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

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by adamrezich »

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…

> 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.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by sovietmudkipz »

markus_zhang wrote: post #96
sovietmudkipz wrote: post #94

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 typica…

middle-aged joke

Ageist...

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

#104

Post by ohCh6zos »

bentley wrote: post #83
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…

> it's had a tangible effect on my mentality. What tangible effects did it have on your mentality?

I'm not OP, but it spurred me to find a better job, which was pretty tangible.

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

#105

Post by yucky »

twoodfin wrote: post #41

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.

I think that's their goal though, right? The first step to controlling thought is controlling language.

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

#106

Post by ohCh6zos »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #19

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

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

#107

Post by yarg »

concinds wrote: post #66

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…

There's no pushback because it's career suicide.

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

#108

Post by daveslash »

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.

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

#109

Post by yarg »

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.

This is good, the madness has begun to eat itself.

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

#110

Post by peanutcrisis »

bentley wrote: post #83
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…

> it's had a tangible effect on my mentality. What tangible effects did it have on your mentality?

Makes you feel good about "doing good", without actually doing good.
Post reply on HN