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

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

#21

Post by BuyMyBitcoins » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

humanistbot wrote: post #11

Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations and suggestions.

It’s voluntary now, but this is something meant to establish a precedent. The mindset that produced this initiative actively wants this to become the new standard.

Those that think the language needs to be changed in order to prevent harm are not going to be content with these suggestions merely being optional. Activists will push for this to become a new criterion for proper writing, probably on the same level as style guides.

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

#22

Post by anodari » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

> "User" consider using "client". While often associated with one who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or those who exploit others for their own gain.

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

#23

Post by satisfice » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #14

Gotta love how the page for "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" has a content warning: "Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace." It's not going well so far.

The content warning is reasonable and it works: because I ain’t reading that crap. I have standards. I prefer to avoid being angry with fools, today.

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

#24

Post by jbverschoor » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

So let’s get rid of the word “black”, as it means scorched (blakeren). Very harmful.

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

#25

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

Are humans no longer capable of recognizing context? How is "he mastered the material in the lecture" invoking centuries of internalized slavery and causing harm in the process?

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

#26

Post by rendall » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

One mustn't use the term "busy body" because it is ableist. Some people do not have bodies, but are ghosts floating upon the ether. Also, it is too often applied to us here in the Department of Thumb Twiddling and it hurts our feelings. Instead use the term "insufferable twatwaffle".

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

#27

Post by gpderetta » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #16

I wholeheartedly support the elimination of harmful languages. There's just no good reason these days for anyone to use C++.

We were always at war with C++

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

#28

Post by jlebar » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

pannSun wrote: post #6

> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture. But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blin…

> The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion.

I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion that suicide is a crime (against God). And so it's moralizing language that blames the person for killing themselves.

You can verify that this is a common notion among people who work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat... which says:

> For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder."

> That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.

It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before doing a minimal amount of research!

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

#29

Post by dj_gitmo » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

There would be less emphasis on symbolic politics, such as this project, if we could make material progress on social inequity. It does not cost any money to change language. It would be difficult and costly to seriously reinvest in people who have been left behind.

For example, if it was politically possible guarantee schools in poor neighbourhoods were funded just as well as schools in wealthy neighbourhoods, do you people would organize around education equality, or would they organize to change language?

Also the website doesn't work in Firefox.

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

#30

Post by bigmattystyles » Sun, Dec 18, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

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…

The black and red examples are silly. I’m white so I get that I’ve not had the lived experience but we might as well make the color itself unusable. I have no evidence but I think that this is some white person’s idea of what is offensive, infantilizing everyone involved. But I guess that in lieu of actual policy that will help people this will do….(that last line is sarcasm)