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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by zapataband1 »

Puritanism, a tale as old as time. What's fcking weird is the religious-tinge to this. It's like a less-worse version of pro-life people, they probably 'feel' good that they are 'helping', but as soon as the baby comes out they can ignore it.

Similar to this, Stanford has a huge endowment. They could actually help poor & marginalized black n brown communities. But instead they will continue to destroy neighborhoods(e.g. University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago). Harvard will continue to put out machine economists and lawyers that incarcerate people.

People want to come together to 'help', which is cool, but I think they are fking retard#d about what real help looks like. Probably not like authoritarianism.

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

#852

Post by te_234340 »

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…

HN certainly has taken this seriously, which IMHO is disappointing.

1300+ comments on something that has hardly anything to do with technology. Really?

To me, this is a dumb and actually kind of funny list, due to some ridiculous notions (e.g. "stand up meeting" is ablelist?) that seem poorly put together with zero thought for context. It's as if someone got an assignment to put this together and tried to really, really stretch any possible connection they could into this. Like you said, a "bullshit time-consuming initiative".

That's all it is. I don't get why people are paying attention to it. It's not worth much thought at all.

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

#854

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #349
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It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want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,…

I can think of a few more! "register" - might indicate that someone has to register as a second-class citizen, enemy alien, etc. "bit" - might imply that someone is only a 'bit player', leading to feelings of inferiority. "tool" - an obviously offensive word meaning that someone is only fit to be used by others. "terminal" - we need to be sensitive about words that bring up the concept of death, to avoid triggering e…

You do not eliminate, you disintermediate.

I will admit that this may explain some of the general public's attitude towards academia and higher learning.

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

#855

Post by bee_rider »

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.

Err, do they mean that these words shouldn’t be used at all, or that they don’t want them used as expressions outside the correct context? Like it is not that uncommon to hear something like “I’m addicted to this new game” or “I’m addicted to that new Poke Bowl place” or whatever, that usage could be seen as trivializing and… I mean some people will disagree but it is at least a coherent position. Similar for “committed suicide” although that comes up less often (but like “I was so embarrassed I wanted to kill myself!” could clearly be seen as pretty trivializing — I think this expression is currently falling out of the lexicon for that very reason).

> Every word that contains "man" or "woman" as part of it just lazily replaces it with "person." I'm sorry, but "congressperson" is never going to be a word and nobody is ever going to use it in any serious context. "Member of Congress" has been around for a couple hundred years but mention of that completely acceptable alternative.

I think “congressperson” or “congress-member” in my head. The word congressman would typically not occur to me first. I wonder if this is a regional thing or something? I’m not that young, (30s) but I did grow up in a pretty progressive area.

> Nobody has ever said "landlady"

This one does seem a little odd to me, I’m sure “lord” has a gendered etymology but it is pretty neutral feeling in modern English, right? Maybe I’m showing some ignorance here.

Landlady is definitely a phrase that’s been used right? But it seems a little dated and weirdly gendered nowadays, IMO…

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

#856

Post by Aeolun »

cm2187 wrote: post #546
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,…

We should also ban the word logic which is insensitive to woke humanities student who are incapable of.

Incapable of what?

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

#857

Post by ur-whale »

bloppe wrote: post #397

"Moron" was once considered a technical term for mental disability. Then, kids starting using it, and it became offensive. It was replaced by "mental retardation". We all know how that term evolved in kind. Many people now use "disabled" (including this list's suggestions), but that is now often seen replaced by "differently abled". If I were a betting man, I'd say that in 5 years even "differently abled" will be co-…

>"Moron" was once considered a technical term for mental disability

Obligatory Louis CK reference:

https://youtu.be/DXtHF0WRX64?t=197

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

#858

Post by jaxrtech »

bmc7505 wrote: post #318

"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)

Was seeing how far I had to scroll to find this perfect quote. How long before all the required readings are banned? I don't understand how you could run a philosophy course without immediately offending someone at this rate.

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

#859

Post by mbg721 »

zapataband1 wrote: post #851

Puritanism, a tale as old as time. What's fcking weird is the religious-tinge to this. It's like a less-worse version of pro-life people, they probably 'feel' good that they are 'helping', but as soon as the baby comes out they can ignore it. Similar to this, Stanford has a huge endowment. They could actually help poor & marginalized black n brown communities. But instead they will continue to destroy neighborhoods(e…

Lots of pro-life organizations actually do meaningfully help children after they are born. I regularly give money to a pregnancy center that buys car-seats for low-income moms. But that would get in the way of the story.
Post reply on HN