Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative • Hacker News Board

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

#981

Post by johnday » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:04 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #915

dahfizz wrote: post #673

> Instead of 'handicap parking', use 'accessible parking' This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped! This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap'…

The issue here is that a lot of people who need a spot close to the door are not "handicapped." The obvious example would be someone gimping around in an ankle cast. You wouldn't, they wouldn't, and their doctors would not say they are "handicapped." They don't have "handicap" concerns, but they certainly have "accessibility" concerns.

I disagree strongly. It's entirely possible to be temporarily handicapped as the result of some kind of injury. There's a reason you can get temporary handicap parking permits.

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

#982

Post by sinity » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

rmak wrote: post #612

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It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably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

Totally ok to use "incel" but not Karen. Notice how they are fine with using words like "gunman", "conman" but not the positive masculine words like man-made, mankind ... Also no issues with "motherboard" or "mother nature".

Suggesting that women are less likely to want to be plumbers? (Nothing)

Suggesting that women are less likely to want to be programmers? Get fired, and yelled at by the media.

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

#983

Post by sinity » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

diebeforei485 wrote: post #916

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It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably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

There is no one-word replacement for something being "grandfathered". It's important to consider practicalities here. Moving away from "slave" was reasonable (Buildbot got rid of it many years ago!), but led us down a very slippery slope. I'll stick my head out and say "master" is fine actually.

> Moving away from "slave" was reasonable

It wasn't, because it didn't make any sense. Using 'slave' as a metaphor doesn't imply slavery is good.

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

#984

Post by foofoo4u » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

Rayhem wrote: post #17

Jonathan Haidt's "Two incompatible sacred values in American universities"[1] seems particularly relevant here. He argues (among other things) that modern universities are undergoing a truth/social justice schism, and that attempting to advance both inevitably perverts both. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8

Which is an unfortunate state of affairs. But I believe he is right. Given this schism, he sees the way to proceed forward is likely by creating a separation. Similar to what we already have today with the separation of religious universities from secular universities. We likely will need to have social-justice universities. Religious universities continue with their core values of God, faith, and devotion. Social justice universities can operate under their own diversity, equity, and inclusion values. And secular universities and return to their values that we all used to think were good and noble until yesterday, which are equality, fairness, and meritocracy.

A discussion between Niall Ferguson and Lex Fridman [1] captures the first signs of this new separation. The discuss the introduction of a new university coming to Austin.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glz9lKobyZY

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

#985

Post by puffoflogic » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #910

javajosh wrote: post #710

An excellent illustration of the beginnings of an SJW dystopia. Not just the list itself, but the general feeling of fear they want you to feel while speaking. One can draw a link between any word and a possible harm - something that a few comments have hilariously shown with some examples. So if the goal was protecting anyone from every possible harmful word, the list fails. But this demonstrates real evil that hide…

This list is incredibly stupid. However, I don’t think this “Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action, which was published by the Stanford CIO Council (CIOC) and People of Color in Technology (POC-IT) affinity group” (using the words off their own website) is some mastermind plot to eventually subvert freethinking in America. Instead, I think it’s just a group of busywork, incompetent administrators who have…

> some mastermind plot to eventually subvert freethinking in America

Hitler did not start off with a mastermind plot to become the sole decisionmaker in Germany either. "There is no conspiracy, they're just acting in typical self-serving ways" is a counterproductive and even subversive objection when the enemy is demonstrably at the gates.

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

#986

Post by puffoflogic » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:59 PM UTC

crackercrews wrote: post #424

It is hard to choose which of these is silliest, but my vote goes to the replacement of "he" with [name] or "they", until you know the person's preferred pronouns. [1] The vast, vast majority of people who present as male wish to be referred to as "he". Many of them would be offended or confused if you used "they" as a term of reference. Many listeners would also be confused if you referred to a person who appears to…

Indeed, if someone refers to me as "they" then (1) I am being misgendered (2) probably intentionally (3) to score some political goal.

That this is considered "okay" by certain people proves that they do not care about (1) or (2), only (3).

"He" -> "they" further implies that there's something wrong about "he", a defect not present in "they". Otherwise the opposite replacement would also be acceptable. It is morally despicable.

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

#987

Post by foofoo4u » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 3:07 PM UTC

macrolime wrote: post #92

kepler1 wrote: post #8

I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture wars, just read through the list on that page. ------- "> Instead of: Philippine Islands > Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines > Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Som…

Right, so instead of this: Bob used to think of neural networks as black boxes, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work. We should say: Bob used to think of neural networks as flight recorders, but now he's working on figuring out how they actually work. That obviously has the exact same meaning /s

This is a good example of how those in the commanding heights can order changes to a society or economy, but fail to fathom all of the cascading ramifications of their decision.

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

#988

Post by sinity » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

onetimeusename wrote: post #445

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…

> How do we close this Pandora's box? I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is. I don't think this guide is meant to prevent harm. It almost seems like this kind of language policing is like a shibboleth to identify th…

> I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.

Well, they do this thing where they form a mob and harass people.

The thing is, their ingroup is relatively small, about 8%. If sizeable chunk of the outgroup started using their tactics against them...

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

#989

Post by foofoo4u » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

samhuk wrote: post #660

What was the driving force for this? What was the percentage of staff and students asking for this level of policing of language? I'm not American and even I am scared of how un-American such flagrant policing of language is. Some of the examples are shockingly benign, with invisible lines drawn and imaginary people invented to manufacture offense. With the Twitter Files showing how the US government has colluded wit…

As an American, I am coming to appreciate the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, more than ever before. I can better see why, now, out of all amendments, this is the first. And why it is so absolute. I am also glad that we do not have "hate speech" laws. The Stanford word-banning list is a perfect example as to why. The university is the pinnacle of our institutions. The staff who composed this list are upper echelon members of society. They serve as gatekeepers to our future success and now wish to dictate what is good and bad. If hate speech laws were to be enacted, who do you think would have significant influence on what gets added to the list? I'd bet it would be individuals like these. People and institutions closest to Washington D.C. I am already under threat for losing my job for saying "master branch". But a "hate speech" law could very well charge me with a crime as well.

Circling back to why the First Amendment is absolute. I appreciate it is this way because it compensates for the fact that composing a list of what shouldn't or cannot be said is impossible to compose. And any attempts to do so will only lead to tyranny and undermine the point of the amendment itself.

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

#990

Post by krapp » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

foofoo4u wrote: post #989

samhuk wrote: post #660

What was the driving force for this? What was the percentage of staff and students asking for this level of policing of language? I'm not American and even I am scared of how un-American such flagrant policing of language is. Some of the examples are shockingly benign, with invisible lines drawn and imaginary people invented to manufacture offense. With the Twitter Files showing how the US government has colluded wit…

As an American, I am coming to appreciate the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, more than ever before. I can better see why, now, out of all amendments, this is the first. And why it is so absolute. I am also glad that we do not have "hate speech" laws. The Stanford word-banning list is a perfect example as to why. The university is the pinnacle of our institutions. The staff who composed this list are upper ec…

The First Amendment isn't absolute. The US has always had numerous laws that regulate and limit speech in various ways[0].

And the First Amendment explicitly doesn't prevent private citizens or organizations like Stanford from regulating speech themselves. It only prevents the government from doing so, with exceptions as mentioned.

And the premise that this could somehow lead to a dystopian future in which you are thrown in jail simply for uttering the phrase "master branch" is absurd. Even granting the slippery slope, that isn't a realistic fear.

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