Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

itcommunity.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#31

Post by zbrozek »

pannSun wrote: post #6

> 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 the same thing as replacing "homeless" with "experiencing homelessness". It's not saying anything different, but communication efficacy isn't the point.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#32

Post by kgeist »

anodari wrote: post #22

> "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?

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#33

Post by jlebar »

pannSun wrote: post #6

> 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…

> 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.)

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#34

Post by lofatdairy »

kepler1 wrote: post #8

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. Som…

>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.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#35

Post by rich_sasha »

kepler1 wrote: post #8

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. Som…

Wow, when I saw this list, I thought it's a parody post. Then I went away and read the suggestions...

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#36

Post by selfhifive »

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.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#37

Post by Glyptodon »

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).

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#38

Post by 10000truths »

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.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#39

Post by gpderetta »

kkoncevicius wrote: post #7

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.

As the website doesn't work for me, I genuinely cannot tell if your examples are sarcasm or come from the website.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#40

Post by rich_sasha »

pannSun wrote: post #6

> 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 here means unseeing, not even negative or positive.
Post reply on HN