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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by crest »

photochemsyn wrote: post #349
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It's pretty remarkable that this conflates: - Well-known slurs like "Jewed" - Outdated, now-offensive terms like "hermaphrodite" - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" - Gendered terms that if you're being assiduous you probably want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,…

I can think of a few more! "register" - might indicate that someone has to register as a second-class citizen, enemy alien, etc. "bit" - might imply that someone is only a 'bit player', leading to feelings of inferiority. "tool" - an obviously offensive word meaning that someone is only fit to be used by others. "terminal" - we need to be sensitive about words that bring up the concept of death, to avoid triggering e…

How dare you use such an offensive word as "eliminate"!?!?!? /s

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

#913

Post by blueboo »

Dalewyn wrote: post #345
testfoobar wrote: post #258

They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language: I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bik…

The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control. Becoming able to control someone's thoughts is very, very powerful and sought after, and what are thoughts composed of? Language. Define the language and you define how people think. Define people of latin origin should be referred to by "latinx" and nothing else and congratulations: An entire collection of cu…

More than a dozen replies join a chorus of agreement here.

I wonder if there’s another framing for this. One of the top educational institutions in the world is formalising a communications approach that doesn’t casually evoke, reference, and cause suffering. This dynamic might only be present in a small percentage of their audience—in fact it affects quite a significant majority—but in either case it’s a win worth pursuing on the scale of their operations.

The antidote to the fear and hysteria of change is transparency — and what a marvellous gesture of transparency here, from Stanford. (Remember the Byzantine episode from ICLR?)

Context matters. Each of the guidelines linked here has some. It’s a gift: you can now use that language more precisely.

And he who better controls his own language, better controls his world.

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

#914

Post by montenegrohugo »

Instead of using "manmade", which further promotes male-dominated language, they propose using "hand made".

Isn't hand made ableist? What about the people with no hands? Can't they create things without the usage of hands?

This is a never ending rabbithole of idiocy.

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

#915

Post by justin66 »

dahfizz wrote: post #673

> Instead of 'handicap parking', use 'accessible parking' This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped! This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap'…

The issue here is that a lot of people who need a spot close to the door are not "handicapped." The obvious example would be someone gimping around in an ankle cast. You wouldn't, they wouldn't, and their doctors would not say they are "handicapped." They don't have "handicap" concerns, but they certainly have "accessibility" concerns.

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

#916

Post by diebeforei485 »

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,…

There is no one-word replacement for something being "grandfathered". It's important to consider practicalities here.

Moving away from "slave" was reasonable (Buildbot got rid of it many years ago!), but led us down a very slippery slope.

I'll stick my head out and say "master" is fine actually.

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

#917

Post by gpderetta »

himinlomax wrote: post #664
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,…

> - Touchy metaphorical language like "slave replica" > "submit" ("Depending on the context, the term can imply allowing others to have power over you.") In both those cases, the problem is when it applies to a person, because enslaving someone or having someone submit by force is obviously bad, but there's equally no problem with enslaving a computer or submitting a form, even if you have to force it into a jammed l…

Kill considered harmful. Kill -9 doubly so.

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

#918

Post by BrandoElFollito »

As a non-American I must say that this is as funny as our ridiculous attempts to translate words that everyday uses anyway ("because they are of English")

The difference is that someone using "mail" instead of "courriel" in France goes unnoticed because everyone understands that some orgs in the administration sometimes have to pretend to work.

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

#919

Post by lost953 »

AxEy wrote: post #459
lost953 wrote: post #253

committed suicide -> died by suicide: even in death we are removing their agency.

From what I've heard (and a quick DDG search confirms this) the switch was actually to get away from the fact that killing oneself has actually been a crime (that one "committed") in the past.

I guarantee you that most of those actually affected by suicide care far more about the passivization of their loved one's final act than a tortured etymological concern.

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

#920

Post by ModernMech »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #614
testfoobar wrote: post #258

They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language: I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bik…

> How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful? By refusing to placate emotional cripples and authoritarians. By refusing to accept the false assertion that everyone is innately entitled to respect. Respect is something that is earned. Those who seek to police our language due to imaginary harms that they assert someone may suffer are n…

> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.

Let's put things in perspective. Stanford, on its own website, behind a Stanford login, posted a list of words they want to try to avoid using on their own websites and code. That's it. For this great offense, you suggest:

> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.

Really. To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them. And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level? You suppose they are the authoritarians, though? You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.

Your comment is very dissonant for me, because it seems to be anti-woke, yet pro cancel culture. I feel like this must be evidence for Horseshoe Theory.

Post reply on HN