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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by anon223345 »

nfw2 wrote: post #77

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 w…

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

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

#113

Post by tbrownaw »

> 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.

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

#114

Post by JimTheMan »

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

#115

Post by yarg »

yarg wrote: post #97

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' the…

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.

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

#116

Post by sergiomattei »

anon223345 wrote: post #111
nfw2 wrote: post #77

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 w…

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.

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

#117

Post by faeriechangling »

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…

> 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.

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

#119

Post by zzo38computer »

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…

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).

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

#120

Post by 323 »

yarg wrote: post #109
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.

Madness is now a forbidden word. The non-harmful word is "surprising/wild",
Post reply on HN