No post body was provided.
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
161–170 of 1001 posts
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#162From 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.
> Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my rights end at yours. That's the only definition of harm you think is valid?
I’d struggle to accept there is a reasonable definition of harm that includes using the word “brave” as harmful.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#163Some are obvious and others surprising to me, but I'm very glad they mention the way "American" is used in the US. It always ticked me off but I never felt like I could mention it due to how widespread it is. Now I have somewhere to point to if I want to bring it up, kind of like how French people can point to the DGLFLF if someone uses the term nègre nowadays.
> How could two whole continents
> Lose their name to one constituent
> Where were we when the U.S. went
> And took the word American away
> But to be fair to them
> Their other name options
> Like U.S.A.ers and United Statesians
> Were pretty bad
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#164[dead]
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#165Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations and suggestions.
No post body was provided.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#166Many 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…
> but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew in a straight line").
It’s _never_ a “micro aggression” under any context. I think I’d slap one of these Stanford wankers if they spoke to me like this doc dictates.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#167Relevant comedy sketch from the past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKkb0qXbyUY
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#168>Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.
From an anthropological perspective, it’s fascinating how the weakest and most sensitive people possible are now the ones in charge of policing language. Talib was right about this, on a long enough timeline most things do become a dictatorship of the small minority.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#169I 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.
Sorry, "woke" is ableist and biased against folks living with narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and other sleep disorders^W abnormalities^W^W somnodivergence.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#170Many 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…
Yeah, this thread is nuts to me how many people in this thread are mad. Sure, some of the words are a bit of a stretch but while going through the most I was nodding along being like, “yeah, makes sense.” Like nobody is gonna string you up not following the guidelines but in my own writing I follow these pretty much naturally because, yeah, it’s kinda weird that we describe things with limited or reduced functionalit…
Is it also weird that we describe things that completely cease to function as dead?