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

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

#481

Post by cipheredStones » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:03 AM UTC

3np wrote: post #457

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It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably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

Some further examples that stood out to me as being too far-fetched, fashion, and/or excessive to be part of any reasonable "Elimination of harmful language initiative" (explanations verbatim qouted from TFA): > abusive relationship (The relationship doesn't commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.) > rule of thumb (Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to…

> Some of these terms were even popularized by the same movement with similar motivations and reasoning in the past few years. How many of the "Consider using" suggestions will be considered "harmful language to be eradicated" in another few years? Feels like we're getting to a place where even a person who is honestly and carefully choosing their words to be non-offensive will be chastised because they missed the memo this year.

Yeah, many of these feel extremely "fashionable" to me, in the sense that there was already a term intended to be thoughtful and compassionate, and the latest "preferred alternative" is driven by the latest academic framework to achieve popularity rather than any change in values or the preferences of the people being addressed.

In addition to "survivor", as you highlighted, I know and know of people who would certainly prefer "sex worker" to "prostitute" but would roll their eyes at "person who engages in sex work" - and point out that it actually carries more of an assumption of stigma, since nobody would say "person who engages in office work".

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

#482

Post by yodsanklai » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:04 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #442

yunwal wrote: post #371

Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” (err, sorry “wild”). The more important lesson here is that the bloat in academic institutions has gotten so outrageous that people start bullshit time-consuming initiatives to justify their positions and the positions of their reports. Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on…

You seem to assume that this is applied against the will of the academic staff. It seems to me that most of the professors are fully on board with this program. In the end it will be all self correcting. Those woke universities reputation is melting like ice cream in the sun. I remember Brian Armstrong mentioning in an interview that he starts to see companies adding basic skill tests in their recrutment as they don'…

> It seems to me that most of the professors are fully on board with this program.

I wonder. Could be that they don't want to be ostracised.

This happens in companies as well. In mine, we have a similar list of words to avoid. I'm pretty sure 95% of my colleagues think it's bullshit but we never discuss it openly. Mostly it's a thing from the US youth, some of them seem to be actively tracking anything that could be remotely considered unfair to minorities and are very vocal about it.

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

#483

Post by vestrigi » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:06 AM UTC

divan wrote: post #411

I'm actually glad someone puts it into one list. I grew up in a society that used words like "disabled" left and right, as an insult. As a child I never saw ramps for the wheelchairs, and seldom saw people on a wheelchair (only in hospitals). That was part of the culture of ostracising "different people" and making sure "normal" people don't see them. It's still the case for mental issues though, and I have friends w…

Thank you for posting a different view on this topic. The comment section here feels very one-sided and makes me believe that people aren’t here to critically discuss all views. Honestly I feel very intimidated to write any comments that challenge the opinions here because of the imbalance.

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

#484

Post by chrsjxn » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:10 AM UTC

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,…

If you were trying to help people be more inclusive with their language, categorizing them like this seems counter to your goals

Your own list seems to say that exclusionary language about someone's medical condition (lame) is more acceptable than other exclusionary language, because that stigma has a different history? Or because that language is more common?

Those words can still do real harm to real people, even if they're lower down in your ranking of these words

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

#485

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:12 AM UTC

richbell wrote: post #137

> Grandfather: This term has its roots in the "grandfather clause" adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks. > Red team: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups. > Blackbox: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term. > Brave (do not use): This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "no…

[deleted]

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

#486

Post by mrtksn » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:13 AM UTC

yunwal wrote: post #371

Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” (err, sorry “wild”). The more important lesson here is that the bloat in academic institutions has gotten so outrageous that people start bullshit time-consuming initiatives to justify their positions and the positions of their reports. Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on…

Maybe its like the defence industry after the war: They have the capacity to wage war but the war has been won so what to do now? Disband all that or find wars to fight?

I actually subscribe to the idea that the words of choice can be harmful but this practice of constantly trying hard find words to ban is ridiculous. When the culture evolves and certain words start hurting people, sure let's be more careful about it. No need for an institutional directive for word, people themselves change their language as the culture changes.

At current stage it definitely feels like someone who doesn't have something to do invents a job.

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

#487

Post by kortilla » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:13 AM UTC

chrsjxn wrote: post #484

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,…

If you were trying to help people be more inclusive with their language, categorizing them like this seems counter to your goals Your own list seems to say that exclusionary language about someone's medical condition (lame) is more acceptable than other exclusionary language, because that stigma has a different history? Or because that language is more common? Those words can still do real harm to real people, even i…

Yes, the author is being a real tarball about the whole thing by compressing these things all together.

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

#488

Post by Traubenfuchs » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:15 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #353

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.

...just like gender being a social construct but gender affirming surgery exists.

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

#489

Post by coffeeblack » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:21 AM UTC

soheil wrote: post #460

yunwal wrote: post #371

Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” (err, sorry “wild”). The more important lesson here is that the bloat in academic institutions has gotten so outrageous that people start bullshit time-consuming initiatives to justify their positions and the positions of their reports. Absolutely no one will take this seriously including the person who wrote it but they will be able to put it on…

> no one will take this seriously But git branch names now say "main".

While the academic degree of the programmer still is “Master”. I give it another year.

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

#490

Post by ResearchCode » Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 8:21 AM UTC

rendall wrote: post #47

I heard a theory that woke is actually a class marker of manners, indicating that someone has the time and privilege to track the constantly shifting, baroque signals of what is and is not acceptable to say during any given season. If someone were to make that case, this could be evidence in favor.

It's maybe a marker of the (western) petit bourgeois. Upper class put up with it less.