Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations and suggestions.
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
11–20 of 1001 posts
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#12This list is extremely non-verbal.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#13Newspeak in other words.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#14Gotta 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.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#15> 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 blin…
It's just normal newspeak.
And some people still consider that Orwell wrote fiction.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#16I wholeheartedly support the elimination of harmful languages. There's just no good reason these days for anyone to use C++.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#17Jonathan 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.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#18> 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 blin…
"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.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#19Welcome to Clown World
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#20Some people have too many resources and free time on their hands.