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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by outside1234 »

el-salvador wrote: post #151
kgwgk wrote: post #69

I don’t think I had seen those before: tarball [use instead: tar archive] While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby. whitespace [use instead: empty space] Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized. Some of the “solutions” are funny: Hispanic [use instead: Lat…

> its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American countries. They forgot Central American countries :(

And California where they are :)

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

#322

Post by eru »

kgwgk wrote: post #69

I don’t think I had seen those before: tarball [use instead: tar archive] While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby. whitespace [use instead: empty space] Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized. Some of the “solutions” are funny: Hispanic [use instead: Lat…

An immigrant might have also just acquired citizenship..

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

#323

Post by pzone »

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.

I actually like “content note.” I’m pretty unfazed by offensive content so I don’t need your spoiler alert to be called a warning.

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

#324

Post by slavik81 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #60

“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe native speakers speaking naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups of multiple people (regardless of gender). It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered.…

> etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”.

Man was not gendered when "woman" originated. In Old English, the words for men and women were "wer" and "wif", while "mann" described any person. Over time, wifmann became woman, and for whatever reason, wermann didn't end up becoming a word.

Other examples of trouble through etymology might include "virtue" and "world", which both derive from "wer".

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

#325

Post by baggy_trough »

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"

It's not going to take 10 years.

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

#326

Post by soundnote »

testfoobar wrote: post #258

They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language: I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bik…

> These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.

This is spot on. They are cultural parasites who siphon resources and attention from their host.

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

#327

Post by eru »

School-Cotton wrote: post #60

“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe native speakers speaking naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups of multiple people (regardless of gender). It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered.…

Guy refers to Guy Fawkes. I'm not sure why his gender is supposed to have stuck, but not eg his religion or politics?

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

#328

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

richbell wrote: post #137

> Grandfather: This term has its roots in the "grandfather clause" adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks. > Red team: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups. > Blackbox: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term. > Brave (do not use): This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "no…

>This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent banning any word that contains "ass" because "ass" is a bad word.

there's some game whose word filter censors the "ass" in the name "Nasser"

the result is "N***er"

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

#329

Post by ARandomerDude »

> master (v)

> become adept in

> Historically, masters enslaved people, didn't consider them human and didn't allow them to express free will, so this term should generally be avoided.

I assume Stanford now hands out an Adept Degree at the end of grad school.

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

#330

Post by margalabargala »

hbrn wrote: post #320

Absolutely disgusting. I can't even imagine how corrupted the minds of those who come up with such lists. Having thick skin is a good thing. Actively showing off your fragility isn't. Treating people charitably is a good thing. Actively looking for gotchas isn't.

Set someone up to fail, and you will succeed.
Post reply on HN