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

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

#351

Post by l3uwin » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:45 AM UTC

pinusc wrote: post #232

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#352

Post by jjslocum3 » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:46 AM UTC

Looks like the inmates are running the asylum at Stanford.

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

#353

Post by naasking » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:46 AM UTC

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.

> And "Preferred pronouns" is hate speech, because you imply that pronouns are merely a preference, as if the person can choose their identity

But their position has been that gender is socially constructed and thus malleable, so it follows that pronouns would be too.

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

#354

Post by lstodd » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:47 AM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #324

School-Cotton wrote: post #60

“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe native speakers speaking naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups of multiple people (regardless of gender). It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered.…

> etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”. Man was not gendered when "woman" originated. In Old English, the words for men and women were "wer" and "wif", while "mann" described any person. Over time, wifmann became woman, and for whatever reason, wermann didn't end up becoming a word. Other examples of trouble…

How very interesting. Thank you.

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

#355

Post by andsoitis » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:48 AM UTC

The fragility of the American mind.

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

#356

Post by soundnote » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:49 AM UTC

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…

Just call them dad jokes because there's nothing wrong with that.

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

#357

Post by hedora » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:50 AM UTC

jjslocum3 wrote: post #352

Looks like the inmates are running the asylum at Stanford.

Your statement is offensive to victims of nuclear war, and also some types of birds.

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

#358

Post by lstodd » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

za3faran wrote: post #303

So now that "chief" is considered offensive, what do we use instead of the C-suite CEO/CFO/COO/etc. positions?

Chevalier de whatever ?

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

#359

Post by azraeldv » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:53 AM UTC

gtbcb wrote: post #298

It’d be funny if “conspiracy theorist” was on the list as critical of people with poor education, people less able to form rational thoughts about how the world works, people easily deceived, people unable to discern truth. I suspect conspiracy theorists find this term derogatory. Thoughts on what replacement they’d prefer? I also suspect though that they wouldn't want to be identified as a group at all. What do you…

people with dissenting opinion.

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

#360

Post by CoastalCoder » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:53 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #260

See also: The college administration cancer and cost disease in general. I think to myself "man these people must be fun at parties", then I remember one of their main self-appointed goals is to prevent things like parties. It seems they've been successful enough at it to move on to other forms of humans' interaction. Alternatively, let culture exist and evolve. Call shitheads out as shitheads, including shitheads [0…

> Endeavor to punch up.

I'm skeptical of the concept of "punching up" in general. It seems to assume a single sorting criterion. As a counter-example, suppose someone high up in an organization is from a historically disenfranchised ethnicity. Is attacking them "punching up" or "punching down"?