Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

Precisely.

It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.

I can't remember the book it came from, but there was an author who wrote about his time growing up in an Eastern European communist country. During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.

If he refused, he's be on the "naughty list" with the authorities which could impact his employment, his housing, his kids schooling.

Putting the flag in the window was never the goal of the government. The goal was to show citizens they had no choice. The author talks about how capitulating the demand was dehumanizing and just ground down any resistance to authority that may have existed. "If I don't have the choice as to fly a flag or not, what choice did I have with more important aspects of my life?"

It's like putting stars of David on Jews in Germany. It wasn't just to identify them in public (though that was a goal) it was also to show them "who was in charge".

What on Earth? If I bring lunch in a brown bag, am I allowed to refer to it? Am I not allowed to bring lunch in a brown bag? Can I bring other things in a brown bag?

If I racially discriminate my mid day meeting using a white bag, is that ok?

> abusive relationship (The relationship doesn't commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.)

> rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.)

> trigger warning (The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.)

> no can do (Originated from stereotypes that mocked non-native English speakers.)

> yellow team ("Yellow" is often used disparagingly against people of Asian descent.)

> survivor (Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their experiences. If the person identifies with the term, then use it.)

> preferred pronouns (The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.)

> spirit animal

> calling a spade a spade (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.)

Also not really a fan of forcing ethnical identity by institutionalizing "Black" or denying individuals to own their sexual/gender/whatever-the-appropriate-word-will-be-next-year identity as a choice ("preferred pronouns")

Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year. While many of the entries make perfect sense and should be avoided for the sakes of inclusiveness, respect, and compassion, the content and format makes this have the exact opposite effect of the communicated intention...

> Our "suggested alternatives" are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community

Yeah, no, they did not do their homework on the tarball I think. To paraphrase parents other comment: This could have been good but this is executed poorly enough to be completely counterproductive.

The one technical source they quote[0] is a blog post by former CISO of UW-Madison that comes across as fundamentally more leveled and reasonable to the point where I find they (apparently unintentionally) misrepresent it.

[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20221219233220/https://it.wisc.ed...