No post body was provided.
Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
541–550 of 1001 posts
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#542"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-…
I remember joking years ago that "disabled" would become a slur, after "retard" became less and less acceptable.
I didn't think it would actually happen, but the endless treadmill is being proven again and again. I would also bet that "differently abled" is absolutely considered offensive by the end of this decade.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#5432+2=5
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#544I got yelled at by a female graduate student for using the term "rule of thumb". The Standford page says: "Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.", which I translate as "this is bullshit, but some people have decided to be offended by it".
So you're telling me you don't get offended at a phrase originating from an old story in a completely different context your friend told you that you didn't bother to fact check?
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#545Can we please change the name "Stanford" to something else? It offends me. "Stan" looks like "Satan" and "ford" is an automobile brand which makes me think of combustion engines and global warming. I cannot stand it anymore...
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#546It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want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,…
We should also ban the word logic which is insensitive to woke humanities student who are incapable of.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#547Troll level: god-like
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#548This is a good initiative. Language needs to reflect the aspirations of an institution, this is akin to cleaning the floor.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#549Serious question, and maybe this is ignorant because I do not have an academic background but: Are these people not just a vocal minority? And if so, who cares? It seems like the internet is always up in arms about woke-ism but I honestly don't notice much of it in my daily life. At work, sure there are rules and regulations, but they make sense. Treat people with respect is always my default stance. If I make an ass…
>> And if so, who cares? It seems like the internet is always up in arms about woke-ism but I honestly don't notice much of it in my daily life.
The only place I have noticed this is in the workplace. They allowed a small group ( < 10 people) to force everyone intro various DEI groups and meetings and events on a regular basis. As soon as the ringleaders left the company (just regular job switching, nothing dramatic) all of the DEI groups died. I'm onboard with most of this stuff because people deserve respect - but it is 100% a small vocal minority that makes all of this get way more airtime than it actually needs and than the majority want to give it.
Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative
#550It'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…
> Those words can still do real harm to real people
Pretty much anything you can say that has any form of content can do harm to someone. If we want to never ever accidentally hurt someone's feelings, we need to stop talking about:
- Having kids. It's quite painful to those who can't.
- Parents. It's painful to those who don't have any, or have abusive ones.
- War. It's painful to veterans or people who fled war.
- Anything medical. It might hurt someone who's dealing with a medical issue in one way or another.
- Pets. It might be a sensitive subject to someone who just lost a pet.
- Stop asking people how they're doing. It's a sensitive subject to people dealing with burn-out or depression.
Where do we draw the line?
I've been personally affected, many times, by multiple things in my examples above, so please don't say I'm exaggerating with those examples. However, I really don't want to live in a world where we need to watch every word because it might make someone feel bad.
If anything, this type of thinking might even affect people negatively, because it pushes the idea that feelings should be repressed, in stead of dealt with.