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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by luuuzeta »

antegamisou wrote: post #689
outside1234 wrote: post #331

Can we talk about Latinx? This is entirely something that English speakers have made up for Spanish speakers. My wife, who works in healthcare for the state, and largely with farm workers, regales me constantly with stories that essentially have the punchline “Que es Latinx?” in which she has to explain to them that this means them and that it was made up (perhaps at Stanford) out of some crazy attempt to remove -a a…

English speakers from the US that is, btw.

>English speakers from the US that is, btw.

To be more precise, usually white liberal English speakers from the US.

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

#942

Post by Rayhem »

maximus-decimus wrote: post #929

What I'm not seeing anybody mentioning is how hard that kind of stuff make it to speak English for non-native speakers. Coming from French, it's already weird enough that you're allowed to say "n word" or "s word" but not the actual words, as if it was some loophole. That's just not done in French, at least in Quebec. In Quebec, you say the word, you don't or for swear words people use a slightly transformed version…

> ...they're accentuating a class divide between native and non-native speakers.

Possibly even a class divide amongst native speakers: those with the time to ponder and research acceptable terminology and those without. I suspect the typical rejoinder there is something along the lines of "Well, society should be made more equal to prevent those without", conveniently ignoring the near geologic time it will take to get there.

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

#943

Post by dr_faustus »

Reading that really makes you wonder what the hell (sorry if that offends some atheists or buddhists!) they are talking about in official meetings at the Stanford IT department. Gray beards? Pocahontas??? In my 20 years in IT, not once have I heard that anyone ever felt the need to discuss "hermaphrodites" in a meeting or document.

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

#945

Post by throwawayacc3 »

superb-owl wrote: post #63

I'm going to take the minority position here (no pun intended), and say that I think these initiatives are in fact helpful and important. I recently joined an engineering team where there's a cultural norm of not using the word "guys" to address a group. When I first heard this, I kinda rolled my eyes but got on board. It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that word out of my vocabulary, but it's had a…

"I gave in to linguistic totalitarianism. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. I have won the victory over myself. I love Big Brother."

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

#946

Post by 908B64B197 »

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't help but to think this is intentional. It's a thinly veiled attempt at shifting the Overton Window [0].

Nobody would use "Tranny" or "Jewed" in professional conversation. It's a non-issue. But a non-controversial term like "Tribal Knowledge"?

It really reminds me of the main vs master default branch controversy where some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none [1] [2]. Of course, someone would have to be technical to be able to find the source while whining on social media is available to anyone!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[1] https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441

[2] https://repo.or.cz/cogito.git/commit/3c4347c8b64fb516bc097ab...

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

#947

Post by annexrichmond »

> Pocahontas

> This is a slur and should not be used to address an Indigenous woman unless that is her actual name.

How dare they assume this name is exclusive to people who choose she/her/hers pronouns.

They already conflict with their own rules below!

> she

> Unless you know the person you're addressing uses "she" as their pronoun, it is better to use "they" or to ask the person which pronouns they use.

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

#948

Post by notadev »

I read the list and confirmed that Niggardly, which means “grudging and petty in giving or spending” or being stingy with money, is not on the list. It has absolutely not relation to the N word which is obviously why at Stanford it’s still perfectly acceptable to refer to your students and colleagues as niggards, so long as they are tight with money.

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

#949

Post by lobsterboix »

Dalewyn wrote: post #345
testfoobar wrote: post #258

They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language: I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bik…

The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control. Becoming able to control someone's thoughts is very, very powerful and sought after, and what are thoughts composed of? Language. Define the language and you define how people think. Define people of latin origin should be referred to by "latinx" and nothing else and congratulations: An entire collection of cu…

It must be really fun to act so scared all the time.

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

#950

Post by ModernMech »

908B64B197 wrote: post #946
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't help but to think this is intentional. It's a thinly veiled attempt at shifting the Overton Window [0]. Nobody would use "Tranny" or "Jewed" in professional conversation. It's a non-issue. But a non-controversial term like "Tribal Knowledge"? It really reminds me of the main vs master default branch controversy where some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none [1] [2]. Of course…

> some activists really pushed a racial connotation on a term which had none

This isn’t quite right. The term “master recording” itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that. Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams.

If “master branch” is to derive from “master recording”, it carries the same racial baggage.

Post reply on HN