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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by IceHegel »

fedeb95 wrote: post #740

It's absurd how this people don't know absolutely anything about linguistics. "Men" in menpower doesn't mean "the power of men". It means the power of people. Words can have different meanings when written in different contexts, even more when combined. Go on, downvote, be like the many preachers, iconoclasts and witch burners of the past, see you in ten or maybe a little more years when we can focus again on stuff t…

My sense is this is actually still the majority opinion in men’s hearts. It just doesn’t get said as much because of the mind virus going around.

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

#832

Post by giardini »

antihero wrote: post #628
imgabe wrote: post #555

I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm". This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team. Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injur…

Some of them are deliberate slurs but most of them are just colourful language. This list is 95% absolutely ridiculous and I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice. It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.

I like the list b/c it provides some etymology and is therefore educational. I knew about many but some (e.g., "basket case") were a surprise.

But words change over time and therefore nit-picking by declaring a particular past meaning of a word or phrase as the only meaning is incorrect.

For example "basket case" is common usage and hardly means today what it once may have.

Nonetheless the entire idea of using such a list to censor speech is absurd.

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

#833

Post by smrtinsert »

midasz wrote: post #532

Serious 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…

The outrage expressed in these threads seems pretty unique to techies and certain social groups prone to disliking change.

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

#834

Post by IceHegel »

10000truths wrote: post #38

And so the euphemism treadmill turns. A basic axiom of linguistics is that language evolves to suitably convey what people wish to convey. The “harm” in harmful language lies not in the words themselves, but the intent behind them and the context of their usage.

Would be interesting to see Stanfords list of banned ideas.

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

#837

Post by ur-whale »

Is this for real?

I have a hard time believing someone in their right mind could come up with a list like this unless tongue-in-cheek.

I was considering trying to send my offspring there, I am now entirely reconsidering, don't want them to be subjected to that kind of political brainwashing.

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

#838

Post by throw__away7391 »

antihero wrote: post #628
imgabe wrote: post #555

I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm". This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team. Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injur…

Some of them are deliberate slurs but most of them are just colourful language. This list is 95% absolutely ridiculous and I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice. It’s deeply funny, but also tragic because while there should be an attempt to make language inclusive, lists like this make the movement look like a joke.

> I’m what you’d probably consider a proponent of social justice.

These "purity" movements will eventually come for everybody.

I don't think it is even fair to call what these "far left" people are doing "far left" because they're not actually pushing any new position and if anything are drifting to the right on a number of economic issues that were previously center stage. They are just employing extremist tactics on already broadly accepted positions, and looking for opportunities to edge lord.

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

#839

Post by fleddr »

Chazprime wrote: post #565
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…

> Probably what you should take away from this is not “wokism gone crazy” Perhaps not, but every year this rhetoric grows more and more aggressive - and thanks to social media - is now leaking into our everyday vernacular. At what point do we say “this is enough” rather than hand-waving it away as yet another excess of academia?

It never is enough. There's entire armies of staff now for which this nonsense is their job. Just like a DEI department will always fabricate new types of division. It's their business model.

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

#840

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> I wonder if “trigger warning” has been labeled offensive because those doing the labeling have realized it’s become a joke

No, the discourse about the problematic nature of the “trigger warning” as a flag for advisories of potentially-offensive content and the way it (and some other related terminology adopted around the same time) was grounded in a misapplication of terminology and concepts surrounding PTSD in specific and trauma in general began very shortly after the term began popular and had nothing to do with the insensitive dismissal of what the term is a label for (in fact, it is largely diametrically opposed, which is why that the kind of people who dismiss the need for the concerns about content have embraced the misapplication of “trigger” that it involves for their own attacks.)

Post reply on HN