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

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by sleazy_b »

rendall wrote: post #47

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.

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.

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

#73

Post by _Algernon_ »

superb-owl wrote: post #63

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…

>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?

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

#74

Post by chmod775 »

kgeist wrote: post #32
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?

> "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"?

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

#75

Post by silvestrov »

rexkwondo wrote: post #50
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.

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.

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

#77

Post by nfw2 »

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.

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

#78

Post by spritefs »

Glyptodon wrote: post #37

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…

> 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

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

#79

Post by jwilk »

gpderetta wrote: post #39
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.

https://archive.today/fHBOK

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

#80

Post by illuminerdy »

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.

Post reply on HN