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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by Macha »

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…

This one seems fair to be honest, it's not just about those with non standard pronouns, but also women.

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

#432

Post by klabb3 »

hbrn wrote: post #320

Absolutely disgusting. I can't even imagine how corrupted the minds of those who come up with such lists. Having thick skin is a good thing. Actively showing off your fragility isn't. Treating people charitably is a good thing. Actively looking for gotchas isn't.

This has nothing to do with fragility, and there is nothing bad about showing honest fragility (although “showing off” is rarely productive).

This is about controlling speech and revisionism, while using sensitive people as an excuse for it. Why? Because it makes you more relevant, if you set the agenda. You get to choose who is good or bad in this absurd moral system where words, not their meaning or your actions, is the basis for judgment. Ironically, this is about good old self-interest and power.

Moralism seems to be inherent in humans, there are always those who self-select to police the behavior of other people. What’s scary with this stuff is that this particular flavor of it has a blind spot (apologies for ableist language, 10 lashes for me) among our current intellectual gate keeping class – most of them just let this pass through and even think it’s a good idea. That’s the only reason this BS can get amplified in influential institutions.

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

#433

Post by robocat »

joenot443 wrote: post #226
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.

I wonder if “trigger warning” has been labeled offensive because those doing the labeling have realized it’s become a joke, almost pejorative term in the eyes of the rest of the world. I think 80% of the time when I hear someone use the phrase these days, it’s through some layer of satire.

Probably because “trigger warning” itself can be a trigger so that dangerous language has to be replaced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010941

Also there is a high turnover of PC words - every few years the “correct” word changes to something else, because reasons.

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

#434

Post by jjav »

bsimpson wrote: post #429
bloppe wrote: post #397

"Moron" was once considered a technical term for mental disability. Then, kids starting using it, and it became offensive. It was replaced by "mental retardation". We all know how that term evolved in kind. Many people now use "disabled" (including this list's suggestions), but that is now often seen replaced by "differently abled". If I were a betting man, I'd say that in 5 years even "differently abled" will be co-…

A euphemism treadmill, in fact https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

The George Carlin bit on shellshocked comes to mind.

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

#435

Post by cabaalis »

gpsx wrote: post #390

What strikes me from reading this, aside from of words like "user" and "tarball", is how short the list is. Given that, inclusion on the list seems almost arbitrary. I don't think they have put much work into this yet.

> I don't think they have put much work into this yet.

Thank goodness, there's still a chance they can come to their senses.

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

#436

Post by kashunstva »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #366
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,…

Quoted post unavailable.

> The absolute state of the left.

The left is not a monolithic block of automatons. There is some large number of persons who support most progressive positions but decry this sort of top-down control of language along with the way it’s used to enforce an orthodoxy of opinion. Labelling this as an “absolute state” of the left is a mischaracterization of the positions of most progressives I know.

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

#437

Post by andrekandre »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #366
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,…

Quoted post unavailable.

  > The absolute state of the left.
not to play semantics too much, but is it "the left" or elite liberals that are pushing this kind of stuff?

it seems (anecdotally) to me that this kind of language policing is mostly pushed from the top down... maybe im wrong tho...

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

#438

Post by antonvs »

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,…

How does it “conflate” them?

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

#440

Post by hedora »

soundnote wrote: post #342
timonoko wrote: post #292

I remember English teacher lady being slightly offended because I kept referring she as "he". I could not help it, native language has no grammatical genders. But this was 50 years ago, could not imagine what would happen today. Judging by Youtube-videos bodily harm would be almost certain.

I'm eternally grateful that it doesn't have grammatical gender and that we call everyone "it". Spares us from some of the nonsense getting imported from the States.

In the US, doing that is considered derogatory.

"I saw your girlfriend. It was buying something at the corner store."

Is approximately as bad as "The bitch was at the corner store."

Because "it" is reserved for animals and inanimate objects.

If you have an obvious accent, people will generally understand the "it" was a grammatical error.

Post reply on HN