So are we using 1984's newspeak now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
641–650 of 1001 posts
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#642I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm". This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team. Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injur…
You're basically positing that words have no possible effect and anyone actually hurt by words is just pretending. Sure, we're not expecting every single word on these lists to have any random person go cry in the corner, but those are pretty long lists and I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration.
Sorry, but I believe that nobody is actively harmed by using master slave terminology in computer science. If you are, that‘s a „you“ problem.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#643One small step for person, one giant leap for person-kind.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#644"Balls to the wall" has nothing to do with anatomy (nor does balls-out).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-to-the-wall#English
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out#English
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#645Best we can do is stop feeding this monster, I know my kids won't be going to Stanford now at least.
There's a pretty large group of institutions you'll have to avoid then. Better teach them to think for themselves.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#646> Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
I have a physical disability and several mental conditions that are considered disabling and I'm here to tell you they're all both abnormal and negative!
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#647I think the 'user' one takes the cake (I did check and taking the cake wasn't in the list, so I can safely use it).
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#648[deleted]
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#649I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm". This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team. Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injur…
You're basically positing that words have no possible effect and anyone actually hurt by words is just pretending. Sure, we're not expecting every single word on these lists to have any random person go cry in the corner, but those are pretty long lists and I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration.
> I could totally see specific people getting hit at the right angle and be affected enough to warrant consideration
The question is, will they be affected by word itself or the composition of words? Because I can probably make an offensive sentence using most of the words in this list (except tarball, I'm not that creative). But I can also do the same avoiding words from the list and still hurt specific people. So having this list doesn't solve the problem, but it can be used to harm people. You don't like some argument, lets check if we can find a harmful word in it and use that!
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#650"balls to the wall - Attributes personality traits to anatomy"
Is it me or someone over there thinks this may have something to do with testicles?