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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by piyh »

stableandrom wrote: post #787

I consider myself a very leftist liberal, and some of this list sounds fair. Some of it reads like bad satire. "Died by suicide" is somehow LESS trivial than "committed suicide"? "Blind studies" are somehow bad things now, rather than admirable things? And some of it reeks of linguistic arrogance. People aren't going to say "relationship with an abusive person" when "abusive relationship" is both much shorter and IDE…

I work at a company with what is basically a woke bot that will suggest corrections. Some like cakewalk I was glad to learn about the history, others like whitelist/blacklist are just because colors are used with no racist past. There's a nugget of good intention, and a load of newspeak happening.

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

#792

Post by Pigalowda »

passwordoops wrote: post #782

Already I disagree with their re-interpretation of the first word (addict). Have they ever actually interacted with, or been addicted to something? Your life revolves around the substance. If "addict" is dehumanizing then so is "carpenter". Had to get to #6 (committed suicide - I worked delivering technology for the blind and visually impaired, no one is offended by "I see" or "I'm going in blind") before thinking "o…

Or severe enough economic down turn. We don’t need land to fight over we just need a realignment of incentives. That will separate the wheat from the chaff. There’s no real value to the people who write such rubbish lists however they are still paid to do so. They still make what I imagine is a decent living to create hot air that the public gets to argue over. Money is still too easy to come by. When it isn’t these people will have to actually work and gain real value and we won’t be arguing or criticizing their nonsense anymore.

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

#794

Post by unethical_ban »

pc86 wrote: post #778

Others have called out some the silliness on this list, but honestly my biggest problem with it is that it's just so lazy , and often times flat out incorrect in its assumptions. - "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction. - They say the phrase "committed suicide" is problematic because it "trivializes the experiences of people…

Devoted vs. addicted: I think they mean in the context of "Addicted to games" or "addicted to bacon" in a casual sense. Of course, they fail to even try to add context. As many have pointed out, this list is more about control over thought than over actually helping anyone.

Committed vs. died by suicide: It's the association with "committing" an act as something negative. You commit a crime, you don't commit an achievement. Again, it's a stretch and a waste of time. Whoever wrote this needs to go make sandwiches for the homeless for a while.

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

#795

Post by seniorsassycat »

pc86 wrote: post #778

Others have called out some the silliness on this list, but honestly my biggest problem with it is that it's just so lazy , and often times flat out incorrect in its assumptions. - "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction. - They say the phrase "committed suicide" is problematic because it "trivializes the experiences of people…

> "Consider using 'devoted' instead of 'addicted.'" I'm sorry but you don't develop a physical devotion to heroin. It's an addiction.

I think the page or it's authors agree with you. But you (probably) aren't addicted to video games and that's the use that trivializes real addictions. If the article isn't clear that's a different criticism that the one you're making

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

#796

Post by ericmay »

smoovb wrote: post #789
ericmay wrote: post #765

If language can harm you, I don't see how one can't make the case that advertisements (especially billboards and non-consenual/contractual advertisements) aren't also harm and should be eliminated.

I have some advertising jingles stuck in my head that I've not been able to remove since childhood.

100% - How is that not harmful or even perhaps a form of violence? It's certainly not consensual in many various examples.

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

#797

Post by Kye »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #790
imgabe wrote: post #555

I 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…

It's a complex subject. But I happen to be from Bosnia and even when I first immigrated to Canada in the late 90s, I was amused at my Canadian friends constantly getting offended on my behalf. A joke or reference that somebody would make that I would find funny or agree with, would send my friends in a whirl and a twirl. I focused on intent - these particular people in these particular circumstances neither wanted no…

An accessible and entertaining treatment of this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtj7LDYaufM

The gist is that anyone can joke about anything, but jokes from outside an experience tend to be quite boring. Like the American reactionary love of The One Joke[0]. Calling them offensive gives the jokes way too much credit. Nothing they come up with holds a candle to what an actual trans or nonbinary person can think up. Some people think making "offensive" jokes prevents them from being a hack.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/onejoke/

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

#798

Post by xkcd1963 »

Laws that require people to policy themselves do not work. It is frustrating and wasteful that people often have to follow systems or norms that lack logic or reason.

Stanford hiding their page indicates that they understand their approach is not universally accepted.

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

#799

Post by unethical_ban »

I feel the need to write an "economic leftist's manifesto" and get it in front of as many people, particularly conservatives, as we can.

This identify and grievance based social leftism does very little to materially improve the conditions of people, very little to change actual power structures which harm the everyday family, and does very much to divide people by making individual identity/attributes the most important thing about a person. Community goes out the window, free expression is ridiculed.

Economic leftism and social democracy is the key to pushing politics leftward in the United States. It prioritizes economic security for people and families. It wants to take away free markets and profit motive from those industries where it is harmful or objectively immoral, such as health insurance and prisons. It wants to lift all people of all races and identities, to get everyone a decent education, housing, healthcare, and work in order to secure a person's ability to live day to day without fear bankruptcy or homelessness.

This kind of divisive, satirical, Newspeak bullshit will do more to keep the far right in power in the United States.

Post reply on HN