So now that "chief" is considered offensive, what do we use instead of the C-suite CEO/CFO/COO/etc. positions?
XEO/XFO/XOO/xtc.
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
581–590 of 1001 posts
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#582"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
Interestingly the theory of restricting language to control thought has been debunked. But personally, I do think that our range of acceptable speech can impact our thoughts in more subtle ways both positive and negative.
“The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers at the Ministry of Truth and determined to be fake news.”
Well, how reassuring!
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#583Many of these are just simply wrong. "Balls to the wall" is an aviation reference, and "manmade" is not equivalent to "made by hand" even a little bit.
This list is embarrassing, and not worthy of bearing the name of Stanford.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#584I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture wars, just read through the list on that page. ------- "> Instead of: Philippine Islands > Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines > Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Som…
">Instead of: Philippine Islands >Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines >Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though." First of all, they're using "denotes" to mean "connotes", so we shouldn't expect a subtle understanding of English. But second, what "Philippine Islands" does is center geography instead of na…
You might want to talk to the Republic of Ireland about that British Isles bit
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#585"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
Interestingly the theory of restricting language to control thought has been debunked. But personally, I do think that our range of acceptable speech can impact our thoughts in more subtle ways both positive and negative.
Is there a source for this debunking? I'd love to read it.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#586> Brave | do not use | This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man. Should we get rid of bravo then as well? I assume people making these lists have good intentions, but efforts like this really get lost in the sauce. They are effectively parodying themselves.
The problem here is that term was often used with squaw and papoose which are undeniably derogatory
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#587They are not very consistent. It uses harmful term "users of wheelchairs" when according to them it should be "clients of wheelchairs".
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#588It is hard to choose which of these is silliest, but my vote goes to the replacement of "he" with [name] or "they", until you know the person's preferred pronouns. [1] The vast, vast majority of people who present as male wish to be referred to as "he". Many of them would be offended or confused if you used "they" as a term of reference. Many listeners would also be confused if you referred to a person who appears to…
Until 'they' got pulled into duty, English didn't have a non gendered pronoun, so if you were referring to someone where you didn't know the gender, you had a choice of defaulting to "he", randomly choosing "he" or " she", or using "he or she" or "the [descriptor like 'programmer']* They at first sounded weird being repurposed this way, but I think now it works better than any of the list above. Once you start using…
Agreed. That said, ‘they’ has been “on duty” as a singular pronoun since at least the 14th century
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#589Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” (err, sorry “wild”). The more important lesson here is that the bloat in academic institutions has gotten so outrageous that people start bullshit time-consuming initiatives to justify their positions and the positions of their reports. Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on…
Oh but they will. Words like whitelist and blacklist have been banned by woke theater fiat at the bigco I work at, although I have seen no evidence they actually have anything to do with racism. I suspect our banned words list has a lot of overlap with Stanford's. Rabblerousers like to rabblerouse, and nobody wants to be the voice of reason when the people who decide your paycheck make stupid political decisions.
In my childhood, one of the lighter-colored classmate justified the reason for supremacy of lighter-colored people providing black/white-based language as an evidence. These included the words black-list and white-list. Because of these rhetoric that is ingrained in children (who might later grow up without challenging them), I have always supported getting rid of these kinds of language.
Context: I am from a place where both darker-colored people and lighter-colored people exist. Here in my country, lighter-colored people are considered better than darker-colored people. I am a darker-skinned person.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#590"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
Interestingly the theory of restricting language to control thought has been debunked. But personally, I do think that our range of acceptable speech can impact our thoughts in more subtle ways both positive and negative.
Debunked? Source. Also I think the word ‘debunked’ has lost all meaning in the last decade.