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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by mannykannot »

bawolff wrote: post #570
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…

Although a lot of this list seems silly, it also has slurs like "retard" and "jewed" on it, which i think are very reasonably considered offensive. I think the tarball thing is rediculous, but the opposite extreme of no words can be hurtful is also rediculous.

The commingling of words and phrases which are often used outside of their domain of applicability in order to be offensive, with those that are not, just spreads the contagion to no useful end.

It is particularly bad when the given replacement is nowhere near synonymous. The first one that really got my eyes rolling was 'detail-oriented' for OCD: being detail-oriented is an aspect of safety in a number of areas, and this is nothing like OCD, which has a clinical definition.

If one cares about something, don't make it easy to ridicule and dismiss.

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

#802

Post by soundnote »

hayst4ck wrote: post #425

I consider myself deeply liberal. I try to "police my language." I agree with the underlying premise of the article, that language encodes implicit power structures and it is a worthy endeavor to not implicitly "dominate" or denigrate those around you. When I was younger I used the word retard disparagingly, and someone who was the father of someone who was suffered from a disability was visibly hurt. The world doesn…

> I agree with the reasoning behind capitalizing the b in Black but not the w in White when referring to people.

The actual reason is activist pettiness, though.

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

#804

Post by absolutelymild »

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…

> I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm".

This is an absolutely absurd take.

The initiative is to remove words from official websites, not about making sure people never hear them. If you see negative language about your race/gender on your school website, you don’t think that’s gonna cause some anxiety? You don’t think that’s gonna make you wonder if you belong there? You don’t think that doubt will impair your ability to fully participate in that institution?

> This way you can search for infractions and more expeditiously accuse and eject your rivals (people whose work is better than yours).

How are you gonna play bully and victim in the same post? Pick a lane!

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

#805

Post by zugi »

> people of color ... BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color)

Wow, so "people of color" should be avoided and "BIPOC" used instead? Even though the "POC" in "BIPOC" is literally "people of color"?

That didn't last long. The Euphemism Treadmill ( http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th... ) seems to be moving faster and faster.

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

#806

Post by foofoo4u »

Chazprime wrote: post #565
yunwal wrote: post #371

Probably 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…

> Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” Perhaps not, but every year this rhetoric grows more and more aggressive - and thanks to social media - is now leaking into our everyday vernacular. At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?

> At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?

There will never be enough, because "enough" has not been defined. They have no interest in doing so. Even if they did, the "end goal" would never be reached, because they have too much of a seated interest in preserving their grievances.

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

#807

Post by stableandrom »

PopePompus wrote: post #378

I got yelled at by a female graduate student for using the term "rule of thumb". The Standford page says: "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.", which I translate as "this is bullshit, but some people have decided to be offended by it".

Opposable thumbs are what separate my species from others, therefore it's a huge part of my identity. If someone resists there phrase "rule of thumb", they're attacking me personally.

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

#808

Post by [deleted] »

cipheredStones wrote: post #332

It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want to avoid, like "manpower" - Words that have long since lost any stigmatizing meaning by virtue of the original use being so ancient ("lame", "dumb", "stupid") - Words that,…

[deleted]

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

#809

Post by PeterStuer »

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 is like intentionally inducing mental allergies.
Post reply on HN