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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by foofoo4u »

DerSaidin wrote: post #65

> Instead of: African-American > Consider using: Black Was this previously the other way around?

Calling some groups by a color is OK. Calling other groups by their color, not OK. Capitalization of the color should be used when referring to one group. But for a different group, capitalization is not to be made.

There is no logically consistency.

I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparently this changed in the matter of two years. So not only are we faced with a logical inconsistency, but we are also on a language treadmill. It's creating landmines everywhere in general discourse.

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

#992

Post by foofoo4u »

torginus wrote: post #526

I kind of find it ironic the these 'inclusivity initiatives' are driven by some of the most exclusive instructions in the world, with a long history of murky and nepotistic admissions practices.

From one of the most selective universities in the country. A prestige from the fact that they are one of the most exclusive institutions that exist.

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

#993

Post by dragonwriter »

foofoo4u wrote: post #991
DerSaidin wrote: post #65

> Instead of: African-American > Consider using: Black Was this previously the other way around?

Calling some groups by a color is OK. Calling other groups by their color, not OK. Capitalization of the color should be used when referring to one group. But for a different group, capitalization is not to be made. There is no logically consistency. I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparentl…

> I was raised with the philosophy that calling a person Black was offensive and that I should always use the term African-American. I always respected this. But apparently this changed in the matter of two years

No, it was never right in the first place, it didn’t change in 2 years. Racial labels have always been a matter where there are a variety of strong preferences shaped by different personal experiences.

The actual rule is listen to abd be respectful of your specific audience; being aware of the general discourse and issues (of which, any particular author's preferred terminology alone is the least important bit) is part of doing that for general or new audiences.

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

#994

Post by dTal »

HelloNurse wrote: post #972
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 noticed major failures to put language in context. For example, "whitespace" isn't racist: there are fundamental physical reasons for paper, vellum, papyrus etc. to be approximately white, and there's no reason to think it refers to people.

If so many words assign connotations to "white" and "black", indicating a deeply embedded metaphor, perhaps the solution is simply to stop using such loaded and inaccurate word to refer to skin color? They are trying to boil the ocean to preserve a silly convention that was probably racist to begin with.

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

#995

Post by jjslocum3 »

thomasahle wrote: post #408
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,…

> Indian summer | late summer | This term infers that Indigenous people are chronically late. While it may be innocently used to describe a beautiful time of year, it could have an unintended negative impact on those who hear it. This one was surprising to me. I always assumed Indian summer was about summer in India lasting longer. Apparently it really is about an American phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…

Actually, the way I learned it in probably the '80s was that during the colonial era in the Northeast US, the indigenous peoples (Indians) would resume attacks against frontier colonists during late-autumn thaws (cold weather typically preempted organized war parties).

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

#996

Post by ogogmad »

PopePompus wrote: post #378

I 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".

"Rule of thumb" has just joined blacklist and quantum supremacy.

If she yelled at you, please complain about her.

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

#997

Post by cafed00d »

unethical_ban wrote: post #873
cafed00d wrote: post #841

I clicked on the link thinking: "sigh, another woke propaganda campaign". "Brave", oh wow, and no alternatives either. "Geronimo", ok, I can kinda get behind that one: I mean, we don't want someone using "Gandalf" or "Gandhi" in similar vein, I suppose. "For god & country, gandhi, gandhi, gandhi" would be kinda weird (chuckled softly). "Guru" -- :O -- I have always felt we diminished the weight of this word in the we…

Even if we take some of this list in good faith, this kind of manual is so over-the-top compared to anything in current American society. The cognitive load of constantly having to think about what you are saying in order to avoid microaggressions does more damage to free thought and discourse than any damage it prevents by policing it. And then there are more examples of absolute stupidity than there are legitimate…

> it is a net harm on the discourse

I fundamentally disagree.

>It is a net harm to make people think this way, especially when the penalties for getting it wrong are immediate apologies, lest you be run out of your profession.

I will concede to you that society must de-pressurize the situation to make people not feel like apologies are immediately necessary or job-threatening consequences await for getting it wrong. The existence of this list from Stanford doesn't necessarily make the situation worse.

This list is a starting point. It's an acknowledgement of past mistakes and an attempt to begin reparations. It is laudable.

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

#999

Post by alchemst »

PopePompus wrote: post #378

I 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".

I think you just summarized most of this list and this movement (not all! but most).
Post reply on HN