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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by kaapipo »

While I am a little surprised by some of the words on the list, as a WEIRD [1] white hetero male I do not think my opinion on some of the terms is earned.

What I would really like to know, however, is if people from various backgrounds have been consulted. If not, the authors of that list have fallen to the very same fallacy I described: only a person of background X should have the right to decide whether an expression is hateful or otherwise undesirable towards group X. If this is not the case, we get this [2] kind of hypocrisy.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias 2. https://mooseyanon.medium.com/github-f-ck-your-name-change-d...

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

#232

Post by pinusc »

boredumb wrote: post #86

This is absolute insanity - I do not mean surprising/wild, I mean the people/organizations who have curated this page of random innocuous words and contexts have completely lost touch with reality and should be relieved of any serious positions in higher learning. You can't use the word brave anymore? What in the hell is going on with academics?

They discourage use of "brave" as a noun, which does mean "a Native American Warrior" (Free Dictionary). I never heard the word used as a noun, but I'm not a native speaker. Doesn't look like they have a problem with brave as an adjective.

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

#233

Post by pinusc »

sovietmudkipz wrote: post #94

Does anyone have any good alternative to saying "dad joke?" The term "dad" in "dad joke" excludes anyone who doesn't, is incapable, or chooses not to have children (procreating?) and who also identifies (explicitly or implicitly) as a member of the category "male" (a vestigial term from the sex-assigned binary heterodoxy). I don't think calling "dad jokes" just "jokes" is precise enough language because people typica…

Well, one shouldn't tell dad jokes as they encourage violence, especially against dads themselves.

In a dad joke the punchline is apparent.

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

#235

Post by zzo38computer »

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'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 partially agree. Some of the suggestions for changes are good in some contexts, but there are also many problems with this list, too.

(There are also some things I would suggest to change to be improved even though the existing words are not "racist", but they tend to ignore such things; nevertheless, I think they can sometimes be helpful, too (e.g. I think "megagram" is better than "tonne").)

> It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.

Of course it does affect it at least partially, but it seems that the language has a greater effect on the ability to communicate than it does on the ability to think; some things you can think of but not communicate very well, due to the language being in use.

> Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and correcting both logical and social biases.

It can help, if it makes it clearer and more precise. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes not. (And, sometimes, using more words just makes it too long, rather than actually being good.)

However, bias is not only due to words (although it does have an effect, especially when communicating), and using different words can ahve different bias, so it does not truly completely avoid a bias.

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

#237

Post by cbeach »

kkoncevicius wrote: post #7

I read though the suggestions. So "trigger warning" is now problematic and the proper alternative is "content note". And "Preferred pronouns" is hate speech, because you imply that pronouns are merely a preference, as if the person can choose their identity. Godspeed.

This is all part of the plan. Only those on the frontier of nu-speak are untouchable. The faster the frontier advances, the greater the concentration of power in the hands of those coming up with this language.

When people can (and have) lost their livelihoods by using the wrong language, being in charge of new language is a powerful thing indeed.

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

#238

Post by deterministic »

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++.

You forgot the trigger warning! There are people in the C++ culture that would be highly offended by such language. And who wants to see a grey beard cry silent tears while investigating yet another core dump?

Note: I am a member of the C++ community and therefore have the credentials necessary to make fun of my culture. If you make fun of the C++ culture without being part of it then you are clearly in violation of new speak and a woke certified person will try to cancel you.

Post reply on HN