as you should. It isn't fair to immediately discredit someone when they express a fear of your words becoming ever more violent. I think you should look inward and ask yourself how you can do better with your discourse in the future.
Ah yes, you make complete sense. Forgive me for not realizing that when wading into a comment thread on a submission that is baiting the anti-woke crew to vent that I would be dealing with this. Should have known better.
I didn't design these weapons against critical thinking, I just use them against the people who advocate for them so that we're all on the same level. Your violent words scare me and I think you should self censor your aggression so that others can feel safe.
don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
You aren't using anything against anyone. It is completely transparent what you are doing and the only thing it is effective at is making you look silly. The fact that you think that I am pro-naughty-word-censoring because I brought up a simple comparison and posed a simple question makes your adherence to critical-thinking look hollow since you seem to eschew it. I am happy to be proved wrong by having a thoughtful discussion if you would like, instead of carrying on in the manner we have.
the reason it looks silly is because you're looking in a mirror that's showing a different face, but presenting the same opinions back at you. Of course it looks silly. Of course it looks like lack of critical thinking. Its both of those things - it's modeled after people who think talking is violence if they don't like the speech - it uses the same 'logic' and framework. It will equate this silly list of words to assault and battery uncritically, and can do so with any opinion to shut down discourse.
It's not a logical framework, its an ideological weapon used to shutdown competing ideas with nonsense like these blacklists. The question is if have the capacity to recognize that about your own reasoning when you get it lobbed back at you, or if you will simply declare it as the specious noise making of the 'anti woke crew' because it invalidates your position without any chance at coming to an agreement, because it immediately classifies any contradictory thinking as violent and evil without having to make a logical argument.
Weird how that works.
It's not a logical framework, its an ideological weapon used to shutdown competing ideas with nonsense like these blacklists. The question is if have the capacity to recognize that about your own reasoning when you get it lobbed back at you, or if you will simply declare it as the specious noise making of the 'anti woke crew' because it invalidates your position without any chance at coming to an agreement, because it immediately classifies any contradictory thinking as violent and evil without having to make a logical argument.
Weird how that works.
If you are admitting to purposefully shutting down the ability to have a reasonable conversation then I can't see what you your end-game is here. Do you plan to act unreasonable, call people 'emotional' and say that they are doing things they are not (please point out how I have used any of these tactics or 'ideological weapons') until it is just you, the extremist 'woke' bureaucrats, and other people who refuse to engage in reasonable discourse, having alienated anyone who is not willing to take a blunt ideological position and sit on it with fingers in ears? At that point what then is the plan?
I'm no more shutting down the conversation than someone equating offensive words to uttering threats. By declaring words violence you make sure there can be no conversation, I'm just making sure it's true about everyone's words instead of just what you're comfortable with.
If you think that's unreasonable maybe judge you own behaviour - your words can be violence and every time you open your mouth to declare other people' words violence, you open the door for it to happen to you. so I did it, and you had nothing to say except to declare it bad faith, which I agree with, except I think your argument about assault is also in bad faith, and treat you the same.
You talk about plans like I control you or other people. I don't. I can only show you a mirror of yourself and hope you snap yourself out of the anti discourse patterns you exhibit but dislike in others. The plan is only to treat people who decry words as violence the same way they treat others and hope they learn the error of their way by having to contend with their own ideological weapons turned against them.
If words are violence why does anyone need to listen to anyone? I didn't kill discussion - your opinion decries discussion as violence. How can we have reasonable conversation in a framework where one side decries the other side's words as violence? It's not possible. It's not a framework for conversation, its just a tool to shut up people who you disagree with.
If you think that's unreasonable maybe judge you own behaviour - your words can be violence and every time you open your mouth to declare other people' words violence, you open the door for it to happen to you. so I did it, and you had nothing to say except to declare it bad faith, which I agree with, except I think your argument about assault is also in bad faith, and treat you the same.
You talk about plans like I control you or other people. I don't. I can only show you a mirror of yourself and hope you snap yourself out of the anti discourse patterns you exhibit but dislike in others. The plan is only to treat people who decry words as violence the same way they treat others and hope they learn the error of their way by having to contend with their own ideological weapons turned against them.
If words are violence why does anyone need to listen to anyone? I didn't kill discussion - your opinion decries discussion as violence. How can we have reasonable conversation in a framework where one side decries the other side's words as violence? It's not possible. It's not a framework for conversation, its just a tool to shut up people who you disagree with.
> I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm".
If you don't feel uncomfortable for any of these words or phrases, then consider yourself fortunate; it does not apply to you. But don't dismiss it because you're not offended for any of the words, just be fortunate it's not a problem you have.
If you don't feel uncomfortable for any of these words or phrases, then consider yourself fortunate; it does not apply to you. But don't dismiss it because you're not offended for any of the words, just be fortunate it's not a problem you have.
I had a bottom 0.01%(probably lower) childhood (don't ask.)
This list is in itself offensive. Multiple entries try to force words into negative territory. This includes words previously used to be inclusive and presumably words from this list of "alternatives" will be in a future list.
People, all people, need to stop being offended on "my behalf." Especially people with a job that entitles them to work on something full of self-realizable hypocrisies like: "Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person."
For those curious: I have worked all my life to see my "off-center brain chemistry" in a positive light. I do not under any circumstances want some person telling me OCD is offensive.
Take half your paycheck and save some lives. Have a reason to actually feel good about yourself.
This list is in itself offensive. Multiple entries try to force words into negative territory. This includes words previously used to be inclusive and presumably words from this list of "alternatives" will be in a future list.
People, all people, need to stop being offended on "my behalf." Especially people with a job that entitles them to work on something full of self-realizable hypocrisies like: "Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person."
For those curious: I have worked all my life to see my "off-center brain chemistry" in a positive light. I do not under any circumstances want some person telling me OCD is offensive.
Take half your paycheck and save some lives. Have a reason to actually feel good about yourself.
If the mere mention of a non-insult is enough to provoke notable discomfort, that is an issue to be examined in therapy. It is not something to be resolved by the judicial system or some grotesque approximation thereof.
You feeling uncomfortable, or even offended, isn't even remotely what most people consider "harm", and frankly it's a little bit offensive that the equivalence has been made.
Are you personally offended by any of these words (except the ones that are obvious slurs, I mean)? I would love to hear a first person account, since they seem to be absent from this discussion.
Govern by lowest common denominator, what could possibly go wrong?
They're just words. They are incapable of causing discomfort absent some context in which they are used.
Sticks and stones ...
The reason these kinds of rules are showing up everywhere is to get control of organizations by inventing grievances that can be deployed at any time to remove inconvenient people and quickly take over the organizations they've built. A variant of this is the WEF's Stakeholder Capitalism where outside groups can infiltrate corporations and then use invented grievances to quickly take control of these organizations.
I see this initiative differently, as a way to educate people how their choice of words can affect those around them. I don't see any hard "rules" here, so much as describing phrases that could be harmful, in context. I just now learned quite a bit from just reading words from the Abelist category.
I suppose this resource could be used to more effectively sanction individuals who consistently demonstrate behavior harmful to those around them. It could be referenced early and often, so that repeat offenses more quickly lead to dismissal. Even so, I don't see this as good or bad. At least the word list and rationale is explicit. A wrongful dismissal can challenged, or even litigated, no?
Cannot this reference be used to better defend someone who uses a poor choice of words as their sole offense? There are so many words and phrases enumerated, it aptly demonstrates just how challenging and context dependent things are. That quadriplegic, for example, is listed tends to undermine the validity of listing actually offensive phrases. Conversely, the explanation of "basket case" and "spaz" were quite informative to me; I don't use these words, but, it's useful to better understand why they could be offensive.
Addendum: I think this particular document is inappropriately broad, including phrases that have no business being here. That said, the same text with a conservative scope seems it could be helpful, at least for educating authors who may not be aware of the nuances some of these phrases have. For example, "going off the reservation" is quite offensive once you understand the history of this phrase. People may use phrases like this without knowing its ugly reference, when a better fitting phrase could be used.
I suppose this resource could be used to more effectively sanction individuals who consistently demonstrate behavior harmful to those around them. It could be referenced early and often, so that repeat offenses more quickly lead to dismissal. Even so, I don't see this as good or bad. At least the word list and rationale is explicit. A wrongful dismissal can challenged, or even litigated, no?
Cannot this reference be used to better defend someone who uses a poor choice of words as their sole offense? There are so many words and phrases enumerated, it aptly demonstrates just how challenging and context dependent things are. That quadriplegic, for example, is listed tends to undermine the validity of listing actually offensive phrases. Conversely, the explanation of "basket case" and "spaz" were quite informative to me; I don't use these words, but, it's useful to better understand why they could be offensive.
Addendum: I think this particular document is inappropriately broad, including phrases that have no business being here. That said, the same text with a conservative scope seems it could be helpful, at least for educating authors who may not be aware of the nuances some of these phrases have. For example, "going off the reservation" is quite offensive once you understand the history of this phrase. People may use phrases like this without knowing its ugly reference, when a better fitting phrase could be used.
> Cannot this reference be used to better defend someone who uses a poor choice of words as their sole offense? There are so many words and phrases enumerated, it aptly demonstrates just how challenging and context dependent things are.
Have you ever seen this argument work?
The whole point of "arson, murder, jaywalking", of "motte and bailey" argument style, of mixing obvious cases together with the things you want to make otherwise indefensible claims about, is because it makes the argument work only in one direction.
The only valid counter is to fight the inclusion of "jaywalking" on the same list as "arson" and "murder", but once it's your company's HR department quoting a Stanford-published list of "bad words", it's too late.
Have you ever seen this argument work?
The whole point of "arson, murder, jaywalking", of "motte and bailey" argument style, of mixing obvious cases together with the things you want to make otherwise indefensible claims about, is because it makes the argument work only in one direction.
The only valid counter is to fight the inclusion of "jaywalking" on the same list as "arson" and "murder", but once it's your company's HR department quoting a Stanford-published list of "bad words", it's too late.
Here's one of many such egregious examples:
> committed suicide > died by suicide > Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.
I had a friend commit suicide, and one of my mum's colleagues - also an acquiantance of mine, who I'd chat with in the pub semi-regularly - also committed suicide many years ago. I've suffered with depression for much of my life since my teenage years (undiagnosed until I was well into my twenties), and I have a close family member who's spent maybe a quarter of their life over the last 20 years institutionalised, with much of the rest of the time in close contact with mental health authorities. I've had many friends and colleagues over the years who've suffered with mental health issues.
But apparently "committed suicide" is "ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions."
No.
It isn't.
It is a brutal term that aptly captures the daily visceral struggle of both those with mental health issues who are battling suicidal thoughts, and those who are left behind after a friend or relative does commit suicide. It very well captures the trauma and impact of such an event. It also avoids the final indignity of stripping the unwell person of their agency, and therefore their humanity. It is 100% certified appropriate (were such a certification to exist).
The only thing harmful about this list is that it exists and that somebody, or some group, got paid actual money (presumably as part of their day job) to compile it. In 200 years time, if somebody authors a book called, "The hideous and shameful annals of bullshit jobs in the early 21st Century" I have no doubt at all that this will rank very highly.
Let's call this list what it is: thought policing. Whoever is behind it sits somewhere on the same spectrum as the real world Morality Police of Iran, or the fictional Thought Police (and the Ministry of Truth, who control language - and in particular are replacing it with Newspeak) in George Orwell's 1984.
The word toxic has become heavily overused, but this list is an absolute examplar of it: it is a product of deeply warped and corrupted thinking. Some terms on the list (which I don't think need repeating here - racial slurs, and the like) are considered pretty universally offensive but that does not justify the presence of the rest.
Overall what we have is a pretty transparent and unsophisticated attempt to control people by those too stupid to understand the negative impacts of their actions on wider society.
I would have hoped for a lot better from an institution such as Stanford with a rich history of valuable contributions (including to hacker culture).
> committed suicide > died by suicide > Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.
I had a friend commit suicide, and one of my mum's colleagues - also an acquiantance of mine, who I'd chat with in the pub semi-regularly - also committed suicide many years ago. I've suffered with depression for much of my life since my teenage years (undiagnosed until I was well into my twenties), and I have a close family member who's spent maybe a quarter of their life over the last 20 years institutionalised, with much of the rest of the time in close contact with mental health authorities. I've had many friends and colleagues over the years who've suffered with mental health issues.
But apparently "committed suicide" is "ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions."
No.
It isn't.
It is a brutal term that aptly captures the daily visceral struggle of both those with mental health issues who are battling suicidal thoughts, and those who are left behind after a friend or relative does commit suicide. It very well captures the trauma and impact of such an event. It also avoids the final indignity of stripping the unwell person of their agency, and therefore their humanity. It is 100% certified appropriate (were such a certification to exist).
The only thing harmful about this list is that it exists and that somebody, or some group, got paid actual money (presumably as part of their day job) to compile it. In 200 years time, if somebody authors a book called, "The hideous and shameful annals of bullshit jobs in the early 21st Century" I have no doubt at all that this will rank very highly.
Let's call this list what it is: thought policing. Whoever is behind it sits somewhere on the same spectrum as the real world Morality Police of Iran, or the fictional Thought Police (and the Ministry of Truth, who control language - and in particular are replacing it with Newspeak) in George Orwell's 1984.
The word toxic has become heavily overused, but this list is an absolute examplar of it: it is a product of deeply warped and corrupted thinking. Some terms on the list (which I don't think need repeating here - racial slurs, and the like) are considered pretty universally offensive but that does not justify the presence of the rest.
Overall what we have is a pretty transparent and unsophisticated attempt to control people by those too stupid to understand the negative impacts of their actions on wider society.
I would have hoped for a lot better from an institution such as Stanford with a rich history of valuable contributions (including to hacker culture).
I also ran into that suicide phrase. My experiences are not unlike yours and I don't like to think of my friend who committed suicide as a patient who was overcome by disease. Rather, they were very meticulous and precise about ending their life.
It begs the question: can we represent this thing (somebody ends their own life) in precisely the right way? No, language is insufficient. All cases are different.
When I went to school and learned about linguistics and cultural analysis etc the appropriate way to deal with this insufficiency of language was to use many descriptions and ambiguities. So that you create a general field of meaning around the inexpressible thing.
Apparently we were all wrong; we just lacked the proper wording.
It begs the question: can we represent this thing (somebody ends their own life) in precisely the right way? No, language is insufficient. All cases are different.
When I went to school and learned about linguistics and cultural analysis etc the appropriate way to deal with this insufficiency of language was to use many descriptions and ambiguities. So that you create a general field of meaning around the inexpressible thing.
Apparently we were all wrong; we just lacked the proper wording.
Yeah, I think that's right. I don't really have any objection to either "committed suicide" or "died by suicide". Language can only ever be an approximation of experience so I think it's fine and sensible to use a variety of terms in these types of situations.
If anything, their term "ableist language" trivializes the trials and tribulations of the so-called abled people.
It's not just people with diagnosed issues and actual pathologies that have huge problems in their life - or that commit suicide. "Able" people commit suicide all the time.
It's not just people with diagnosed issues and actual pathologies that have huge problems in their life - or that commit suicide. "Able" people commit suicide all the time.
[deleted]
ModernMech(1)
It's a complex subject.
But I happen to be from Bosnia and even when I first immigrated to Canada in the late 90s, I was amused at my Canadian friends constantly getting offended on my behalf. A joke or reference that somebody would make that I would find funny or agree with, would send my friends in a whirl and a twirl. I focused on intent - these particular people in these particular circumstances neither wanted nor did offend the relevant party.
I fear if we treat words themselves as "offensive", making lists with no consideration of intent, circumstance, relationship, and actual impact, it's at best a pointless and at worst a divisive and Orwellian exercise.
Edit : some suggestions are genuinely useful and thoughtful, and I think conversation rather than lists is where we should focus, as even the very second line on the list - "replace addicted with hooked" - isn't it obvious that next iteration of the list will include "hooked"??
But I happen to be from Bosnia and even when I first immigrated to Canada in the late 90s, I was amused at my Canadian friends constantly getting offended on my behalf. A joke or reference that somebody would make that I would find funny or agree with, would send my friends in a whirl and a twirl. I focused on intent - these particular people in these particular circumstances neither wanted nor did offend the relevant party.
I fear if we treat words themselves as "offensive", making lists with no consideration of intent, circumstance, relationship, and actual impact, it's at best a pointless and at worst a divisive and Orwellian exercise.
Edit : some suggestions are genuinely useful and thoughtful, and I think conversation rather than lists is where we should focus, as even the very second line on the list - "replace addicted with hooked" - isn't it obvious that next iteration of the list will include "hooked"??
An accessible and entertaining treatment of this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtj7LDYaufM
The gist is that anyone can joke about anything, but jokes from outside an experience tend to be quite boring. Like the American reactionary love of The One Joke[0]. Calling them offensive gives the jokes way too much credit. Nothing they come up with holds a candle to what an actual trans or nonbinary person can think up. Some people think making "offensive" jokes prevents them from being a hack.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/onejoke/
The gist is that anyone can joke about anything, but jokes from outside an experience tend to be quite boring. Like the American reactionary love of The One Joke[0]. Calling them offensive gives the jokes way too much credit. Nothing they come up with holds a candle to what an actual trans or nonbinary person can think up. Some people think making "offensive" jokes prevents them from being a hack.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/onejoke/
Thx I'll check out out. Fwiw I made myself watch David Chapelle latest special and to your point somewhat,felt it's greatest sin was that it was unfunny - flat jokes,poor timing and delivery,and felt more like his discussion with critics than attempt to entertain.
We need a better standard of evidence for harmful language than someone's claim at offense.
I have no doubt that you could find an actual victim/target/member of a marginalized group to claim to be bothered by any of these phrases in the first person. But I'm also certain that members of such groups enjoy telling other people what to do just as much (on average) as all of humankind at large, which is to say a lot, and so a better standard of evidence is needed.
I've struggled to envision what such evidence would look like, but I think it will have to be someone who is better at devising experiments than me.
I have no doubt that you could find an actual victim/target/member of a marginalized group to claim to be bothered by any of these phrases in the first person. But I'm also certain that members of such groups enjoy telling other people what to do just as much (on average) as all of humankind at large, which is to say a lot, and so a better standard of evidence is needed.
I've struggled to envision what such evidence would look like, but I think it will have to be someone who is better at devising experiments than me.
> This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team.
Nitpick, there are two kinds of "flopping" in sports, which you can both observe e.g. in soccer.
One is to simulate a made-up foul as you say, basically trying to mislead the referee into giving an unjustified penalty. This is clearly illegal and constitutes a foul itself.
However, often players flop to highlight fouls that actually happened but were so subtle or hard to see that the referee missed them.
The results are still ridiculous - Ronaldo rolling in pain on the grass because the other player had briefly pulled his jersey - but the greater strategy here is valid: If small, subtle fouls went unpunished, they'd be an easy way to gain an unfair advantage for your team. So the game would very quickly turn into a contest of how to hide fouls best from the referee. By highlighting fouls to a ridiculous degree, players are counteracting this.
Nitpick, there are two kinds of "flopping" in sports, which you can both observe e.g. in soccer.
One is to simulate a made-up foul as you say, basically trying to mislead the referee into giving an unjustified penalty. This is clearly illegal and constitutes a foul itself.
However, often players flop to highlight fouls that actually happened but were so subtle or hard to see that the referee missed them.
The results are still ridiculous - Ronaldo rolling in pain on the grass because the other player had briefly pulled his jersey - but the greater strategy here is valid: If small, subtle fouls went unpunished, they'd be an easy way to gain an unfair advantage for your team. So the game would very quickly turn into a contest of how to hide fouls best from the referee. By highlighting fouls to a ridiculous degree, players are counteracting this.
>> If small, subtle fouls went unpunished, they'd be an easy way to gain an unfair advantage for your team. So the game would very quickly turn into a contest of how to hide fouls best from the referee.
Only in soccer, and even then only with particular types of players... I don't know how to describe them without using any of these words...
Only in soccer, and even then only with particular types of players... I don't know how to describe them without using any of these words...
A world where small and subtle fouls are continuously punished sounds pretty scary to me.
It is like intentionally inducing mental allergies.
> I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm".
It's not from reading such words once. But if you hear them many many times, they can cause harm because they create subtle biases, prejudices, change one's self-image, etc.
It's not from reading such words once. But if you hear them many many times, they can cause harm because they create subtle biases, prejudices, change one's self-image, etc.
Does this apply to those with abnormalities and defects like ADHD and autism?
Are they just faking being crazy in order to get an advantage? Like in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
Or are they secretly trying to oppress us by forcing us normal people to live by their stupid, made up and malicious rules? Like in that Harrison Bergerson story.
Why would they do something so evil, so corrupting to society? Is sociopathy a common symptom of these mental disorders? Is that why they're all potential school shooters? Or are most of them harmless freaks but the accomodations put in place for the rare genuine basket case are being exploited by a whole bunch of sociopaths that aren't even defective just lazy and they're playing the system to disavantage normal people who are just literally better at basic tasks than they are?
Where will it end. "Oh look at me, I can't concentrate in an open office because someone might make smalltalk or eye contact with me. I'm so triggered we all have to work from home and have less meetings".
What are they plotting to do once they have reduced as all down to their pathetic level?
Are they just faking being crazy in order to get an advantage? Like in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
Or are they secretly trying to oppress us by forcing us normal people to live by their stupid, made up and malicious rules? Like in that Harrison Bergerson story.
Why would they do something so evil, so corrupting to society? Is sociopathy a common symptom of these mental disorders? Is that why they're all potential school shooters? Or are most of them harmless freaks but the accomodations put in place for the rare genuine basket case are being exploited by a whole bunch of sociopaths that aren't even defective just lazy and they're playing the system to disavantage normal people who are just literally better at basic tasks than they are?
Where will it end. "Oh look at me, I can't concentrate in an open office because someone might make smalltalk or eye contact with me. I'm so triggered we all have to work from home and have less meetings".
What are they plotting to do once they have reduced as all down to their pathetic level?
What in the hell are you talking about? A society that does reasonable things to difficulties that some people have through no fault of their own is a healthy one. It’s all a question of balance and one could argue that colleges have got that balance very wrong, but they’ve always been places with more intense politics than the rest of society. People leave university and get more life experience and hopefully mature a bit, thankfully. This is how it’s always been.
If you want to know where I, a mental cunt with ADHD strikes the balance, regarding this list, some of the words make sense as their current meaning is pejorative and derogatory e.g. “cripple”, however some are simply a statement of fact and thus ridiculous e.g. “addict”.
Personally I think I have thicker skin than most and whilst it would be great if everyone was at that stage we have to extend some level of compassion, not just out of altruism but also because how using certain language affects how we ourselves are portrayed and received when trying to achieve a goal with our words.
If you want to know where I, a mental cunt with ADHD strikes the balance, regarding this list, some of the words make sense as their current meaning is pejorative and derogatory e.g. “cripple”, however some are simply a statement of fact and thus ridiculous e.g. “addict”.
Personally I think I have thicker skin than most and whilst it would be great if everyone was at that stage we have to extend some level of compassion, not just out of altruism but also because how using certain language affects how we ourselves are portrayed and received when trying to achieve a goal with our words.
I think you inadvertently highlighted the issue here:
>some of the words make sense as their current meaning is pejorative and derogatory e.g. “cripple”, however some are simply a statement of fact and thus ridiculous e.g. “addict”
I disagree with your contention. I also see "cripple" as a statement of fact. Others may see "addict" as pejorative. "Addict" is certainly pejorative when Tucker Carlson uses it. Not pejorative when the leader of the local AA chapter does.
"Idiot" was, supposedly, a medical term at some point. Then, it was probably a heavy slur the way "retarded" is now. Currently, "idiot" is pretty tame. Certainly would generally be considered more acceptable than "retarded."
In other words: language is a slippery beast, something that has no fixed interpretation. Much of meaning is super contextual. Just as one is advised against assuming someone's pronouns, why are we assuming people's intent with lists like this?
>some of the words make sense as their current meaning is pejorative and derogatory e.g. “cripple”, however some are simply a statement of fact and thus ridiculous e.g. “addict”
I disagree with your contention. I also see "cripple" as a statement of fact. Others may see "addict" as pejorative. "Addict" is certainly pejorative when Tucker Carlson uses it. Not pejorative when the leader of the local AA chapter does.
"Idiot" was, supposedly, a medical term at some point. Then, it was probably a heavy slur the way "retarded" is now. Currently, "idiot" is pretty tame. Certainly would generally be considered more acceptable than "retarded."
In other words: language is a slippery beast, something that has no fixed interpretation. Much of meaning is super contextual. Just as one is advised against assuming someone's pronouns, why are we assuming people's intent with lists like this?
Usually terms like that become problematic when they are used to erase someone's individuality. They are an addict or a cripple, as opposed to someone having addiction or being crippled. Of course, it's very useful to be able to speak about people in aggregate, so someone being intellectually retarded transforms into retarded people in aggregate and then becomes a retard as a slur.
We should be able to look at how we are using language and identify that it is problematic without requiring a list of words.
We should be able to look at how we are using language and identify that it is problematic without requiring a list of words.
>We should be able to look at how we are using language and identify that it is problematic without requiring a list of words.
Yup! I think that humans are so heterogeneous that basically everything requires a context to derive the full meaning of a thing. The same language, wielded in two different occasions, can have vastly different meanings.
As a linguistics professor once mentioned:
"Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like an apple, although if the play is bad enough, even fruit flies like an arrow."
Yup! I think that humans are so heterogeneous that basically everything requires a context to derive the full meaning of a thing. The same language, wielded in two different occasions, can have vastly different meanings.
As a linguistics professor once mentioned:
"Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like an apple, although if the play is bad enough, even fruit flies like an arrow."
People can be multiple things though. I am a programmer, I am a nerd, I am a drinker, I am a partner, I am a music fan. None of these negate each other.
Interesting phrase, 'no fault of their own'. I have a mole. It is a fault in my skin. Is it my own fault? Is my flesh my own?
If I had a limp resulting from a car crash, would this be a fault of my own? If I were driving? If I struck another car from behind? If I drove off a bridge? If my name were Thelma?
'Just asking questions' as they say on TV.
If I had a limp resulting from a car crash, would this be a fault of my own? If I were driving? If I struck another car from behind? If I drove off a bridge? If my name were Thelma?
'Just asking questions' as they say on TV.
I imagine whoever came up with this list had no such issues as a child.
If they did, they would know the list is more harmful than good.
Evidence? The content I am replying to.
If they did, they would know the list is more harmful than good.
Evidence? The content I am replying to.
Almost all words on the list are about replacing ill-defined, context-dependent language with more precise terms. This helps everyone. Especially non-American students for whom those contexts are foreign. In an international scientific environment it certainly is preferable to talk about social hierarchies than about rungs on a totempole, for example.
> I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm".
This is an absolutely absurd take.
The initiative is to remove words from official websites, not about making sure people never hear them. If you see negative language about your race/gender on your school website, you don’t think that’s gonna cause some anxiety? You don’t think that’s gonna make you wonder if you belong there? You don’t think that doubt will impair your ability to fully participate in that institution?
> This way you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals (people whose work is better than yours).
How are you gonna play bully and victim in the same post? Pick a lane!
This is an absolutely absurd take.
The initiative is to remove words from official websites, not about making sure people never hear them. If you see negative language about your race/gender on your school website, you don’t think that’s gonna cause some anxiety? You don’t think that’s gonna make you wonder if you belong there? You don’t think that doubt will impair your ability to fully participate in that institution?
> This way you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals (people whose work is better than yours).
How are you gonna play bully and victim in the same post? Pick a lane!
You're basically positing that words have no possible effect and anyone actually hurt by words is just pretending.
Sure, we're not expecting every single word on these lists to have any random person go cry in the corner, but those are pretty long lists and I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration.
Sure, we're not expecting every single word on these lists to have any random person go cry in the corner, but those are pretty long lists and I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration.
I am in favor of inclusion, but if someone is being affected by the word 'user' in IT context, or 'white space' talking about text, the problem is not the language.
> I am in favor of inclusion
How have we arrived at a point where we have to make such defensive statements when no offense was ever intended? Isn't it upon those wanting to change the language to defend their arguments and bring forward thorough evidence that the intended changes will justify the costs (along with an analysis of what the real costs are)? And do we believe that we can create a language that can still work for meaningful communication while simultaneously ensuring that no one can possibly ever be offended?
How have we arrived at a point where we have to make such defensive statements when no offense was ever intended? Isn't it upon those wanting to change the language to defend their arguments and bring forward thorough evidence that the intended changes will justify the costs (along with an analysis of what the real costs are)? And do we believe that we can create a language that can still work for meaningful communication while simultaneously ensuring that no one can possibly ever be offended?
> Isn't it upon those wanting to change...
No. It isn't anymore. Because the loud minority now has the means to globally and publicly destroy you if you say something they dislike. You might lose your job or even your personal safety because of a statement that can be interpreted in some way that someone doesn't like.
No. It isn't anymore. Because the loud minority now has the means to globally and publicly destroy you if you say something they dislike. You might lose your job or even your personal safety because of a statement that can be interpreted in some way that someone doesn't like.
Be realistic, not a single person will suffer consequences for continuing to say "white space".
Perhaps not whitespace, but I think people insisting on using blacklist or master-slave terminology in computing will actually see direct consequences. Plenty of big tech companies have made their engineers scrub such words from their internal codebase, even going so far as to rename the master branch of Git to main.
I am pretty sure that an employee insisting not to abide by this mandate would be reprimanded and even fired if they don't stop.
I am pretty sure that an employee insisting not to abide by this mandate would be reprimanded and even fired if they don't stop.
I am aware it is still being used in many places. Nevertheless, the term has been discouraged by exactly this type of initiative, more successfully in some places rather than others.
https://github.com/github/renaming
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/
https://github.com/github/renaming
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/
A couple of guys were escorted out of a conference and then fired, for making jokes about 'forking' repo's and big 'dongles' [0]. It's a perfect example of the loud minority ruining lives over what most people I know (including women) will consider a harmless joke.
0: https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...
0: https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...
>we have to make such defensive statements
You don't have to. Just say what you need to and ignore the quetching.
You don't have to. Just say what you need to and ignore the quetching.
I agree with you in that context and use matter. Just as I disagree with blanket banning words, I also disagree with the "words don't matter" reaction. Neither approach make sense to me.
Words have an effect, but you can choose how to react to them. You cannot be harmed by them unless you choose to allow yourself to feel that way. Your internal mental state is under your control.
If someone hits me with a bat with sufficient force, I have no control over whether my bones break or not. If someone says a mean thing, or something that could theoretically be interpreted as mean if you completely ignore their intent and context, I 100% have control over how I feel about that.
If someone hits me with a bat with sufficient force, I have no control over whether my bones break or not. If someone says a mean thing, or something that could theoretically be interpreted as mean if you completely ignore their intent and context, I 100% have control over how I feel about that.
> I 100% have control over how I feel about that.
You do, that's great, sincerely, I mostly agree with you, but I feel it lacks a bit of nuance. Adults should have control over how they interpret reality, but not everyone does, and some people want to use perceived offense (Oppression Olympics) as a means for some sort of change, even if it's just padding their wallet.
Some folks are immature, some folks have PTSD or some other condition and/or problem which makes it harder for them to have the discipline you have. Can we acknowledge both that words are interpreted by the listener, and that the listener might not be able to handle them?
I try to not be affected by things, why should I respect someone who's trying to insult me, and if I don't respect them why should I care at all about what they are saying? It boils down to self preservation ultimately I think. Ostracism might not be the death sentence it used to be, but it still can be seriously deleterious.
You do, that's great, sincerely, I mostly agree with you, but I feel it lacks a bit of nuance. Adults should have control over how they interpret reality, but not everyone does, and some people want to use perceived offense (Oppression Olympics) as a means for some sort of change, even if it's just padding their wallet.
Some folks are immature, some folks have PTSD or some other condition and/or problem which makes it harder for them to have the discipline you have. Can we acknowledge both that words are interpreted by the listener, and that the listener might not be able to handle them?
I try to not be affected by things, why should I respect someone who's trying to insult me, and if I don't respect them why should I care at all about what they are saying? It boils down to self preservation ultimately I think. Ostracism might not be the death sentence it used to be, but it still can be seriously deleterious.
For the vast majority of words on this list, they would not be used to try to insult anyone. You would have to deliberately misinterpret them to find an insult. Why would anyone do that?
They wouldn't, and they don't. The insult is purely imagined by people who write these lists.
They wouldn't, and they don't. The insult is purely imagined by people who write these lists.
Your comment I responded too seemed more general, which is how I was responding to it, the article can eat my ass tbh
> If someone hits me with a bat with sufficient force, I have no control over whether my bones break or not.
If we follow your argument, you do have control over whether you let the pain affect you. Pain is just a mental state after all. And who cares about broken bones if you could just will the pain away?
I obviously think this is a bit silly and could be used to justify just about anything.
If we follow your argument, you do have control over whether you let the pain affect you. Pain is just a mental state after all. And who cares about broken bones if you could just will the pain away?
I obviously think this is a bit silly and could be used to justify just about anything.
> And who cares about broken bones if you could just will the pain away?
Even if you could ignore the pain, you wouldn't physically be able to move your arm well if the bone is broken, which would be an inconvenience for most people that they would care quite a bit about.
Even if you could ignore the pain, you wouldn't physically be able to move your arm well if the bone is broken, which would be an inconvenience for most people that they would care quite a bit about.
> which would be an inconvenience for most people that they would care quite a bit about.
Well i suppose that really depends on their mental fortitude, how much they let it affect them.
Well i suppose that really depends on their mental fortitude, how much they let it affect them.
Listen, I don't agree with the "words will never hurt me" thing but trying to argue that by denying the utility difference of a broken arm is a lost cause for them.
Someone who's decided that the mental and physical pains and debilitations are wholly separate, especially here, will probably want cited studies and actual scientific evidence that the psychological community no longer believes that. Until that is presented no amount of semantics is gonna work.
Someone who's decided that the mental and physical pains and debilitations are wholly separate, especially here, will probably want cited studies and actual scientific evidence that the psychological community no longer believes that. Until that is presented no amount of semantics is gonna work.
It does, but very little. No amount of fortitude can lift a broken arm to put food into someone's mouth.
> Words have an effect, but you can choose how to react to them. You cannot be harmed by them unless you choose to allow yourself to feel that way. Your internal mental state is under your control.
Up to a point. You can't control your genes or your upbringing completely, merely suppress it.
Otherwise we wouldn't have trigger words. For sure you have one, too.
Up to a point. You can't control your genes or your upbringing completely, merely suppress it.
Otherwise we wouldn't have trigger words. For sure you have one, too.
> Otherwise we wouldn't have trigger words. For sure you have one, too.
Sure, everyone has some. I probably have some too - I don't keep track of them, but I know mocking some of the things that I hold dear will definitely unsettle me.
That said, one of the core part of growing up, of becoming an adult, is learning not to get triggered, and in the rare cases you still are, learning to calm yourself down. It's a prerequisite for participating in and contributing to a healthy society.
Nobody could possibly keep track of the list of trigger words for everyone they could come into contact with. The list itself would cover so many phrases across so many topics as to prevent communication. Even if we could keep track of all of this (scary thought: for the first time in history, this may become possible, thanks to computers), erring on the side of avoiding any and all trigger words would be a security vulnerability, easily abused by people trying to gain power over others (arguably, the very list we're discussing is an example of this).
The point is, we can make some concessions for words or phrases that are intended to harm or known to negatively affect a lot of people - which is what cultures have been doing throughout the recorded history. Beyond those few concessions, it's up to individual to handle their own triggers, in a way that doesn't disturb everyone else's ability to communicate effectively.
Sure, everyone has some. I probably have some too - I don't keep track of them, but I know mocking some of the things that I hold dear will definitely unsettle me.
That said, one of the core part of growing up, of becoming an adult, is learning not to get triggered, and in the rare cases you still are, learning to calm yourself down. It's a prerequisite for participating in and contributing to a healthy society.
Nobody could possibly keep track of the list of trigger words for everyone they could come into contact with. The list itself would cover so many phrases across so many topics as to prevent communication. Even if we could keep track of all of this (scary thought: for the first time in history, this may become possible, thanks to computers), erring on the side of avoiding any and all trigger words would be a security vulnerability, easily abused by people trying to gain power over others (arguably, the very list we're discussing is an example of this).
The point is, we can make some concessions for words or phrases that are intended to harm or known to negatively affect a lot of people - which is what cultures have been doing throughout the recorded history. Beyond those few concessions, it's up to individual to handle their own triggers, in a way that doesn't disturb everyone else's ability to communicate effectively.
>You cannot be harmed by them unless you choose to allow yourself to feel that way. Your internal mental state is under your control.
This is incorrect, and flies in the face of the current literature in psychology and neuroscience. A cursory glance at some very rational people who are quick to anger and how we cry after losing a loved one should rid you of this notion.
This is incorrect, and flies in the face of the current literature in psychology and neuroscience. A cursory glance at some very rational people who are quick to anger and how we cry after losing a loved one should rid you of this notion.
> A cursory glance at some very rational people who are quick to anger and how we cry after losing a loved one should rid you of this notion.
In neither case are the words the cause of distress, but rather some event, belief or threat that's communicated or implied through those words. The way humans communicate, individual words are only loosely correlated with the message they're employed to carry.
In neither case are the words the cause of distress, but rather some event, belief or threat that's communicated or implied through those words. The way humans communicate, individual words are only loosely correlated with the message they're employed to carry.
> I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration
The question is, will they be affected by word itself or the composition of words? Because I can probably make an offensive sentence using most of the words in this list (except tarball, I'm not that creative). But I can also do the same avoiding words from the list and still hurt specific people. So having this list doesn't solve the problem, but it can be used to harm people. You don't like some argument, lets check if we can find a harmful word in it and use that!
The question is, will they be affected by word itself or the composition of words? Because I can probably make an offensive sentence using most of the words in this list (except tarball, I'm not that creative). But I can also do the same avoiding words from the list and still hurt specific people. So having this list doesn't solve the problem, but it can be used to harm people. You don't like some argument, lets check if we can find a harmful word in it and use that!
Sorry, but I believe that nobody is actively harmed by using master slave terminology in computer science. If you are, that‘s a „you“ problem.
Many of the suggested entries are no different than the allegedly problematic word and phrases. What is the difference, practical or otherwise, between “committed suicide” and “died by suicide”?
Also, if anyone from Stanford is reading, “balls to the wall” refers to the operation of a centrifugal governor. It is not a reference to male anatomy.
Also, if anyone from Stanford is reading, “balls to the wall” refers to the operation of a centrifugal governor. It is not a reference to male anatomy.
Some are obvious and others surprising to me, but I'm very glad they mention the way "American" is used in the US. It always ticked me off but I never felt like I could mention it due to how widespread it is. Now I have somewhere to point to if I want to bring it up, kind of like how French people can point to the DGLFLF if someone uses the term nègre nowadays.
>Some are obvious and others surprising to me, but I'm very glad they mention the way "American" is used in the US.
The United States of America is the only country in the world with the word "America" in its name.
The United States of America is the only country in the world with the word "America" in its name.
In English (not just in the US), “American” means someone or something from the USA. Yes, it originally meant something different, but the meanings of words drift over time in all languages.
Why does it tick you off?
It seems to me like a simple cultural/language difference related to how we count the continents. In the Anglosphere (not just the USA) children are brought up thinking of seven continents, including North and South America, while in Spanish‐speaking countries they think of six, including simply America. Neither is really right or wrong, because there’s no formal definition of what a continent is—it’s merely convention. (Some people consider Eurasia a single continent, some people don’t consider Antarctica a continent…)
Because of this difference in convention, the word “América” in Spanish is more accurately translated to English as “the Americas” than “America.”
Is this actually a problem that needs fixing in English? Is it a problem at all? Are there any Canadians out there offended at not being called Americans despite making up a major part of [North] America?
The suggested alternative of using “United States” to refer to America‐the‐country overlooks that there is another country (even another North American country!) with that name: Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
It seems to me like a simple cultural/language difference related to how we count the continents. In the Anglosphere (not just the USA) children are brought up thinking of seven continents, including North and South America, while in Spanish‐speaking countries they think of six, including simply America. Neither is really right or wrong, because there’s no formal definition of what a continent is—it’s merely convention. (Some people consider Eurasia a single continent, some people don’t consider Antarctica a continent…)
Because of this difference in convention, the word “América” in Spanish is more accurately translated to English as “the Americas” than “America.”
Is this actually a problem that needs fixing in English? Is it a problem at all? Are there any Canadians out there offended at not being called Americans despite making up a major part of [North] America?
The suggested alternative of using “United States” to refer to America‐the‐country overlooks that there is another country (even another North American country!) with that name: Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
> How could two whole continents
> Lose their name to one constituent
> Where were we when the U.S. went
> And took the word American away
> But to be fair to them
> Their other name options
> Like U.S.A.ers and United Statesians
> Were pretty bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7iqSMy4CzE
> Lose their name to one constituent
> Where were we when the U.S. went
> And took the word American away
> But to be fair to them
> Their other name options
> Like U.S.A.ers and United Statesians
> Were pretty bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7iqSMy4CzE
I'm just glad they haven't taken away "numpty" to describe a stupid or ineffectual person.
While I am a little surprised by some of the words on the list, as a WEIRD [1] white hetero male I do not think my opinion on some of the terms is earned.
What I would really like to know, however, is if people from various backgrounds have been consulted. If not, the authors of that list have fallen to the very same fallacy I described: only a person of background X should have the right to decide whether an expression is hateful or otherwise undesirable towards group X. If this is not the case, we get this [2] kind of hypocrisy.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias 2. https://mooseyanon.medium.com/github-f-ck-your-name-change-d...
What I would really like to know, however, is if people from various backgrounds have been consulted. If not, the authors of that list have fallen to the very same fallacy I described: only a person of background X should have the right to decide whether an expression is hateful or otherwise undesirable towards group X. If this is not the case, we get this [2] kind of hypocrisy.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias 2. https://mooseyanon.medium.com/github-f-ck-your-name-change-d...
When a hypothetical "injury" occurs entirely within the confines of your own thoughts, it's a recipe for disaster to treat it like you would a crime in the external world. There is no evidence other than the word of the complainant. The whole thing is way, way too easy to game.
Taking issue with any word with the word "man" in it is pretty dumb. Specifically "mankind" they suggest using the word "humankind". So if everyone starts using this word eventually slang will shorten it to "mankind" which means the same exact thing anyway...
Puritanism, a tale as old as time. What's fcking weird is the religious-tinge to this. It's like a less-worse version of pro-life people, they probably 'feel' good that they are 'helping', but as soon as the baby comes out they can ignore it.
Similar to this, Stanford has a huge endowment. They could actually help poor & marginalized black n brown communities. But instead they will continue to destroy neighborhoods(e.g. University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago). Harvard will continue to put out machine economists and lawyers that incarcerate people.
People want to come together to 'help', which is cool, but I think they are fking retard#d about what real help looks like. Probably not like authoritarianism.
Similar to this, Stanford has a huge endowment. They could actually help poor & marginalized black n brown communities. But instead they will continue to destroy neighborhoods(e.g. University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago). Harvard will continue to put out machine economists and lawyers that incarcerate people.
People want to come together to 'help', which is cool, but I think they are fking retard#d about what real help looks like. Probably not like authoritarianism.
Lots of pro-life organizations actually do meaningfully help children after they are born. I regularly give money to a pregnancy center that buys car-seats for low-income moms. But that would get in the way of the story.
"The yokels who invented everyday speech are wrong. Deliberately adopt our elite dialect and political views. "
[deleted]
They got "committed suicide" wrong. Of course, "committed" implies it's a crime (or sin); but the word "suicide" also carries the implication of crime or sin. It should be "killing yourself" or "taking your own life".
Instead of using "manmade", which further promotes male-dominated language, they propose using "hand made".
Isn't hand made ableist? What about the people with no hands? Can't they create things without the usage of hands?
This is a never ending rabbithole of idiocy.
Isn't hand made ableist? What about the people with no hands? Can't they create things without the usage of hands?
This is a never ending rabbithole of idiocy.
I much prefer the approach of the 60s to 90s of taking back words and breaking their negative power.
I guess it is philosophically good that I will forever be an amateur. Since I can never be a master of my craft. And any company / startup didn't change their branch from Master to Main would fail to hire anyone from Stanford.
And I was surprised Stanford still invited Peter Thiel for their Conference last month.
And I was surprised Stanford still invited Peter Thiel for their Conference last month.
Died by suicide?
Suicide is a self-inflicted act; committed suicide is correct - and I say this as a man living on the edge.
To diminish that is to refuse to accept the underlying cause, which is a bad fucking way to stop it from happening again (or at least to someone else).
This whole damned list is retarded.
Most of the elements aren't even accurate; they're euphemisms.
Someone with OCD isn't 'detail-oriented' they're detail obsessed.
> walk-in: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities.
Come on. Seriously? Anyone who is offended by that is offended for a hobby.
Suicide is a self-inflicted act; committed suicide is correct - and I say this as a man living on the edge.
To diminish that is to refuse to accept the underlying cause, which is a bad fucking way to stop it from happening again (or at least to someone else).
This whole damned list is retarded.
Most of the elements aren't even accurate; they're euphemisms.
Someone with OCD isn't 'detail-oriented' they're detail obsessed.
> walk-in: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities.
Come on. Seriously? Anyone who is offended by that is offended for a hobby.
Also:
> ballsy: Attributes personality traits to anatomy.
The balls literally produce testosterone, which literally increases risk taking behaviour.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
> ballsy: Attributes personality traits to anatomy.
The balls literally produce testosterone, which literally increases risk taking behaviour.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Worse: you are taking “non-confrontational” pills like many of your peers. The insanity is real, that no one confronts and tries to stymie the madness is the true disease.
What about using "brainy" or referring to functioning brains at all? It perpetuates the myth that anencephaly is abnormal or negative.
"Commit suicide" has the same vibes as "masturbation is self-rape". It doesn't make sense, as an act against oneself is by definition happening with consent. They're both acts of bodily autonomy.
> Come on. Seriously? Anyone who is offended by that is offended for a hobby.
Oh no, it's worse. They're offended as a job.
Oh no, it's worse. They're offended as a job.
I think you have a point, but on the other hand consider “stand-up meeting.” If my team included a person who used a wheelchair, I am highly confident that my team and I would not call our daily scrum a daily stand-up.
Honestly, I think people in wheelchairs have more important shit to worry about.
Fucked bodies - but they have to be tough as nails mentally.
(And stop doing scrum.)
Fucked bodies - but they have to be tough as nails mentally.
(And stop doing scrum.)
All this stuff comes from "critical discourse analysis", a pseudointellectual and almost cult-like movement within academic research, which is receiving no pushback because no one knows about it. People are too busy focusing on the end-product (this Stanford webpage, or some politicians' tweets, or a Smithsonian exhibit) rather than the root cause.
Ridding academia of pseudoscience goes beyond fixing p-hacking. These academic fringes are intellectually defective and have large real-world influence. Academia tolerates pseudoscience far too much, and that should be addressed.
Ridding academia of pseudoscience goes beyond fixing p-hacking. These academic fringes are intellectually defective and have large real-world influence. Academia tolerates pseudoscience far too much, and that should be addressed.
> rather than the root cause.
It's impossible to address the true root cause, at least, not in a politically correct way. Some people are simply incapable of producing good quality research that is repeatable. Or just can't quite cut it in technical fields [0]. These initiatives around "inclusive language" and "bias" are just a way for these folks to keep the academic grift going on longer.
It's political suicide to talk against these people or question the validity of their research because they won't hesitate to band against someone to "cancel" him or her [1] (and it's essential for their survival; since there's no proof of what they are pushing, it's impossible to defend otherwise!).
[0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter...
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/college/2021/10/07/chicago-profe...
It's impossible to address the true root cause, at least, not in a politically correct way. Some people are simply incapable of producing good quality research that is repeatable. Or just can't quite cut it in technical fields [0]. These initiatives around "inclusive language" and "bias" are just a way for these folks to keep the academic grift going on longer.
It's political suicide to talk against these people or question the validity of their research because they won't hesitate to band against someone to "cancel" him or her [1] (and it's essential for their survival; since there's no proof of what they are pushing, it's impossible to defend otherwise!).
[0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter...
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/college/2021/10/07/chicago-profe...
There's no pushback because it's career suicide.
Woah woah woah, career death, please be considerate. /s
I will not be surprised at all if many of these words are simply not used in 10 years.
Stanford is about as influential an institution as we have. When tarball and gray hat are seen as racist there are no bounds.
The bold black aggressive lettering on a white background on that Stanford page is next. I am surprised no one noticed that actually.
Stanford is about as influential an institution as we have. When tarball and gray hat are seen as racist there are no bounds.
The bold black aggressive lettering on a white background on that Stanford page is next. I am surprised no one noticed that actually.
I'd be surprised if they weren't. Many of them, like crazy dumb or stupid, are just too ingrained in the cultural lexicon. Retarded is a bit different, since that's a common and unfortunate affliction, but nobody is going to admit that they're afflicted with stupid and would prefer the term to not be used casually.
What strikes me from reading this, aside from of words like "user" and "tarball", is how short the list is. Given that, inclusion on the list seems almost arbitrary. I don't think they have put much work into this yet.
> I don't think they have put much work into this yet.
Thank goodness, there's still a chance they can come to their senses.
Thank goodness, there's still a chance they can come to their senses.
Does anyone have any good alternative to saying "dad joke?"
The term "dad" in "dad joke" excludes anyone who doesn't, is incapable, or chooses not to have children (procreating?) and who also identifies (explicitly or implicitly) as a member of the category "male" (a vestigial term from the sex-assigned binary heterodoxy).
I don't think calling "dad jokes" just "jokes" is precise enough language because people typically are trying to refer to a genre of joke when they use the term.
Maybe "cringe funnies?" Although "cringe" is more of a slang term from the internet and isn't robust enough to survive into perpetuity...
I'm actually serious... What are some good alternatives?
The term "dad" in "dad joke" excludes anyone who doesn't, is incapable, or chooses not to have children (procreating?) and who also identifies (explicitly or implicitly) as a member of the category "male" (a vestigial term from the sex-assigned binary heterodoxy).
I don't think calling "dad jokes" just "jokes" is precise enough language because people typically are trying to refer to a genre of joke when they use the term.
Maybe "cringe funnies?" Although "cringe" is more of a slang term from the internet and isn't robust enough to survive into perpetuity...
I'm actually serious... What are some good alternatives?
Well, one shouldn't tell dad jokes as they encourage violence, especially against dads themselves.
In a dad joke the punchline is apparent.
In a dad joke the punchline is apparent.
> Does anyone have any good alternative to saying "dad joke?"
If you ask my kids, a good alternative would be for me to just not tell any jokes.
(See what I did there? That's a dad joke, and I'm proud of it.)
If you ask my kids, a good alternative would be for me to just not tell any jokes.
(See what I did there? That's a dad joke, and I'm proud of it.)
Just call them dad jokes because there's nothing wrong with that.
middle-aged joke
Ageist...
Ageist!
Middle-aged people are the only group of people that can be PC abused, laughed at, etc. Better if they are of middle class. No one cares about them, even themselves think they are pitiful.
Italians. Apparently we Italians can be still the butt of jokes and stereotypes with impunity.
[deleted]
this is great.
homogenising all communication and making strict formal guidelines makes it much easier to make a competing platform that scales.
Stanford is doing the transition from a learning platform based in identity to one based I scalability.
My guess, however, is that it is to their detriment.
homogenising all communication and making strict formal guidelines makes it much easier to make a competing platform that scales.
Stanford is doing the transition from a learning platform based in identity to one based I scalability.
My guess, however, is that it is to their detriment.
This list is extremely non-verbal.
Oh man. "whitespace" and "empty space" are not synonyms
Exactly, C# literally has two distinct extension methods on the string class named `isNullOrWhitespace()` and `isNullOrEmpty()`.
This garbage was obviously not written by a person with any significant technical background. How else would they come up with equating `user` and `client`?
This garbage was obviously not written by a person with any significant technical background. How else would they come up with equating `user` and `client`?
They included many words but notably excluded the ones who are kind of hateful for curious and academically bent folks. Eg: nerd is one, then neckbeard, mouthbreather, and many other things i have been called.
Does anyone real believe this will fix the chronic problems facing the US?
The people who are actually responsible for the greatest inequities in our societies are neither talking of listening to you or I in the first place.
The people who are actually responsible for the greatest inequities in our societies are neither talking of listening to you or I in the first place.
I've helped compile guidance on inclusive language for my company. Whoever came up with this list has scored an own-goal against people who genuinely seek to make their communities more inclusive.
There are words like "slave" that actually cause offense to real people when used in a trivialising way. Accordingly, terminology around databases and the like has changed, and that's a good thing.
A laundry list of terms to be "eliminated", some of which are completely harmless makes a joke of real problems and is the opposite of helpful.
There are words like "slave" that actually cause offense to real people when used in a trivialising way. Accordingly, terminology around databases and the like has changed, and that's a good thing.
A laundry list of terms to be "eliminated", some of which are completely harmless makes a joke of real problems and is the opposite of helpful.
I do not agree about the master/slave idiocy. These terms have been used for ages in the IT universe, and never once have I come across someone who insinuated racism. What about "server", does that not insinuate that there once were serfdom? Or "protocol", we are all on a spectrum now, that old fashioned way of thinking triggers me!
Not one step back, or they will rip us apart.
Not one step back, or they will rip us apart.
Just gonna leave this here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative#Pejoration_and_me...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative#Pejoration_and_me...
Even if you agree with the basic principle, as I do, this list is riddled with poor interpretations.
Also, they either don’t understand the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, or they are intentionally misusing the word ‘infer’.
Also, they either don’t understand the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, or they are intentionally misusing the word ‘infer’.
Perfectly timed for the festive season classic, the Stoning Scene from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian:
https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0
https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0
It’d be funny if “conspiracy theorist” was on the list as critical of people with poor education, people less able to form rational thoughts about how the world works, people easily deceived, people unable to discern truth. I suspect conspiracy theorists find this term derogatory.
Thoughts on what replacement they’d prefer? I also suspect though that they wouldn't want to be identified as a group at all. What do you do when there's group that doesn't want to be referred to as a group?
Thoughts on what replacement they’d prefer? I also suspect though that they wouldn't want to be identified as a group at all. What do you do when there's group that doesn't want to be referred to as a group?
I believe truthers is what they call themselves.
“theorist” has a sophisticated sound to it. I can’t think of a better sounding alternative.
In Germany they're calling them selves 'Querdenker' (lateral thinkers).
people with dissenting opinion.
California gonna California
> "Yellow" is often used disparagingly against people of Asian descent.
Has anyone ever (let alone "often") heard the word "yellow" used in this manner?
Has anyone ever (let alone "often") heard the word "yellow" used in this manner?
Not in recent decades. Historically, it was a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril
Yes, in a line in "Born in the USA." Of course there's an implicit eyeroll there; it's not used to denigrate Asian people.
“If the truth shall kill them, let them die.”
-Immanuel Kant
Balls to the wall means completely opening the throttles on a plane.
Yeah, don’t use ‘he’ or ‘she’ in case someone takes offense.
Orwell wrote that this politispeak was used to make palatable the most disturbing actions. We see it more and more every day.
Orwell wrote that this politispeak was used to make palatable the most disturbing actions. We see it more and more every day.
[deleted]
The victim is always considered to be morally superior.
Therefore step 1 in any "public battle of words" is to spin the narrative to cast yourself as the victim.
And if you can't manage that then find or invent a victim and rush to his defense. Because whoever defends the victim is also morally superior.
(I wonder who's the more morally superior, the victim or the defender-of-victim. I'm thinking the defender. There is an implied authority.)
Therefore step 1 in any "public battle of words" is to spin the narrative to cast yourself as the victim.
And if you can't manage that then find or invent a victim and rush to his defense. Because whoever defends the victim is also morally superior.
(I wonder who's the more morally superior, the victim or the defender-of-victim. I'm thinking the defender. There is an implied authority.)
Perfect time to quote Hitchens:
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1909496/Christopher-Hitchens-Wh...
[EDIT]: Better source:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340903
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1909496/Christopher-Hitchens-Wh...
[EDIT]: Better source:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340903
No wonder they're so dedicated to the task: any regime so threatened by words rests on a greatly unstable foundation and is in constant danger of collapse.
They are not very consistent. It uses harmful term "users of wheelchairs" when according to them it should be "clients of wheelchairs".
[deleted]
"Submit"
"Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you."
Correct. And I hereby reject to allow Stanford power over my speech.
"Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you."
Correct. And I hereby reject to allow Stanford power over my speech.
checks date
Hrmph. It's not April 1st.
They must be serious.
Hrmph. It's not April 1st.
They must be serious.
Neither good nor bad satire is constrained to April 1st, as academics constantly prove.
I read the list and confirmed that Niggardly, which means “grudging and petty in giving or spending” or being stingy with money, is not on the list. It has absolutely not relation to the N word which is obviously why at Stanford it’s still perfectly acceptable to refer to your students and colleagues as niggards, so long as they are tight with money.
TIL that the word "grandfather" originates from them phrase "grandfather clause", and not the other way around.
I believe it is wrong to make people feel bad about themselves with insensitive or culturally offensive language but with every article I see like this I become less and less interested in thinking about what I say. Also why do all articles like this have the same art style? How do people get paid to make these kind of articles and how much do they get paid?
The art style is called "corporate memphis", and it's usually an excellent predictor of empty platitudes and useless bullshit whenever you encounter it.
It’s been discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27107820
this really shined the light, thanks for this.. I find it strange how people would use this, it is a political art style or something
Thank you, I hate this.
Reading this list feels like grading the homework of a fifth grader (I've never done that, but I can imagine) who studied really hard on the internet all week in order to get an A on the assignment. Like sure kid, you got an A on your 5th grade assignment. Here's a star sticker.
Maybe we should celebrate this? If the system is unfit for real world, the faster it selects itself out the better.
If you'd like to determine if other words are harmful, feel free to use this GPT playground:
https://beta.openai.com/playground/p/E8MTssK5Xk4dphyWFDtGwDb...
Who defines "harmful language" ?
Curious they don’t ban “git”, given that it can be interpreted as referring to a mentally challenged person in a negative way.
Wow...Glad some publicity is spent to showcase how out of touch some people in the administration had become ...
Ain't it cultural appropriation to insist on the slavery-connotated meaning of "master"? In central Europe, "master" has the connotation of having successfully learned ("mastered") a craft, cue. German "Meister".
Also, what degree does one get in Stanford after a BSc?
Also, what degree does one get in Stanford after a BSc?
- Brave: none/do not use
Even Orwell couldn't picture the animals as the timid cowards that they truly were.
First they came for freedom of speech, and I did not speak out. Then they came for freedom of thought, and I did not speak out. Then they came for all, and there was nothing left to speak for.
Even Orwell couldn't picture the animals as the timid cowards that they truly were.
First they came for freedom of speech, and I did not speak out. Then they came for freedom of thought, and I did not speak out. Then they came for all, and there was nothing left to speak for.
My two cents.
IDK what's going on in US and I barely speak English, so often people here can't understand me. Sorry about that that sentence, it implies I am the chief and you white people have to make and effort to vaguely making out an idea of what I'm saying. Despite my bad English.
<<Circle the wagons>>, that's the King's Indian Defense opening. I often using it when I'm black and my opponent are failing to install his London System. Sorry about that wording. It implies I am the King, or at least, someone is the King and someone is the Indian, the indigenous people who obey and defend the Empire. Well it's just a bishop, you know, that I left in a diagonal. Bishop, obispo, implies I am not an Anglican I guess, I don't mean it. And really really I am not black enough, but you know the rules: one time you are white, then you are black.
<<Indian summer>>. That's interesting. Did not Kant said time is a synthetic a priori knowledge? I'm disagree Mr. Time is a thing we teach each other. My parents struggle hard with my perceiving of time when I was a child, I guess. I wonder how time is like to people like Messi. In my corner of the world we often refers to <<paraguayan hour>> meaning it's expecting you late.
<<User>>. You all know how 'boring' they are. And no, they are no clients, clients are often smart and, I'm thinking of Betterbird, crisps.
<<Too many chiefs, not enough indians>> thanks for the phrase. I like that. Even is a kind of metaphor that for and instant suggests white people, or some people, are indians or indigenous and other are chiefs, you know leaders of people who are born in a certain place.
But, I'm a <<survivor>> and gonna make it.
IDK what's going on in US and I barely speak English, so often people here can't understand me. Sorry about that that sentence, it implies I am the chief and you white people have to make and effort to vaguely making out an idea of what I'm saying. Despite my bad English.
<<Circle the wagons>>, that's the King's Indian Defense opening. I often using it when I'm black and my opponent are failing to install his London System. Sorry about that wording. It implies I am the King, or at least, someone is the King and someone is the Indian, the indigenous people who obey and defend the Empire. Well it's just a bishop, you know, that I left in a diagonal. Bishop, obispo, implies I am not an Anglican I guess, I don't mean it. And really really I am not black enough, but you know the rules: one time you are white, then you are black.
<<Indian summer>>. That's interesting. Did not Kant said time is a synthetic a priori knowledge? I'm disagree Mr. Time is a thing we teach each other. My parents struggle hard with my perceiving of time when I was a child, I guess. I wonder how time is like to people like Messi. In my corner of the world we often refers to <<paraguayan hour>> meaning it's expecting you late.
<<User>>. You all know how 'boring' they are. And no, they are no clients, clients are often smart and, I'm thinking of Betterbird, crisps.
<<Too many chiefs, not enough indians>> thanks for the phrase. I like that. Even is a kind of metaphor that for and instant suggests white people, or some people, are indians or indigenous and other are chiefs, you know leaders of people who are born in a certain place.
But, I'm a <<survivor>> and gonna make it.
Balls to the wall is not from testicles.
Why would you expect any of this to be rational? It's just people trying to exert power over others, because we collectively let them behave in this way.
I remember English teacher lady being slightly offended because
I kept referring she as "he". I could not help it, native language has no grammatical genders.
But this was 50 years ago, could not imagine what would happen today. Judging by Youtube-videos bodily harm would be almost certain.
But this was 50 years ago, could not imagine what would happen today. Judging by Youtube-videos bodily harm would be almost certain.
I'm eternally grateful that it doesn't have grammatical gender and that we call everyone "it". Spares us from some of the nonsense getting imported from the States.
In the US, doing that is considered derogatory.
"I saw your girlfriend. It was buying something at the corner store."
Is approximately as bad as "The bitch was at the corner store."
Because "it" is reserved for animals and inanimate objects.
If you have an obvious accent, people will generally understand the "it" was a grammatical error.
"I saw your girlfriend. It was buying something at the corner store."
Is approximately as bad as "The bitch was at the corner store."
Because "it" is reserved for animals and inanimate objects.
If you have an obvious accent, people will generally understand the "it" was a grammatical error.
Is this for real?
I have a hard time believing someone in their right mind could come up with a list like this unless tongue-in-cheek.
I was considering trying to send my offspring there, I am now entirely reconsidering, don't want them to be subjected to that kind of political brainwashing.
I have a hard time believing someone in their right mind could come up with a list like this unless tongue-in-cheek.
I was considering trying to send my offspring there, I am now entirely reconsidering, don't want them to be subjected to that kind of political brainwashing.
Who do i contact to add a few thousand terms to the list? It's kind of urgent please, starting with the word byzantine
BTW isn't "Elimination" kind of vionent as a term? I wish they used a less upsetting name.
In any case, by upvoting this you are providing visibility to nonsense.
BTW isn't "Elimination" kind of vionent as a term? I wish they used a less upsetting name.
In any case, by upvoting this you are providing visibility to nonsense.
They see elimination in a positive light, because they won't apply it to themselves.
yeah, you see "positive light" is othering other colors, hues and numbers.
This is an extremely low quality thread. There is almost no intellectual curiosity in here. Just a lot of "No, it isn't offensive." assertions and personal opinion.
Agree with the list or not it at least tries to explain the reasoning for everything on it.
Agree with the list or not it at least tries to explain the reasoning for everything on it.
Laws that require people to policy themselves do not work. It is frustrating and wasteful that people often have to follow systems or norms that lack logic or reason.
Stanford hiding their page indicates that they understand their approach is not universally accepted.
Stanford hiding their page indicates that they understand their approach is not universally accepted.
It is overwhelming to see so many language guidelines in one place. But the point is to catalog a comprehensive set of best practices.
The vast majority of cases presented here are changes I've learned over the past 20+ years. When I was a kid growing up in the 80s and 90s,almost all of the negative cases on here were normal ways to talk. Some individual cases are debatable--and it would probably be better to refer to more nuance, since there is not unanimous agreement on all of them--but on the whole, I think it's a useful catalog, with mostly good rationale.
I think there are wrong ways to use such a catalog. Using it to be punitive or demanding 100% compliance would be counterproductive, I think. Nothing is absolute. However, using it as a guide for small, teachable moments is really useful.
Honestly, it's simply about being respectful and making an effort. Considering my language use is a small, but useful step to improving my practice of empathy, on the whole.
The vast majority of cases presented here are changes I've learned over the past 20+ years. When I was a kid growing up in the 80s and 90s,almost all of the negative cases on here were normal ways to talk. Some individual cases are debatable--and it would probably be better to refer to more nuance, since there is not unanimous agreement on all of them--but on the whole, I think it's a useful catalog, with mostly good rationale.
I think there are wrong ways to use such a catalog. Using it to be punitive or demanding 100% compliance would be counterproductive, I think. Nothing is absolute. However, using it as a guide for small, teachable moments is really useful.
Honestly, it's simply about being respectful and making an effort. Considering my language use is a small, but useful step to improving my practice of empathy, on the whole.
Google has a similar list for developers although more its list is for clarity than for harm reduction...
https://developers.google.com/style/word-list
https://developers.google.com/style/word-list
This belongs next to Standfords research into sterilising white males. "Harmful language"? Sounds like a dystopian dictatorial nightmare. "We're enslaving you to protect you from yourselves..." should be their new motto.
I generally support the initiative, but they seem to have omitted the most important category: class bias.
> but they seem to have omitted the most important category: class bias.
Likely because the list itself is the product of class bias
"White space" is offensive but "white trash" isn't?
Likely because the list itself is the product of class bias
"White space" is offensive but "white trash" isn't?
In different times, the people responsible for things like this would be put in the stockades at the center of town, and we would all go throw rotten tomatoes at them. Maybe we should bring that back, to dissuade people from this sort of idiocy.
Many of these are just simply wrong. "Balls to the wall" is an aviation reference, and "manmade" is not equivalent to "made by hand" even a little bit.
This list is embarrassing, and not worthy of bearing the name of Stanford.
This list is embarrassing, and not worthy of bearing the name of Stanford.
Remember, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was also just trying to signal and climb a hierarchy of virtue…
>Instead of "African-American", consider using "black"
Well that went full circle
Well that went full circle
Quite ironic they suggest we use "demanding or entitled White woman" instead of "Karen". Isn't a Karen actually a "a female of European descent struggling with mental conditions of entitlement?"
[deleted]
> Instead of people of color (used generically), consider using BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color)
This list is the result of work done by People of Color in Technology (POC-IT).
So they shouldn't be using their own name.
Utter madness.
This list is the result of work done by People of Color in Technology (POC-IT).
So they shouldn't be using their own name.
Utter madness.
The creation of more shibboleths will tragically cause harm to those unprivileged people they claim to help.
An ivory tower council of privileged white men and women should never claim the authority to represent unprivileged minorities.
An ivory tower council of privileged white men and women should never claim the authority to represent unprivileged minorities.
So I am curious how this comment will go, but I suspect this might be an unpopular take.
A while ago there was a concentrated effort by the right in the US to “regain” the mind space of universities, towards ideas of the alt-right and traditional right like protecting foetuses etc.
Since then I have been noticing an uptick of articles attempting to polarise and raise outrage against the “radical left” with one major avenue of attack being these “language initiatives”.
I’ve also noticed an uptick of false flag operations with certain academics of questionable intellect and pedigree.. being pushed past the edge into rather harmful attempts to purge otherwise harmless language, or to express other “extreme views” while trying to identify them selves as left.
To someone who has mostly viewed them self as a rational and somewhat left leaning intellectual this is exhausting. Frankly these days I do my best to hide from both the new right, and the polarised and misguided people that think they are left wing.
“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Thank God I hung out in online spaces growing up where acting foolish resulted in being brutally insulted. I cannot imagine the fragility of ego that results from growing up with your ears wrapped in cotton like this.
Stanford has no authority, power, nor license to modify and shape written language. Stanford is free to do whatever it wants to words and so are we. Let's not become slaves to their forced word choices.
Peak harmful language:
> user
> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
> user
> While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.
What happens when the minorities themselves break these rules to talk about themselves?
Wake me when even elite Chinese call out and stop using the term "老外“ ("clueless foreigner whom [go the nuances] I can hold in humorous contempt and take advantage of at will").
A title change from "Elimination of Harmful Language" to "Considered Language Alternatives" would make this list more palatable.
> American
How exactly is this confusing? What other country uses American as a demonym?
How exactly is this confusing? What other country uses American as a demonym?
Spanish has separate words for "North American", "United States citizen", and "from North, Central or South America". The latter is "Americano" and hardly ever used to describe people. ("Eurasian" is similarly useless in English)
Toxic masculinity and patriarchy are unsurprisingly not on the list.
In addition to George Orwell's 1984, are there other books that describe what's happening to American English and the control of speech to dictate people's thoughts?
What the actual --
> The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice or a preference."
Is it not? I identify as a very confused motherfucker on this particular shambolyee
> The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice or a preference."
Is it not? I identify as a very confused motherfucker on this particular shambolyee
I remember when MTV used to put out silly PSA like this in commercial form when I was a teen. This is just more of the same crap - funny it comes from Stanford and not MTV this time. Oh how the cookie crumbles.
"Guru" is offensive lmao... It literally means "teacher" or "expert". Gurukuls were what were schools were once called during the Vedic period in India.
Aside from words, human communication has context, as well as intention. And yes, sometimes body language.
While some are understandable, others feel like they were scrapped off The Onion (or similar).
While some are understandable, others feel like they were scrapped off The Onion (or similar).
Too bad that your username is considered offensive as per the list. Consider changing "chief" /s
If they keep this up long enough they'll have a very thin dictionary. And their department of English will go out of business. It would be sad if it weren't so funny.
Instead of “Karen” is “entitled white woman.”
Which is racist & sexist.
You’re a Karen if you disagree.
Which is racist & sexist.
You’re a Karen if you disagree.
I'm going to take the minority position here (no pun intended), and say that I think these initiatives are in fact helpful and important.
I recently joined an engineering team where there's a cultural norm of not using the word "guys" to address a group. When I first heard this, I kinda rolled my eyes but got on board.
It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that word out of my vocabulary, but it's had a tangible effect on my mentality. It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.
I recently joined an engineering team where there's a cultural norm of not using the word "guys" to address a group. When I first heard this, I kinda rolled my eyes but got on board.
It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that word out of my vocabulary, but it's had a tangible effect on my mentality. It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.
>Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.
If what you're saying is true, that also has the implication that manipulating language at a societal scale is a great way to manipulate society into thinking the way you want. Is that really what we want? To have a minority manipulate our language in order to influence our thoughts?
If what you're saying is true, that also has the implication that manipulating language at a societal scale is a great way to manipulate society into thinking the way you want. Is that really what we want? To have a minority manipulate our language in order to influence our thoughts?
> I'm going to take the minority position here (no pun intended), and say that I think these initiatives are in fact helpful and important.
I partially agree. Some of the suggestions for changes are good in some contexts, but there are also many problems with this list, too.
(There are also some things I would suggest to change to be improved even though the existing words are not "racist", but they tend to ignore such things; nevertheless, I think they can sometimes be helpful, too (e.g. I think "megagram" is better than "tonne").)
> It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
Of course it does affect it at least partially, but it seems that the language has a greater effect on the ability to communicate than it does on the ability to think; some things you can think of but not communicate very well, due to the language being in use.
> Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.
It can help, if it makes it clearer and more precise. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes not. (And, sometimes, using more words just makes it too long, rather than actually being good.)
However, bias is not only due to words (although it does have an effect, especially when communicating), and using different words can ahve different bias, so it does not truly completely avoid a bias.
I partially agree. Some of the suggestions for changes are good in some contexts, but there are also many problems with this list, too.
(There are also some things I would suggest to change to be improved even though the existing words are not "racist", but they tend to ignore such things; nevertheless, I think they can sometimes be helpful, too (e.g. I think "megagram" is better than "tonne").)
> It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
Of course it does affect it at least partially, but it seems that the language has a greater effect on the ability to communicate than it does on the ability to think; some things you can think of but not communicate very well, due to the language being in use.
> Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.
It can help, if it makes it clearer and more precise. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes not. (And, sometimes, using more words just makes it too long, rather than actually being good.)
However, bias is not only due to words (although it does have an effect, especially when communicating), and using different words can ahve different bias, so it does not truly completely avoid a bias.
Initiatives like this can be a signal of change and spur a new culture if they are accompanied by action and done thoughtfully.
> It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that word out of my vocabulary, but it's had a tangible effect on my mentality. It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
this requires elaboration because without further context it is impossible to understand what demonstrable benefits you have achieved by altering your language use thusly, aside from getting along with your team better, due to your compliance with their language-use mandate.
this requires elaboration because without further context it is impossible to understand what demonstrable benefits you have achieved by altering your language use thusly, aside from getting along with your team better, due to your compliance with their language-use mandate.
> it's had a tangible effect on my mentality.
What tangible effects did it have on your mentality?
What tangible effects did it have on your mentality?
Makes you feel good about "doing good", without actually doing good.
I'm not OP, but it spurred me to find a better job, which was pretty tangible.
"I gave in to linguistic totalitarianism. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love Big Brother."
As always, these lists teach something bad. Expressions that were new to me include Jewed, peanut gallery, Indian giver, and circle the wagons.
Fodder for years to come, from Republicans. So unnecessary
The "chief" and "tribe" things particularly irritate me. Native Americans were not the only humans ever to have tribes or chiefs
Someone feed the list to ChatGPT so they generate a comment on this absurdity only using the 'forbidden' words.
(Hope this very comment abides by EHLI)
(Hope this very comment abides by EHLI)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So according to Stanford, Karen shouldn't be used, and somehow, "demanding or entitled White woman" is preferable. Yeah sure.
[deleted]
"balls to the wall - Attributes personality traits to anatomy"
Is it me or someone over there thinks this may have something to do with testicles?
Is it me or someone over there thinks this may have something to do with testicles?
> hip-hip hurray, hip hip hooray
> This term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.
I don’t know, might have been used that way. Wikipedia says it originated from different militaries using it as a rallying cry, while hip actually comes from the English word.
As a German, I would not use it today, because it‘s rather old fashioned, but I have no negative connotation with it. Did not even know, that it originated in the military.
If this expression reminds you of the Holocaust, you might as well be reminded by every German word and therefore avoid it, which might be difficult speaking a Germanic language like English.
> This term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.
I don’t know, might have been used that way. Wikipedia says it originated from different militaries using it as a rallying cry, while hip actually comes from the English word.
As a German, I would not use it today, because it‘s rather old fashioned, but I have no negative connotation with it. Did not even know, that it originated in the military.
If this expression reminds you of the Holocaust, you might as well be reminded by every German word and therefore avoid it, which might be difficult speaking a Germanic language like English.
The Dutch historical dictionary (we say "hiep hiep hoera") says it might stem from Prussian soldiers, but that an older reference exists about use by English sailors, and there was a considerable linguistic exchange between seamen. Another option it cites is that it came via the French houra from the Russian "urá", a transcription of a Kozak war cry.
There's no way whatsoever that it is tied to the Holocaust. If we take that path, I guess books will be banned next, so they can no longer be burned.
There's no way whatsoever that it is tied to the Holocaust. If we take that path, I guess books will be banned next, so they can no longer be burned.
"OCD" is not "detail-oriented," what a farce.
Don't use "brave," you might be invoking the spirit of the msuline
Don't use "brave," you might be invoking the spirit of the msuline
Meanwhile in China: "How do we copy this nuclear fusion and improve on it? We should build a quantum computer for this."
I'm not riled up at all. I already avoided the great majority of these instinctively because I like treating people with respect
> "Indian Summer" - This term infers that Indigenous people are chronically late.
I can find zero supporting evidence for this.
Also it's "imply".
I can find zero supporting evidence for this.
Also it's "imply".
I was really confused by this as well because—as a Indian myself (from India)—I was under the impression that this was referencing the stereotype that Indians (from India) are chronically late.
It has similar offensiveness to “Indian giver”
I never would have imagined that of all people, it would be the political correctness police who do away with the stand up meeting.
As a non-native English speaker this page is gold.
I think the 'user' one takes the cake (I did check and taking the cake wasn't in the list, so I can safely use it).
This is a good initiative. Language needs to reflect the aspirations of an institution, this is akin to cleaning the floor.
The whole of English as the language of global imperialism could be considered 'offensive' by the same measure.
Categories include:
Ableist
Ageism
Colonialism
Culturally Appropriative
Gender-Based
Imprecise Language
Institutionalized Racism
Person-First
Violent
Additional Considerations
Ableist
Ageism
Colonialism
Culturally Appropriative
Gender-Based
Imprecise Language
Institutionalized Racism
Person-First
Violent
Additional Considerations
I can't even believe this is 2022; truly seminal! opps leading, groundbreaking. ChatGPT is going to have a field day.
I read the whole list and found it to be largely unenlightened, bordering on boring and uncool.
Here is the cheapest prediction possible:
The outrage against this is going to be a festival of mansplaining, 'splained by people who have never been talked over in a meeting by a woman, nor pulled over for driving while black. OK, that's not your lived experience, but that's why empathy is so valuable to arriving at the right answer. Without it, it's right only for you.
The outrage against this is going to be a festival of mansplaining, 'splained by people who have never been talked over in a meeting by a woman, nor pulled over for driving while black. OK, that's not your lived experience, but that's why empathy is so valuable to arriving at the right answer. Without it, it's right only for you.
> "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative"
I wonder if they keep this title. Fits right in with
> Unneccesary use of violent language
I wonder if they keep this title. Fits right in with
> Unneccesary use of violent language
Used to consciously avoid it when I was a kid, but if we could do it completely that'll be so great :)
If Java, Python, and JS aren't on the list, they haven't finished their work yet.
No worries, Stanford, we'll come up with new slurs to hurt your feelings soon enough.
My work published a very similar document. The newspeak is honestly hard to keep up with.
I feel the need to write an "economic leftist's manifesto" and get it in front of as many people, particularly conservatives, as we can.
This identify and grievance based social leftism does very little to materially improve the conditions of people, very little to change actual power structures which harm the everyday family, and does very much to divide people by making individual identity/attributes the most important thing about a person. Community goes out the window, free expression is ridiculed.
Economic leftism and social democracy is the key to pushing politics leftward in the United States. It prioritizes economic security for people and families. It wants to take away free markets and profit motive from those industries where it is harmful or objectively immoral, such as health insurance and prisons. It wants to lift all people of all races and identities, to get everyone a decent education, housing, healthcare, and work in order to secure a person's ability to live day to day without fear bankruptcy or homelessness.
This kind of divisive, satirical, Newspeak bullshit will do more to keep the far right in power in the United States.
This identify and grievance based social leftism does very little to materially improve the conditions of people, very little to change actual power structures which harm the everyday family, and does very much to divide people by making individual identity/attributes the most important thing about a person. Community goes out the window, free expression is ridiculed.
Economic leftism and social democracy is the key to pushing politics leftward in the United States. It prioritizes economic security for people and families. It wants to take away free markets and profit motive from those industries where it is harmful or objectively immoral, such as health insurance and prisons. It wants to lift all people of all races and identities, to get everyone a decent education, housing, healthcare, and work in order to secure a person's ability to live day to day without fear bankruptcy or homelessness.
This kind of divisive, satirical, Newspeak bullshit will do more to keep the far right in power in the United States.
How do we know if this is a joke or not. Some of them definitely read tongue in cheek.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Brave | do not use | This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man.
Should we get rid of bravo then as well? I assume people making these lists have good intentions, but efforts like this really get lost in the sauce. They are effectively parodying themselves.
Should we get rid of bravo then as well? I assume people making these lists have good intentions, but efforts like this really get lost in the sauce. They are effectively parodying themselves.
The problem here is that term was often used with squaw and papoose which are undeniably derogatory
Some people will never miss an opportunity to make themselves into a victim.
>stand up meeting [replace with] quick meeting
Lol, if only stand-ups were actually quick
Lol, if only stand-ups were actually quick
I consider myself deeply liberal. I try to "police my language." I agree with the underlying premise of the article, that language encodes implicit power structures and it is a worthy endeavor to not implicitly "dominate" or denigrate those around you.
When I was younger I used the word retard disparagingly, and someone who was the father of someone who was suffered from a disability was visibly hurt. The world doesn't need that.
I agree with the reasoning behind capitalizing the b in Black but not the w in White when referring to people.
But holy cow, this article is nuts. There is some serious group think going on in these academic groups, and despite a desire to do the right thing, this article is going to have the opposite effect. The fact this was published shows a serious lack of critical review, a lack of academic rigor, and an extreme rejection of pragmatism in the face of idealism which is exactly how liberalism fails.
When I was younger I used the word retard disparagingly, and someone who was the father of someone who was suffered from a disability was visibly hurt. The world doesn't need that.
I agree with the reasoning behind capitalizing the b in Black but not the w in White when referring to people.
But holy cow, this article is nuts. There is some serious group think going on in these academic groups, and despite a desire to do the right thing, this article is going to have the opposite effect. The fact this was published shows a serious lack of critical review, a lack of academic rigor, and an extreme rejection of pragmatism in the face of idealism which is exactly how liberalism fails.
> I agree with the reasoning behind capitalizing the b in Black but not the w in White when referring to people.
The actual reason is activist pettiness, though.
The actual reason is activist pettiness, though.
He did say he was a liberal. I don't think it's possible to be a left wing westerner without embracing the prevailing cultural attitude of activist pettiness, at least a little bit.
A bit, maybe. But I do know people who are actual left-leaning liberals and folks who are orthodox, economic Marxists and both pretty much loathe the activist class.
A lot of the reason to be afraid of the modern times, though, is that many more or less left-lib people have lost sight of why anything the activist class wants might be bad. People increasingly just have no understanding for why these kinds of word redefinitions or any activist program like trying to erase the contributions of assholes from projects and products might be damaging. It's not necessarily that they're actively onboard. It's not that they're actively pushing for more silliness, but there's just a new blindness as to what they're doing.
It's similar to how in during the pandemic a lot of people were really into the idea of forcibly relocating unvaccinated people, and it just didn't occur to them that their policy might be monstrous.
A lot of the reason to be afraid of the modern times, though, is that many more or less left-lib people have lost sight of why anything the activist class wants might be bad. People increasingly just have no understanding for why these kinds of word redefinitions or any activist program like trying to erase the contributions of assholes from projects and products might be damaging. It's not necessarily that they're actively onboard. It's not that they're actively pushing for more silliness, but there's just a new blindness as to what they're doing.
It's similar to how in during the pandemic a lot of people were really into the idea of forcibly relocating unvaccinated people, and it just didn't occur to them that their policy might be monstrous.
Never go full Sapir–Whorf.
Some of the most non-verbal stuff I've read in a long while.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
>spaz, brave, user, white paper
this is what these people want to take from you
this is what these people want to take from you
addicted: consider using: hooked.
How is hooked 'better'? They both mean the same?!?
How is hooked 'better'? They both mean the same?!?
"American" is considered harmful language by Stanford?
What does that bode for Mexican Americans or Asian Americans?
How do you mean?
We're supposed to say "United States" instead of "America" since the latter refers to more than just the U.S.
But what are we supposed to say instead of Mexican American or Asian American? AFAIK there is not an adjective in English that means "from the United States", aside from "American".
But what are we supposed to say instead of Mexican American or Asian American? AFAIK there is not an adjective in English that means "from the United States", aside from "American".
No other country in the America’s has “of America” in its name. American is naturally easier to say than “from the US” and flows directly from the name.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with referring to yourself as American.
There’s something very wrong with trying to create a problem from it. Probably something uniquely…American.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with referring to yourself as American.
There’s something very wrong with trying to create a problem from it. Probably something uniquely…American.
Never go full Sapir–Whorf
What a wonderful list of words to start using more frequently.
This is absolutely insan- excuse my language, I mean wild!!
the neo puritans throwing around dehumanizing slurs like "troll" dozens of times a day think they have the moral high ground? fucking hilarious.
One small step for person, one giant leap for person-kind.
[deleted]
Is Stanford going to stop issuing Masters' degrees?
So are we using 1984's newspeak now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
I grew up in an extreme right wing religious fundamentalist household. My mother wouldn't say the word "fart" because it was deemed offensive. I remember the religious right trying to ban offensive words from broadcast media and my mother going to extreme lengths to otherwise ensure I didn't hear such words. There were lots of PG movies I was not even allowed to watch as a teenager. These efforts were rightly and widely mocked. It's both amusing and terrifying to watch the progressive left go down the same ridiculous paths that the extreme right did not that long ago.
they should've put word "dark horse" because it assigns positive connotation to dark color (dark = good)
What a dystopian nightmare.
edit: ... we already live in.
edit: ... we already live in.
So I am devoed to Hackernews. (Makes sense)
Peter thiel must be foaming at the mouth.
Yep, we are losing the next world war...
huh. i’m fairly well flabbergasted at the HN crowds’ reaction. this is satire of the highest order.
[deleted]
This is double plus ungood.
That's plain retarded!
That's just embarrassing.
I hate it when people use the word "slave." It comes from the people in Eastern European countries, the Slavs, or Slavic people.
It was used because other people thought Slavic people were the ideal slaves and Europeans enslaved the Slavs.
So because everyone thought Slavs were the best slaves, they just morphed to slave.
It is highly offensive to me that people use the word "slave" because this means that they are automatically saying that I am naturally fit to be a slave and not a human being.
"The oldest written history of the Slavs can be shortly summarised -- myriads of slave hunts and the enthralment of entire peoples. The Slav was the most prized of human goods. With increased strength outside his marshy land of origin, hardened to the utmost against all privation, industrious, content with little, good-humoured, and cheerful, he filled the slave markets of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It must be remembered that for every Slavonic slave who reached his destination, at least ten succumbed to inhuman treatment during transport and to the heat of the climate."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
Because of this, Slavs are still seen as inferior throughout the Middle Ages, and even now, as seen by dumb Polack jokes. By the 1800s, Slavs were subjected to expulsions and massacres by Germanic groups. This anti-Slavic sentiment followed the predictable trajectory of Germanic racism and, a century later, reached its natural conclusion: almost 11 million Slavs were murdered in Hitler’s long list of murdered “subhumans.”
Why were Slavs targeted by the Nazis? They were seen as intellectually inferior and invaders who were living on stolen Germanic land. The German's plan was to eliminate 30 million (!!) Slavs, create room for the expanding Aryan race in the Eastern territories, and enslave the remaining Slavic population
So.....is everyone here, and especially the wokish people, going to immediately and forever stop using the world "slave?" So, that's right...you cannot describe black people brought to the USA as "slaves." Never use the world "slave" as it is known by me as the s-word, and makes me exceptionally angry, just like the n-word for black people. Use another word for the s-word, I don't care what it is, and it's not my job to find one.
It was used because other people thought Slavic people were the ideal slaves and Europeans enslaved the Slavs.
So because everyone thought Slavs were the best slaves, they just morphed to slave.
It is highly offensive to me that people use the word "slave" because this means that they are automatically saying that I am naturally fit to be a slave and not a human being.
"The oldest written history of the Slavs can be shortly summarised -- myriads of slave hunts and the enthralment of entire peoples. The Slav was the most prized of human goods. With increased strength outside his marshy land of origin, hardened to the utmost against all privation, industrious, content with little, good-humoured, and cheerful, he filled the slave markets of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It must be remembered that for every Slavonic slave who reached his destination, at least ten succumbed to inhuman treatment during transport and to the heat of the climate."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
Because of this, Slavs are still seen as inferior throughout the Middle Ages, and even now, as seen by dumb Polack jokes. By the 1800s, Slavs were subjected to expulsions and massacres by Germanic groups. This anti-Slavic sentiment followed the predictable trajectory of Germanic racism and, a century later, reached its natural conclusion: almost 11 million Slavs were murdered in Hitler’s long list of murdered “subhumans.”
Why were Slavs targeted by the Nazis? They were seen as intellectually inferior and invaders who were living on stolen Germanic land. The German's plan was to eliminate 30 million (!!) Slavs, create room for the expanding Aryan race in the Eastern territories, and enslave the remaining Slavic population
So.....is everyone here, and especially the wokish people, going to immediately and forever stop using the world "slave?" So, that's right...you cannot describe black people brought to the USA as "slaves." Never use the world "slave" as it is known by me as the s-word, and makes me exceptionally angry, just like the n-word for black people. Use another word for the s-word, I don't care what it is, and it's not my job to find one.
> It is highly offensive to me that people use the word "slave" because this means that they are automatically saying that I am naturally fit to be a slave and not a human being.
I fail to see how someone unfamiliar with that history could be conveying that meaning.
I fail to see how someone unfamiliar with that history could be conveying that meaning.
Yes, I'm still on the fence as to whether the above comment was genuine (in which case I truly can't understand it) or meant as some kind of sarcastic denunciation of this list by showing that you can always find a remote reason to be offended.
Both.
It was meant both reasons you give, but come on - it is simple to understand. You know exactly what I mean, and I do find it offensive. But it still is sarcastic at the same time. Things can mean two things at the same time.
But really, what it comes down to, is if someone finds something offensive, you don't use it. 100% it is derogatory word indicating Slavs are equivalent to slaves. If you disagree, you are just being willfully unseeing.
It was meant both reasons you give, but come on - it is simple to understand. You know exactly what I mean, and I do find it offensive. But it still is sarcastic at the same time. Things can mean two things at the same time.
But really, what it comes down to, is if someone finds something offensive, you don't use it. 100% it is derogatory word indicating Slavs are equivalent to slaves. If you disagree, you are just being willfully unseeing.
I'd heard of "brown bag lunch" being a thing, and I'd assumed that was right wing trolling.
What on Earth? If I bring lunch in a brown bag, am I allowed to refer to it? Am I not allowed to bring lunch in a brown bag? Can I bring other things in a brown bag?
If I racially discriminate my mid day meeting using a white bag, is that ok?
What on Earth? If I bring lunch in a brown bag, am I allowed to refer to it? Am I not allowed to bring lunch in a brown bag? Can I bring other things in a brown bag?
If I racially discriminate my mid day meeting using a white bag, is that ok?
[deleted]
Troll level: god-like
None/do not use!
Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations and suggestions.
It’s voluntary now, but this is something meant to establish a precedent. The mindset that produced this initiative actively wants this to become the new standard.
Those that think the language needs to be changed in order to prevent harm are not going to be content with these suggestions merely being optional. Activists will push for this to become a new criterion for proper writing, probably on the same level as style guides.
Those that think the language needs to be changed in order to prevent harm are not going to be content with these suggestions merely being optional. Activists will push for this to become a new criterion for proper writing, probably on the same level as style guides.
This guide is voluntary and members of the Stanford community are encouraged to use whatever terminology is appropriate in a given context. However, habitual use of noninclusive language is potentially a microaggression and may be grounds for disciplinary action, depending on the findings of the Ethics Committee.
So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?
There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.
There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.
>”So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?”
Censorship, no. But I’ll be upfront and say that I think the vast majority of the suggestions in this guide are unjustified, unnecessary, and serve to provide a chilling effect on how people are allowed to speak about the world. I do believe the ultimate goal is not just to police language, but to police how people think. A cursory look at the rationale behind each suggestion supports this.
Therefore, I hope likeminded people speak out about how this guide should not be followed. And that people vociferously oppose that this document be referenced in any official guidelines.
Just as there is no legal requirement to write using Chicago or AP style, they have become de facto requirements. So I worry that just having it be “voluntary” will lead to academics pushing it as a soft requirement that eventually becomes a hard one that is voluntary in name only.
Censorship, no. But I’ll be upfront and say that I think the vast majority of the suggestions in this guide are unjustified, unnecessary, and serve to provide a chilling effect on how people are allowed to speak about the world. I do believe the ultimate goal is not just to police language, but to police how people think. A cursory look at the rationale behind each suggestion supports this.
Therefore, I hope likeminded people speak out about how this guide should not be followed. And that people vociferously oppose that this document be referenced in any official guidelines.
Just as there is no legal requirement to write using Chicago or AP style, they have become de facto requirements. So I worry that just having it be “voluntary” will lead to academics pushing it as a soft requirement that eventually becomes a hard one that is voluntary in name only.
Why did they even waste the resources on creating this? I'd be upset if my tuition was going to pay for people to waste time making things like this.
It's a fallacy if there's nothing pushing a thing. Activists? They push, and from experience don't stop at any sane point either but keep going on.
Have I misread the first couple paragraphs of the site? It looks like it's a mandatory language-change initiative at Stanford (or, at least, mandatory within the IT department) that they're publishing in case anyone else wants to use it.
Voluntary for now. some HR department will pick up on it and institute it as mandatory. I have a bet with my spouse on if I will retire first or be fired by the language police.
If they can you just sue for ageism. It’s not your fault you grew up with the words you use now.
The document is called Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.
By the way, I find the word "Elimination" very violent. It should have a non-harmful alternative.
By the way, I find the word "Elimination" very violent. It should have a non-harmful alternative.
As a non-native English speaker I find this kind of efforts to outlaw some words in English language and replace them with others hostile to non-native English speakers. Speaking English is already hard enough and now I should also try to avoid this kind of woke minefield and perhaps I will be somehow punished because it is hard to remember what words should be avoided and how to express your thoughts without using the "wrong" words. And replacing single words with euphemistic multi word expression can make constructing sentences difficult.
Keep digging.
Elon Musk is absolutely right when he proclaimed that the woke min virus needs to be eradicated and that nothing else matters.
I try not to question the intelligence of others that I don't know, but this might be a case where that's merited. Leaving aside whether words can cause harm (which - I don't know, maybe they can), there are a fair number of logical inconsistencies and standards for what makes the list, as well as just factual errors.
For example "balls to the wall" comes from aviation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall) and not from human anatomy. Even when the source of that expression is well attributed, later on the list goes on to call out "rule of thumb" even though it says it is unable to attribute the source of that expression (and, yes, maybe there is a violent past to it, but also: a person's thumb is about an inch, a useful way of measuring things of that size scale). And of course, they suggest instead of rule of thumb "standard rule," even though the etymology of "standard" involved "stand" - which elsewhere seems something the list would consider ableist.
Man in some context means an adult human male, but sometimes it just means any human (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man). When Neal Armstrong said "... one giant leap for mankind," he was not speaking on behalf of the species. Some groups of Christians have a prayer that reads in part "for us men..." which is prayed equally by the female members of the congregation. There are plenty of cases where the word "men" is equally clear that we're referring to all members of the human species.
And the word "guys" is routinely used to refer to a group that is not just men. People use it all the time, everyone knows what we mean, it does not cause offense, and in using it to refer to a group you are no more implying that the group is all male as you are implying that the group is composed of clones of Guy Fawkes (from whom the term originated).
Besides ones where just facts are getting in the way, there are also many that just seem ineffectual. For example, "the use of person-first language" - In English, adjectives come first. Sometimes English makes use of substantives, either directly or as lone words from other languages. When you put the word "person" first, you aren't magically changing how people construe that sentence - if someone wants to be uncharitable and define someone entirely by a characteristic, they probably will, and the rest of us will go on understanding that each of us can be described in multiple ways depending on the context.
The "Latinx" also needs to go. Every poll I've seen indicates that the people whom it was meant to describe don't care for it, and find it disrespectful of their linguistic heritage.
For example "balls to the wall" comes from aviation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall) and not from human anatomy. Even when the source of that expression is well attributed, later on the list goes on to call out "rule of thumb" even though it says it is unable to attribute the source of that expression (and, yes, maybe there is a violent past to it, but also: a person's thumb is about an inch, a useful way of measuring things of that size scale). And of course, they suggest instead of rule of thumb "standard rule," even though the etymology of "standard" involved "stand" - which elsewhere seems something the list would consider ableist.
Man in some context means an adult human male, but sometimes it just means any human (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man). When Neal Armstrong said "... one giant leap for mankind," he was not speaking on behalf of the species. Some groups of Christians have a prayer that reads in part "for us men..." which is prayed equally by the female members of the congregation. There are plenty of cases where the word "men" is equally clear that we're referring to all members of the human species.
And the word "guys" is routinely used to refer to a group that is not just men. People use it all the time, everyone knows what we mean, it does not cause offense, and in using it to refer to a group you are no more implying that the group is all male as you are implying that the group is composed of clones of Guy Fawkes (from whom the term originated).
Besides ones where just facts are getting in the way, there are also many that just seem ineffectual. For example, "the use of person-first language" - In English, adjectives come first. Sometimes English makes use of substantives, either directly or as lone words from other languages. When you put the word "person" first, you aren't magically changing how people construe that sentence - if someone wants to be uncharitable and define someone entirely by a characteristic, they probably will, and the rest of us will go on understanding that each of us can be described in multiple ways depending on the context.
The "Latinx" also needs to go. Every poll I've seen indicates that the people whom it was meant to describe don't care for it, and find it disrespectful of their linguistic heritage.
2+2=5
Nonsense
You know a society maybe unraveling when a duopoly of unreason competes for mindshare.
Tldr: 1984
> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative - a greater negative than missing out on $100,000. In fact I suspect most people wouldn't accept that offer even if it had many more zeros.
But still we must pretend?
> Instead of "committed suicide", consider using "died by suicide". Context: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.
And with this they tip their hand. The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.
But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative - a greater negative than missing out on $100,000. In fact I suspect most people wouldn't accept that offer even if it had many more zeros.
But still we must pretend?
> Instead of "committed suicide", consider using "died by suicide". Context: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.
And with this they tip their hand. The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.
I’m disabled.
I have mixed feelings about the things in this list. E.g. part of my disability experience involves my mental health and, when you’re talking about me, anyway, I don’t mind the term “mentally ill”.
On the other hand, it sort of irritates me when people who are well describe others as “crazy”.
Regarding your comment on disability being “abnormal and negative”, though, I have to disagree. I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative.
There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. It’s worth reading at least the introduction on the Wikipedia page, so I’ll link it.
Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
Edit: To be clear, I’m just thinking about the list of words, not any sort of policy about what one can and can’t say. That’s a whole other can of worms!
I have mixed feelings about the things in this list. E.g. part of my disability experience involves my mental health and, when you’re talking about me, anyway, I don’t mind the term “mentally ill”.
On the other hand, it sort of irritates me when people who are well describe others as “crazy”.
Regarding your comment on disability being “abnormal and negative”, though, I have to disagree. I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative.
There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society. It’s worth reading at least the introduction on the Wikipedia page, so I’ll link it.
Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
Edit: To be clear, I’m just thinking about the list of words, not any sort of policy about what one can and can’t say. That’s a whole other can of worms!
I appreciate your response. Can you elaborate on the juxtaposition of being mentally ill. and considering yourself normal? This is not clear to me in your response.
I suffer from mental illness as well (a disability), and I certainly don’t consider myself normal. I’ve overcome my issues, and I’m perfectly happy talking about my experience at/in appropriate times/places. I just acknowledge that the average person within the realm of normal can’t relate to my experience.
Coincidentally, I get the most relatable feedback doing inspirational speaking at homeless shelters; there’s nothing about my life today that would indicate they consider me normal in their sphere. I’m all for learning to use the right language when talking to folks with disabilities, and your comment here seems insightful. I’m just not making the connection you’re trying to build.
I suffer from mental illness as well (a disability), and I certainly don’t consider myself normal. I’ve overcome my issues, and I’m perfectly happy talking about my experience at/in appropriate times/places. I just acknowledge that the average person within the realm of normal can’t relate to my experience.
Coincidentally, I get the most relatable feedback doing inspirational speaking at homeless shelters; there’s nothing about my life today that would indicate they consider me normal in their sphere. I’m all for learning to use the right language when talking to folks with disabilities, and your comment here seems insightful. I’m just not making the connection you’re trying to build.
I think I’ve chosen language that doesn’t communicate well. It makes sense to me in my head, but the HN crowd doesn’t seem to follow what I mean. :-)
Fundamentals: the social model essentially places the onus of accommodating disability on society as a whole rather than the disabled individual. A simple example is the difference between asking a person who cannot walk to climb stairs vs providing a ramp. The stairs represent the typical medical model (the disabled individual must adapt to how society works) and the ramp is the social model (society should adapt to how disabled people work).
It’s not so much about being normal as it is about _feeling_ normal. Viewing the world through the lens of the social model allows me to say, “this situation could be better” rather than “I could be better”. This is important became sometime the latter is impossible — there are features of my body that cannot be improved.
I’m pragmatic about this, BTW. I don’t think we should rebuild every aspect of society to accommodate the minutia of disability. I think it should be an aspirational value that we hold and act on when we can.
Does that help? I can talk about mental health in this context as well, it’s just a lot to put into a single post. :-)
Fundamentals: the social model essentially places the onus of accommodating disability on society as a whole rather than the disabled individual. A simple example is the difference between asking a person who cannot walk to climb stairs vs providing a ramp. The stairs represent the typical medical model (the disabled individual must adapt to how society works) and the ramp is the social model (society should adapt to how disabled people work).
It’s not so much about being normal as it is about _feeling_ normal. Viewing the world through the lens of the social model allows me to say, “this situation could be better” rather than “I could be better”. This is important became sometime the latter is impossible — there are features of my body that cannot be improved.
I’m pragmatic about this, BTW. I don’t think we should rebuild every aspect of society to accommodate the minutia of disability. I think it should be an aspirational value that we hold and act on when we can.
Does that help? I can talk about mental health in this context as well, it’s just a lot to put into a single post. :-)
Ah yes, much better, thank you. It's a ripe area for technological improvements. In the same way the video chat is better than the alternative of asynchronous written communication (not to say I don't love a handwritten letter) tech will mostly be a boon in this area.
I’m really excited about AI as a boon for accessibility.
Example: chronic pain messes with your ability to recall. These days I have more trouble recalling facts than I used to. This makes programming hard, as much as programming is about intuition and problem solving, it also depends on memorizing a lot of facts (what was that built-in function called again…?)
I started using Copilot a few months ago and, while I almost always reject Copilot’s suggestions, it’s been amazing for remembering names of things. For me it’s been much better than an IDE (for example) because it presents the things I have trouble remembering with some context code.
Example: chronic pain messes with your ability to recall. These days I have more trouble recalling facts than I used to. This makes programming hard, as much as programming is about intuition and problem solving, it also depends on memorizing a lot of facts (what was that built-in function called again…?)
I started using Copilot a few months ago and, while I almost always reject Copilot’s suggestions, it’s been amazing for remembering names of things. For me it’s been much better than an IDE (for example) because it presents the things I have trouble remembering with some context code.
> impairments as being abnormal and negative
That’s why you call them impairments. (From Late Latin peiorare "make worse”.)
That’s why you call them impairments. (From Late Latin peiorare "make worse”.)
The point is that physical impairments, while real, shouldn't matter all that much. We'll all be physically impaired to a greater or lesser extent as we age. Social impairment however matters a great deal, because it's next to impossible to live a healthy and fulfilling life if you can't relate to others on a reasonably equal basis. Of course trying to enforce this on everyone else with "person-first" language is a total non-starter, but the basic insight found in the "social model" is quite valuable and in fact something that classical authors were already familiar with.
I've been asthmatic because of allergies practically all my life. It's normal for me, but since childhood it was always clear to me that having allergies and being asthmatic is an impairment, it's not normal for most people to be hindered by it.
The good news is that after middle age, my immune systems seems to have mellowed, so now I actually can do normal things my condition precluded me from, like eating avocados or shrimps, for example.
The good news is that after middle age, my immune systems seems to have mellowed, so now I actually can do normal things my condition precluded me from, like eating avocados or shrimps, for example.
> I would not have survived the last few years if I had characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative. [..] Happy to answer any questions if you have ‘em!
Why not? I have several traits I consider abnormal, and some I consider negative (i.e. unlike the merely abnormal ones, I wish to overcome them. And some cannot be overcome but are very normal - e.g. mortality.) - why should that characterization impair my effort or desire to survive and thrive? Or rather, why does it impair yours?
> There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society.
If I may speculate, is this the answer? You want to be seen as good and desirable by society, so if any of the multiple meanings of a word used to describe you carry negative implications, that results in a reduction of your self-worth? Even when a word is merely objective description, used without moral baggage, its mere proximity to alternate meanings taints it?
Why not? I have several traits I consider abnormal, and some I consider negative (i.e. unlike the merely abnormal ones, I wish to overcome them. And some cannot be overcome but are very normal - e.g. mortality.) - why should that characterization impair my effort or desire to survive and thrive? Or rather, why does it impair yours?
> There’s an approach out there called the “social model” of disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how the impairment changes interaction with society.
If I may speculate, is this the answer? You want to be seen as good and desirable by society, so if any of the multiple meanings of a word used to describe you carry negative implications, that results in a reduction of your self-worth? Even when a word is merely objective description, used without moral baggage, its mere proximity to alternate meanings taints it?
As a disabled person myself. It is both abnormal and negative. I don't care about any specific wording used to describe me beyond the ability to allow clear and succinct communication.
A jerk is going to be a jerk regardless of the specific syllables used so why trip up well meaning people.
A jerk is going to be a jerk regardless of the specific syllables used so why trip up well meaning people.
I am also disabled and it's a farce to pretend that it isn't abnormal and negative. We're in the era of pretending we don't know things we know and its asinine. I really hope modernity survives this era of enforced stupidity.
Just in case you don't realize it, those of us who are not disabled are quite fond of people like you who are that are able to hold this viewpoint instead of insisting on the nu-speak.
Western society is reverting to one which bases consensus on feelings rather than reason.
Carlin's bit on soft language has, sadly, never been more relevant than today.
It’s interesting that so much focus is on getting people who are likely we’ll meaning but don’t keep up with the nuance. Heard someone called a bigot because they used the word Latina instead of the correct latinx. If you knew them you’d know they have family of diverse backgrounds so may not have even known the right word and likely didn’t mean “harm”
>used the word Latina instead of the correct latinx.
It's not the "correct" term, and almost nobody I know of takes it seriously outside of really, really narrow little social media woke bubbles. If someone is a woman and of latin american origin, they will almost universally refer to themselves as latina and not care if others do. What idiotic nonsense to assume that something else is "correct" despite it going against the grain of a vast majority's word use.
I live in Latin America and have latin american family of all kinds. This aside from many friendships of both sexes and variable gender identifications too.
It's not the "correct" term, and almost nobody I know of takes it seriously outside of really, really narrow little social media woke bubbles. If someone is a woman and of latin american origin, they will almost universally refer to themselves as latina and not care if others do. What idiotic nonsense to assume that something else is "correct" despite it going against the grain of a vast majority's word use.
I live in Latin America and have latin american family of all kinds. This aside from many friendships of both sexes and variable gender identifications too.
In America, barely any (2%) of the Latino population identify with it, yet it gets pushed anyway. In fact, 40% are actively bothered by it. Forcing use of it is such a bizarre hill to die on.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe7...
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe7...
>instead of the correct latinx
It was my impression the word latinx was generally mocked by people it's supposed to represent.
It was my impression the word latinx was generally mocked by people it's supposed to represent.
I was born in Central America and while not a comprehensive sample, I don’t know a single person where I’m from who doesn’t think this an American imposed thing that’s trying to fix our “wrong” culture.
It is an American imposed thing that's trying to fix your "wrong" culture. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Negative feedback after correcting a native speaker is either evidence of the sexiest bigoted Latinx culture - or evidence of a type of cultural imperialism depending on where you stand on these issues. I just wish folks could draw clearer connections to the harm of using Latina vs latinx
What harm?
It offends upper middle class, privileged white women with questionably valid university degrees in the Humanities and a value system based around the extremely questionable critical theory, rather than the extremely successful for humanity method we know as reason (or the less successful but at least proven to mostly not implode and utterly destroy society method of religious conservatism)
I believe the new in vogue term is "Latine"
How is that any different than just saying “Latin” … I’m genuinely trying to think of how this might be pronounced, particularly with an eye towards American regional accents and yeah… it’s not great.
Latine:
- Lah-teen … rhymes white latrine
- Lat-ein-e … normal “lat”, Germanic pronunciation of “ein”, like the number one or Einstein, “e” pronounced either “ee” or “eh”
- Latin-e … latin-ee, rhymes with matinee,
- lat-tine … lah-tine as in the tines of a fork.
Or my favourite
- Latin-e … just “latin” but spelled with a silent “e”.
This is less than ideal… outside of using mispronunciation as a shibboleth, you normally want a group identifying word to be clearly identified and picked up by any possible group members regardless of if they have heard someone speak it. You want such words to be easily used by the people who identify with it, also crucially it’s self-adoption by the group that is being identified that matters… If no one you would call latine likes you calling them latine, or latinx, or Latino or Latina or Latin… you probably should just ask them what they want and call them that instead, that’s just my opinion from over in Australia where this particular identity/word fight appears to have mostly gone unnoticed against our own local issues.
Latine:
- Lah-teen … rhymes white latrine
- Lat-ein-e … normal “lat”, Germanic pronunciation of “ein”, like the number one or Einstein, “e” pronounced either “ee” or “eh”
- Latin-e … latin-ee, rhymes with matinee,
- lat-tine … lah-tine as in the tines of a fork.
Or my favourite
- Latin-e … just “latin” but spelled with a silent “e”.
This is less than ideal… outside of using mispronunciation as a shibboleth, you normally want a group identifying word to be clearly identified and picked up by any possible group members regardless of if they have heard someone speak it. You want such words to be easily used by the people who identify with it, also crucially it’s self-adoption by the group that is being identified that matters… If no one you would call latine likes you calling them latine, or latinx, or Latino or Latina or Latin… you probably should just ask them what they want and call them that instead, that’s just my opinion from over in Australia where this particular identity/word fight appears to have mostly gone unnoticed against our own local issues.
It's a Spanish word (a neologism, of course, used by a small minority of speakers at present), so pronounce it like any other Spanish word:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latine#Pronunciation_3
Admittedly the question of how to pronounce a Spanish word in English is non-trivial and subsumes the question of how to pronounce Spanish and the question of how to pronounce English ... but apart from that no special case is required for the word "latine"!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latine#Pronunciation_3
Admittedly the question of how to pronounce a Spanish word in English is non-trivial and subsumes the question of how to pronounce Spanish and the question of how to pronounce English ... but apart from that no special case is required for the word "latine"!
Thanks that is helpful. Is this clearly accepted enough to correct native speakers for example when proofing copy?
The correct name for a group of Latino people is Latinos, or Latinas if the whole group are known to be women.
Latinx can never be the right word.
It's a tool of social positioning, and helps an academic precariat oust incumbents in fields where there really aren't a lot of positions and whose degrees are good for little but academia or being political commissars at organizations that actually do something useful.
[deleted]
> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
Such recommendations reflect the authors own prejudices.
Some forms of blinding like "Blind auditions" are literal and are largely indistinguishable from how blind people normally conduct auditions. "Blindness" is a symbol of justice and fairness and non-prejudice.
Blindness is also one of the easiest disabilities to achieve, temporarily or permanently. If blindness is at least neutral state of being, nothing stops one from wandering about with a blindfold. Somebody who fails to do so while talking about how blindness isn't a negative is insincere and all talk.
Such recommendations reflect the authors own prejudices.
Some forms of blinding like "Blind auditions" are literal and are largely indistinguishable from how blind people normally conduct auditions. "Blindness" is a symbol of justice and fairness and non-prejudice.
Blindness is also one of the easiest disabilities to achieve, temporarily or permanently. If blindness is at least neutral state of being, nothing stops one from wandering about with a blindfold. Somebody who fails to do so while talking about how blindness isn't a negative is insincere and all talk.
You can't just go and wander about in a blindfold - it requires practise and skill as well as some affordances from the environment: tactile pavements, audible traffic lights etc.
Blindness is perhaps somewhat negative in how it makes you vulnerable to some of the society's shortcomings, but then again aren't we all to some extent?
Consider people who are blind since birth vs people who are otherwise disadvantaged say because they will encounter more racism. Both can be shortcomings compared to the mode but does it make sense to talk of them as "negative"?
Blindness is perhaps somewhat negative in how it makes you vulnerable to some of the society's shortcomings, but then again aren't we all to some extent?
Consider people who are blind since birth vs people who are otherwise disadvantaged say because they will encounter more racism. Both can be shortcomings compared to the mode but does it make sense to talk of them as "negative"?
Ultimately in such matters I find that truth is the supreme value. If what you’re saying about a disability isn’t true, no matter what good intentions you may have, the things you’re saying are likely just going to confuse matters further.
The biggest problem with the guide on the point of blindness is it prescribes the correct attitude to have towards blindness, but people have all sorts of feelings about blindness, for all sorts of different and valid reasons. I think you’ve lost the plot to some extent when you start insisting that ANY disability shouldn’t be portrayed in a negative light, because the reality is people have many negative experiences with disability, there are positive experiences as well, but negative feelings are a big part of disability (even if you don’t feel them presently you’re probably felt them at some point), and not just for reasons of culture.
The blindfold example is a bit facetious, but if being blind is just as good as not being blind, why do people go to such lengths to stay sighted? Glasses are an entire industry. Why don’t people just live without sight? A theory about the world which cannot answer such questions is incomplete.
The biggest problem with the guide on the point of blindness is it prescribes the correct attitude to have towards blindness, but people have all sorts of feelings about blindness, for all sorts of different and valid reasons. I think you’ve lost the plot to some extent when you start insisting that ANY disability shouldn’t be portrayed in a negative light, because the reality is people have many negative experiences with disability, there are positive experiences as well, but negative feelings are a big part of disability (even if you don’t feel them presently you’re probably felt them at some point), and not just for reasons of culture.
The blindfold example is a bit facetious, but if being blind is just as good as not being blind, why do people go to such lengths to stay sighted? Glasses are an entire industry. Why don’t people just live without sight? A theory about the world which cannot answer such questions is incomplete.
> The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion.
I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion that suicide is a crime (against God). And so it's moralizing language that blames the person for killing themselves.
You can verify that this is a common notion among people who work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat... which says:
> For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder."
> That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.
It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before doing a minimal amount of research!
I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion that suicide is a crime (against God). And so it's moralizing language that blames the person for killing themselves.
You can verify that this is a common notion among people who work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat... which says:
> For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder."
> That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.
It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before doing a minimal amount of research!
I always knew GitHub was a place full of sin I just couldn't figure out where these feelings were coming from.
I'm committed to my partner. She's evil, I knew it.
My wife's commitment is concomitant to mine.
I hope.
I hope.
Jokes on you, but they changed the default branch to be named "main" instead of "master" for reasons of appropriation.
It's still one of the most stupendous pieces of harmful slacktivism that I've seen. So, so much pointless work fixing thing that didn't need to break, and all for the stupidest reasons possible.
“master” never made much sense to begin with. I’m still a bit disappointed that the default wasn’t set to “default”. I argued for either that or having no default at all.
Seriously, ignore political correctness for a bit. The “master” branch is generally not in charge of anything. It’s not like a master recording of which everything else is a copy. It has no special rights and isn’t even necessary more important.
It made a limited sort of sense in Linux where torvalds/linux.git’s master branch is the branch that everyone else’s development eventually follows, but my git clone of that is not any sort of master despite being called “master”.
Seriously, ignore political correctness for a bit. The “master” branch is generally not in charge of anything. It’s not like a master recording of which everything else is a copy. It has no special rights and isn’t even necessary more important.
It made a limited sort of sense in Linux where torvalds/linux.git’s master branch is the branch that everyone else’s development eventually follows, but my git clone of that is not any sort of master despite being called “master”.
I wonder if they take points away in an interview if you have a master's degree.
Crazy, it's almost as if the same word can have different meanings and connotations depending on context!
If you want to take a Christian perspective, the word "commit" is used to emphasize that the individual took specific action as opposed to "omit" meaning they failed to take proper action to prevent evil.
"Died by suicide" implies passivity. It just happened to them.
"Died by suicide" implies passivity. It just happened to them.
> "Died by suicide" implies passivity. It just happened to them.
Like "Officer involved shootings."
Like "Officer involved shootings."
Exactly.
Well with officer involved shootings I can kind of understand the passive perspective, seeing as cops are not really acting on their own accord.
I genuinely don't understand this comment.
In the olden days, a news report would say "A suspect was fatally shot by a police officer."
Now, they'll only say "A suspect was fatally injured during an officer-involved shooting."
Which is like, yeah no kidding the officer was "involved" -- he pulled the trigger!
In the olden days, a news report would say "A suspect was fatally shot by a police officer."
Now, they'll only say "A suspect was fatally injured during an officer-involved shooting."
Which is like, yeah no kidding the officer was "involved" -- he pulled the trigger!
One has to be fully committed to the act of ending their life in order to commit suicide.
[deleted]
COMMIT should be banned from SQL.
> Committed to a cause, lives up to one's commitments, committed a patch, etc.
It's so easy. Almost every word has positive and negative connotations. Find such a word in your opponent's vocabulary, claim they intended the negative connotations, and thus declare him a sinner. Reference this Stanford document to support your accusation.
It's so easy. Almost every word has positive and negative connotations. Find such a word in your opponent's vocabulary, claim they intended the negative connotations, and thus declare him a sinner. Reference this Stanford document to support your accusation.
The people pushing these language initiatives are the obnoxious and worthless hall-monitor types no one likes to work or speak with. The ones who never do anything productive in the organization they find themselves in because they’re too busy trying to mount moral crusades.
We’ll see less of this as shops and institutions find the need to focus on ROI, products, innovation, and shareholders once again now that the fairytale of free money and unlimited free labor is expiring. The people who do the actual work to build and teach and innovate at the periphery of their chosen industry will devour the hall monitors.
We’ll see less of this as shops and institutions find the need to focus on ROI, products, innovation, and shareholders once again now that the fairytale of free money and unlimited free labor is expiring. The people who do the actual work to build and teach and innovate at the periphery of their chosen industry will devour the hall monitors.
It's the same thing as replacing "homeless" with "experiencing homelessness". It's not saying anything different, but communication efficacy isn't the point.
When people use long winded euphemistic language directed at me I feel condescended to in direct proportion to the extra syllables used. The fact somebody is spending energy talking in awkward ways only to me reminds me of the fact that I'm in the class of people that are talked euphemistically about. So I've never understood what the point of such language actually was.
Great point. Would it be a stretch to suggest that this language is in reality just another medium for virtue signalling?
What people in the thread said is that they’re more comfortable saying or hearing things phrased a certain way, so that’s why they use that phrasing. Sure you can use language as a means of virtue signalling though.
For me though, I simply see being offbeat phrasing as being stigmatizing in practice, it ends up drawing more attention to whatever was being described.
For me though, I simply see being offbeat phrasing as being stigmatizing in practice, it ends up drawing more attention to whatever was being described.
Right, these guys are really going balls to the wall with this insanity.
Which ironically has nothing to do with human anatomy, but nobody bothered doing the research: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
And "balls-out" refers to locomotive centrifugal governor:
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
The "involuntarily unhoused"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
And for many, the "voluntarily unhoused".
I think that’s different. It’s nice to not have shitty circumstance be your identity.
I’ve got a friend who was recently homeless. Thinking of him as a “homeless person” isn’t really so helpful.
That said, I think developing a thick skin should be a curricular objective for all people.
I’ve got a friend who was recently homeless. Thinking of him as a “homeless person” isn’t really so helpful.
That said, I think developing a thick skin should be a curricular objective for all people.
Am I depressed, or do I have depression?
I don't think either is any more an identity than the other.
And I'd rather people engage with the problem, rather than virtue signaling by using the 'correct' terminology, whatever that is this week.
I don't think either is any more an identity than the other.
And I'd rather people engage with the problem, rather than virtue signaling by using the 'correct' terminology, whatever that is this week.
Well, I can see why a person might prefer to look at their situation as temporary. In your case, would it be the same if you heard someone describe you as “a depressed person?”
Yes.
I'm sure weve all had an issue with a company, and in their communications, theyve been polite and used the 'right' words, but in the end you know they are basically fobbing you off, and refusing to sort the problem. the issue isn't the words, the issue is the attitude.
for me the issues would come in around how they perceive me. you could say that language used is indicative of that, but I disagree, polite words are often used to be very impolite. It takes very little time to assess someones perception, so I really don't see the utility in making people use 'correct' words.
I'm sure weve all had an issue with a company, and in their communications, theyve been polite and used the 'right' words, but in the end you know they are basically fobbing you off, and refusing to sort the problem. the issue isn't the words, the issue is the attitude.
for me the issues would come in around how they perceive me. you could say that language used is indicative of that, but I disagree, polite words are often used to be very impolite. It takes very little time to assess someones perception, so I really don't see the utility in making people use 'correct' words.
I understand the intention but I don't see what about the word 'depressed' implies permanence. Is a depressed person any more permanently depressed than a depressed button or a depressed stock price?
Yeah, it’s definitely there. Maybe you don’t see it, but ask about. People are very sensitive to their own identity in mental health. Being depressed and being a depressed person is a very different implication!
In case it wasn't clear from my post above, this is me asking.
Exactly this. I've been homeless twice (once as a kid and once as a young adult). I don't speak about it often, but when I do that is the language I use. There is no need to sugar coat it, and call it something else. People are too coddled and it is likely why so many now have trouble handling any adversity at all.
And also replace "sex" with "horizontal jogging" I guess. Ah the page is full of YPM references...
That still exhibits ableist bias. Off to PC detention for you.
To fit the style of the OP link I think you should be saying “person who is without housing”
One thing of note: there is likely no unified “they”, given that a document seems to be a mixed bag of elementary clarity-of-language items (“this is wild” vs. “this is insane”) and obsessive pedantic nonsense (about distinctions that do not exist to either the general population or most of the affected communities, eg. “committed suicide” [1]), and the forcibly mild language in the introduction.
If I could hazard a guess, this document was probably the result of an uncomfortable compromise between some folks of varying levels of assertiveness, obsessiveness, and linguistic myopia[2]. Likely not intended to be a minefield by some/most of its authors, but would be treated as one by small but frustratingly vocal segments of both its staunchest defenders and most enraged critics.
It would be really nice if both all of us could maybe just (figuratively) go out and touch some grass, instead of letting isolated personal frustrations turn into pet peeves and then into poorly-justified prescriptivism.
[1] This also reminds me of the alleged distinction between “transwoman” and “trans woman”. (German speakers and the like might find it particularly superfluous.)
[2] Speaking as a person with severe near-sightedness. (Edit: typo)
If I could hazard a guess, this document was probably the result of an uncomfortable compromise between some folks of varying levels of assertiveness, obsessiveness, and linguistic myopia[2]. Likely not intended to be a minefield by some/most of its authors, but would be treated as one by small but frustratingly vocal segments of both its staunchest defenders and most enraged critics.
It would be really nice if both all of us could maybe just (figuratively) go out and touch some grass, instead of letting isolated personal frustrations turn into pet peeves and then into poorly-justified prescriptivism.
[1] This also reminds me of the alleged distinction between “transwoman” and “trans woman”. (German speakers and the like might find it particularly superfluous.)
[2] Speaking as a person with severe near-sightedness. (Edit: typo)
"blind review" is good - better than "non-blind review". So in some sense they are eliminating phrases where "blind" is used in a positive light.
“Blind review” has blind once but view twice. Ableist!
> But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative
As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's also not fringe.)
As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's also not fringe.)
Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something.
Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well.
If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.
Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well.
If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.
> No one wants to lose an ability to do something.
This is true, though strictly speaking there are people obsessed with the idea that they eg. have too many limbs and suffer body dysmorphia related to that. They often amputate their own limbs in an attempt to feel right.
This is true, though strictly speaking there are people obsessed with the idea that they eg. have too many limbs and suffer body dysmorphia related to that. They often amputate their own limbs in an attempt to feel right.
You might enjoy the book True Biz.
I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language - even if you can hear later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know they won't get full function.
You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural attitude that generates this response in something like 95%+ of cases.
Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time.
This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected for them to live a “normal” life. They believe that they are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly technically inferior due to its inherent one-dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure varying with time only, their language describes things with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in time.
This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is not “I’m afraid,” it's “those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?”. It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
>those folks are assholes half the time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?
"The grapes are sour anyway." I'd bet the rate of assholes among the deaf is probably about equal to the non-deaf.
"The grapes are sour anyway." I'd bet the rate of assholes among the deaf is probably about equal to the non-deaf.
> I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you won't be able to understand language
I don't know the specifics of this claim, so I won't talk about the argument that I assume you're trying to make. However, the argument you're actually making here is completely untrue. Almost all deaf people understand and can communicate through language. In fact, if you put a group of deaf people together for long enough, they may well spontaneously generate a language. Sign languages are real languages with almost all of the features of spoken languages (and with additional features of their own). The idea that someone can only understand "language" if they are and to hear is completely wrong.
I assume what you're trying to say is that if you can't hear by this age, you will not be able to decipher sounds into language - I have no idea if this is the case. But this is an important semantic distinction (understanding language versus understanding language from sounds alone), and the fact that you seem to have inadvertently confused them seems relevant to the issue at hand: it is very easy for us to accept spoken language as a universal standard, when in practice, spoken language is just one (more common) variant of many different forms of language.
I don't know the specifics of this claim, so I won't talk about the argument that I assume you're trying to make. However, the argument you're actually making here is completely untrue. Almost all deaf people understand and can communicate through language. In fact, if you put a group of deaf people together for long enough, they may well spontaneously generate a language. Sign languages are real languages with almost all of the features of spoken languages (and with additional features of their own). The idea that someone can only understand "language" if they are and to hear is completely wrong.
I assume what you're trying to say is that if you can't hear by this age, you will not be able to decipher sounds into language - I have no idea if this is the case. But this is an important semantic distinction (understanding language versus understanding language from sounds alone), and the fact that you seem to have inadvertently confused them seems relevant to the issue at hand: it is very easy for us to accept spoken language as a universal standard, when in practice, spoken language is just one (more common) variant of many different forms of language.
Being on HN, I think it's fair(er?) to assume that the GP was aware that "language" can mean a standard of expression and communication that is not a spoken human language (maybe a programming language?), but also that it's fair(er?) to assume that they meant "spoken human language" too.
I'd be more interested in the source for their claim, than being pedantic about them missing "spoken" in where they clearly meant that.
I'd be more interested in the source for their claim, than being pedantic about them missing "spoken" in where they clearly meant that.
But music though
What's the ratio of deaf people who choose to get cochlear implants or similar vs hearing people who choose to intentionally deafen themselves?
The entire point of this linguistic exercise is that your opinion that you would not give up your ability to hear is no more or less valid than someone's opinion to the contrary.
I think his question is asking for objective evidence that would suggest either.
Right. And I am saying, Deaf people, and other people who don't think they have a disability, are asking for us not to say that they do when they don't think they do. And the answer from some quarters seems to be, I think "objectivity" is on my side, screw your conception of your identity.
It's not that different from refusing to use someone's pronouns. I think that both are a mean way to respond to a fellow human.
It's not that different from refusing to use someone's pronouns. I think that both are a mean way to respond to a fellow human.
Fully embracing the reality of ones own personal life experience is important. This seems to be where you want the conversation to stop. I think I can see the positivity and benefit in stopping there, choosing not to see any possible ugliness beyond.
Maybe that's the bigger question here. Should language be precise, or nice? Or, to the extremes we're seeing here, should language be formed to make certain types of subjects difficult or impossible to present themselves? Maybe freedom of thought, and the ugliness beyond, is something that should only be allowed in ones own head?
Maybe that's the bigger question here. Should language be precise, or nice? Or, to the extremes we're seeing here, should language be formed to make certain types of subjects difficult or impossible to present themselves? Maybe freedom of thought, and the ugliness beyond, is something that should only be allowed in ones own head?
> Should language be precise, or nice? [...] Maybe freedom of thought, and the ugliness beyond, is something that should only be allowed in ones own head?
I don't think that asking people to say "died by suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is a question of precision vs niceness. Both are plenty precise, we agree they describe exactly the same IRL event.
I also don't think that asking people to say "died by suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is an affront to freedom of thought, for the same reason.
That said, sure, yes, my parents always told me to "think before you speak" and sometimes "you can think it but don't say it". We all think things that we shouldn't say, usually because saying those things will hurt someone. If you insist on saying something after being informed that it hurts someone (e.g., not using their pronouns, or referring to a painful moment in their life [e.g. the suicide of a loved one] in a way that hurts them) then, yeah, that's kind of the thing my parents tried to teach me not to do.
I don't think that asking people to say "died by suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is a question of precision vs niceness. Both are plenty precise, we agree they describe exactly the same IRL event.
I also don't think that asking people to say "died by suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is an affront to freedom of thought, for the same reason.
That said, sure, yes, my parents always told me to "think before you speak" and sometimes "you can think it but don't say it". We all think things that we shouldn't say, usually because saying those things will hurt someone. If you insist on saying something after being informed that it hurts someone (e.g., not using their pronouns, or referring to a painful moment in their life [e.g. the suicide of a loved one] in a way that hurts them) then, yeah, that's kind of the thing my parents tried to teach me not to do.
It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not, in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired. Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc.
As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community.
It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser.
You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture.
I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.
As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social status and identity and politics within the Deaf community.
It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign language as their native language, the chain of cultural transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken. It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser.
You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior, mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different culture.
I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully dismissed easily. There is a point there.
>Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people.
If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans.
Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.
If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat veterans have their own culture and community. We don't consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans.
Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide' is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as people being born with functional hearing.
It is serious. I think it's an argument that has enough internal sense and structure that it can't just be called a stupid argument and tossed out.
I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to having been raped or having your leg blown off. Rape survivors are not a distinct cultural group.
Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation for now.
People who speak sign language as a native language are a distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage from the hearing world. For example, American Sign Language is related to French Sign Language and the speakers of each can understand each other somewhat. While British Sign Language is totally different and American and British deaf people can't even easily speak to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as hearing ones.
They get along fairly well. People born deaf and raised in a deaf community generally have better outcomes socially and economically compared to deaf people raised in isolation in hearing culture. Yes, they cannot hear, but they don't feel they're missing anything and, functionally speaking, they'd survive on their own just fine without hearing.
I was born quite hard of hearing, and I am going deaf as I get older. I was raised hearing. Bitterly ironically, I'm musically talented and it is one of my great pleasures. I am also linguistically talented, particularly with phonetics. (Taught myself in my teens to improve my speech and it became a fascination.) And yet I am losing the capacity to sense those things.
Trust me. I get it. I get it very well. The deaf have no idea what they're missing.
And yet Deaf culture is a precious thing that also deserves to exist.
It is an impasse and a seeming paradox and I don't have an answer. Raise every child hearing and allowing sign and the culture to die out is undesirable just as people who could hear music and speech being unable to hear them is.
I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to having been raped or having your leg blown off. Rape survivors are not a distinct cultural group.
Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation for now.
People who speak sign language as a native language are a distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage from the hearing world. For example, American Sign Language is related to French Sign Language and the speakers of each can understand each other somewhat. While British Sign Language is totally different and American and British deaf people can't even easily speak to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as hearing ones.
They get along fairly well. People born deaf and raised in a deaf community generally have better outcomes socially and economically compared to deaf people raised in isolation in hearing culture. Yes, they cannot hear, but they don't feel they're missing anything and, functionally speaking, they'd survive on their own just fine without hearing.
I was born quite hard of hearing, and I am going deaf as I get older. I was raised hearing. Bitterly ironically, I'm musically talented and it is one of my great pleasures. I am also linguistically talented, particularly with phonetics. (Taught myself in my teens to improve my speech and it became a fascination.) And yet I am losing the capacity to sense those things.
Trust me. I get it. I get it very well. The deaf have no idea what they're missing.
And yet Deaf culture is a precious thing that also deserves to exist.
It is an impasse and a seeming paradox and I don't have an answer. Raise every child hearing and allowing sign and the culture to die out is undesirable just as people who could hear music and speech being unable to hear them is.
Regarding the reasons for this, I'll repost:
Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something.
Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well.
If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.
Regarding culture, culture is defined as "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.". A social group of veterans (injured or not) absolutely can be considered equivalent as your usage. Preventing war is a cultural genocide if you consider it that way. You're saying that a culture which arises from suffering, injury, evil and so on deserves preservation by refusing to prevent the evil that causes them. Alcoholics Anonymous has a culture, Gamblers Anonymous, etc.
Yes, it is academic nonsense based on semantics. It doesn't matter if they don't feel they're missing anything - what you've never had you cannot miss. What you've had, lost and coped with you've learned not to miss. No one buys into this pedantry but academics with too much time on their hands.
EDIT: I apologize for "proselytizing" and "trashing" that view. My sister is an ASL teacher and she's made the same points you have to me, so I'm aware of the debate, and so have strong views on the matter. I have heard and considered everything you've said beforehand. I believe this sentiment comes from empathy and affirmation of deaf people as taught by those who are close with that community. Yet, I also believe this view is nonsense that someone outside that context can clearly see.
Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something.
Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an ability may have learned how to live without this ability. They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have learned to live without may be declined because of the affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way, being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically coped well.
If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf, would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that context can see through.
Regarding culture, culture is defined as "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.". A social group of veterans (injured or not) absolutely can be considered equivalent as your usage. Preventing war is a cultural genocide if you consider it that way. You're saying that a culture which arises from suffering, injury, evil and so on deserves preservation by refusing to prevent the evil that causes them. Alcoholics Anonymous has a culture, Gamblers Anonymous, etc.
Yes, it is academic nonsense based on semantics. It doesn't matter if they don't feel they're missing anything - what you've never had you cannot miss. What you've had, lost and coped with you've learned not to miss. No one buys into this pedantry but academics with too much time on their hands.
EDIT: I apologize for "proselytizing" and "trashing" that view. My sister is an ASL teacher and she's made the same points you have to me, so I'm aware of the debate, and so have strong views on the matter. I have heard and considered everything you've said beforehand. I believe this sentiment comes from empathy and affirmation of deaf people as taught by those who are close with that community. Yet, I also believe this view is nonsense that someone outside that context can clearly see.
Article from 2020: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppo...
Article from 2017: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to...
Article from 2017: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-curing-the-deaf-lead-to...
> What if the hearing can one day "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those circumstances.
By this logic, would a cure for cancer be a bad thing too, since then cancer patients would be extinct?
By this logic, would a cure for cancer be a bad thing too, since then cancer patients would be extinct?
Unlike deafness, cancer tends to be fatal. More appropriate comparisons (though not entirely comparable) would be gender dysphoria, autism, or, if the "gay gene" hypothesis is to be believed, homosexuality.
Quadriplegia also isn't fatal. Should we reject a miracle cure for it too?
I don't think we should reject the creation of a medical cure at all. I'm completely of the view that if an procedure exists to treat/cure a problem (however that's defined to exist) the procedure should be available to the extent the creator is interested in providing it.
However, GP expanded upon a sociological dimension to disabilities and chronic illnesses that isn't usually discussed and considered. When asking "How do they cure it", an important question to consider is "Do they/ Would they ever want a cure and under what corcumstances?"
It's quite the coincidence that deafness was the example used, because the scenario GP describes actually happened once before:
https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-communit...
However, GP expanded upon a sociological dimension to disabilities and chronic illnesses that isn't usually discussed and considered. When asking "How do they cure it", an important question to consider is "Do they/ Would they ever want a cure and under what corcumstances?"
It's quite the coincidence that deafness was the example used, because the scenario GP describes actually happened once before:
https://www.icphs2019.org/the-marthas-vineyard-deaf-communit...
> But.. disability is abnormal and negative?
Even if we were to accept that disabilities were not negative, a blind review is a good thing - it’s a review that’s more fair than a non-blind review. So if there’s nothing wrong with being blind, why would you want to stop people from using the term “blind” to describe a blind review? How does calling it a blind review imply that being blind is negative?
Even if we were to accept that disabilities were not negative, a blind review is a good thing - it’s a review that’s more fair than a non-blind review. So if there’s nothing wrong with being blind, why would you want to stop people from using the term “blind” to describe a blind review? How does calling it a blind review imply that being blind is negative?
But why is 'abnormal' always treated as a negative?
This is one thing I don't get about modern woke politics. We are supposed to be accepting of each other, but need to ignore the things we are supposed to accept.
People are different, people are abnormal, why can't that be celebrated?
This is one thing I don't get about modern woke politics. We are supposed to be accepting of each other, but need to ignore the things we are supposed to accept.
People are different, people are abnormal, why can't that be celebrated?
I don't think that abnormal is always treated as a negative - it just means out of the norm meaning the majority of the people are not included.
You can describe somebody is abnormally intelligent for example and it's a positive in this light.
But I really doubt you're gonna find a group of people that want to celebrate the idea that they are unable to see, in that context vision impairment is a negative abnormal trait.
You can describe somebody is abnormally intelligent for example and it's a positive in this light.
But I really doubt you're gonna find a group of people that want to celebrate the idea that they are unable to see, in that context vision impairment is a negative abnormal trait.
I fail to see how "blind review" "perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative". I understand how disability "is abnormal and negative", and that makes sense; although in many contexts is better to be specific and use a neutral point of view. (Someone wrote "normal" (and "natural") is a bad word, and I can see, it is compared to something which is allegedly "normal" and "abnormal", though.) (However, some people if they are already blind, might not care anymore if they can see, and might be able to compensate for blindness, if they are used to being blind, opposed to someone who is temporarily blinded.)
However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive.
There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).
However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review" instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review" makes sense, and is better descriptive.
There are many problems with this list, although some of the things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).
Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person.
And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to unidentified bodies.
This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me still has the same connotations, so even the author can't avoid all problematic words.
And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to unidentified bodies.
This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me still has the same connotations, so even the author can't avoid all problematic words.
> Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind person.
In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it?
> This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
Of course, you are right.
But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.
In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it?
> This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
Of course, you are right.
But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.
>In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a contradiction, isn't it?
Yes I suppose it is. But that's just more evidence that we shouldn't take parts of a phrase and start interpreting them out of context.
Yes I suppose it is. But that's just more evidence that we shouldn't take parts of a phrase and start interpreting them out of context.
> But that's just more evidence that we shouldn't take parts of a phrase and start interpreting them out of context.
I agree, but I still think that it is better to use more descriptive and clear words; "anonymous review" seems more descriptive and clear to me than "blind review" does.
(I also don't like the words "metric ton" and "tonne"; I think "megagram" is more descriptive and clear, so it is better.)
I agree, but I still think that it is better to use more descriptive and clear words; "anonymous review" seems more descriptive and clear to me than "blind review" does.
(I also don't like the words "metric ton" and "tonne"; I think "megagram" is more descriptive and clear, so it is better.)
Also “anonymous” does not mean the same enough to replace “blind” - anon could mean “giver of test does not know subjects” or “subjects do not know what they are testing”.
Blind here means unseeing, not even negative or positive.
Or how come "boomer" isn't listed under ageism? It's not like anyone choose to be born then and it's literally used as a slur.
What pannSun said. Some target groups are acceptable, others are not. The same sorts of people as come up with these will easily call black people Uncle Toms and other fun things if they happen to have the wrong politics. It's ostensibly about taking others into account and being kind, in reality just conformity to their political ideology and not much else. These sorts of word lists are just compelled speech to force obeisance.
By now it should be obvious. Boomers are acceptable targets, so they don't get protection.
You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care.
You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research thar asked more blind people than you have? Once you accept thar you can then decide on whether you care or not and act accordingly.
All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.
You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research thar asked more blind people than you have? Once you accept thar you can then decide on whether you care or not and act accordingly.
All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people. If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.
> All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not upsetting other people.
> If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.
Your post may be politically correct, but it is not polite. In fact you come off as quite rude compared to the person you are replying to.
> You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
If GP were to say how they should feel, clearly they would be caring how they feel. Also, why not? People discuss how one should feel in a particular situations quite often. In fact the page being discussed here seems to concern itself a great deal with what should upset people, even though most of the groups on whose behalf it appears to be judging what is offensive to them could have probably pointed these things out themselves - and I'm not sure everyone appreciates being paternalized this way (see "Latinx").
> If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of rage posting.
Your post may be politically correct, but it is not polite. In fact you come off as quite rude compared to the person you are replying to.
> You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
If GP were to say how they should feel, clearly they would be caring how they feel. Also, why not? People discuss how one should feel in a particular situations quite often. In fact the page being discussed here seems to concern itself a great deal with what should upset people, even though most of the groups on whose behalf it appears to be judging what is offensive to them could have probably pointed these things out themselves - and I'm not sure everyone appreciates being paternalized this way (see "Latinx").
I'm legally blind myself and TBH I don't see how this politically correct language is useful. My daily experience tells me that having a disability is indeed abnormal and a negative so attempting to sweep that under the rug by cute word games is kind of condescending and offensive itself.
Oh it's useful - it's just that the stated purpose doesn't match the intended purpose.
I recommend not telling people what they should say or feel. I find it deeply offending.
> Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research that asked more blind people than you have?
Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted.
> You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care.
I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth, or I can prioritize the asserted feelings of the loudest complainers.
And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is a positive, not a negative! A blind review is objectively better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in academia, so it is also normal instead of abnormal). We have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is insincere.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted.
> You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care.
I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth, or I can prioritize the asserted feelings of the loudest complainers.
And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is a positive, not a negative! A blind review is objectively better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in academia, so it is also normal instead of abnormal). We have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is insincere.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
I'm Mexican and I hate LatinX with a passion. Why is our ethnicity offensive unless you make it different? Why are clueless college Americans trying to make proper Spanish taboo?
Even Latino is a made up ethnicity obvious for anyone that has traveled just a bit. Includes vastly different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In the US is politically convenient to put everyone in the same bland bag.
edit: typo
edit: typo
[deleted]
[deleted]
I will make it a point to use all of the "harmful language" in that article as much as possible from now on.
I will not blindly follow these nonsensical rules. They're so lame. I may start a fatwa against them. I will only bury the hatchet if they agree to scrap these rules and never speak of them again.
Also, I'd like to visit the Philippine Islands someday soon.
I will not blindly follow these nonsensical rules. They're so lame. I may start a fatwa against them. I will only bury the hatchet if they agree to scrap these rules and never speak of them again.
Also, I'd like to visit the Philippine Islands someday soon.
One way to put an end to language policing is to do the opposite. This stuff is used for virtue signaling, so you can just ruin the SNR.
Share these sorts of guides with the worst people around - ethnic supremacists, fascists, etc. They're not allowed to use certain words/phrases in polite society, such as "retard". Thankfully academia has come to their aid, and now they can just call that person "neurodivergent" instead. We all know what they really mean.
Share these sorts of guides with the worst people around - ethnic supremacists, fascists, etc. They're not allowed to use certain words/phrases in polite society, such as "retard". Thankfully academia has come to their aid, and now they can just call that person "neurodivergent" instead. We all know what they really mean.
uwuemu(1)
https://archive.ph/8puIG
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguag...