[HN Gopher] Stanford's "Elimination of Harmful Language" Initiative
___________________________________________________________________
Stanford's "Elimination of Harmful Language" Initiative
Author : ryzvonusef
Score : 119 points
Date : 2022-12-18 17:17 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (itcommunity.stanford.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (itcommunity.stanford.edu)
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Perfectly timed for the festive season classic, the Stoning Scene
| from Monty Python's The Life of Brian:
|
| https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0
| Rayhem wrote:
| Jonathan Haidt's "Two incompatible sacred values in American
| universities"[1] seems particularly relevant here. He argues
| (among other things) that modern universities are undergoing a
| truth/social justice schism, and that attempting to advance both
| inevitably perverts both.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| What happens when the minorities themselves break these rules to
| talk about themselves?
| ryzvonusef wrote:
| Categories include:
|
| Ableist
|
| Ageism
|
| Colonialism
|
| Culturally Appropriative
|
| Gender-Based
|
| Imprecise Language
|
| Institutionalized Racism
|
| Person-First
|
| Violent
|
| Additional Considerations
| fxde wrote:
| > "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative"
|
| I wonder if they keep this title. Fits right in with
|
| > Unneccesary use of violent language
| [deleted]
| Khelavaster wrote:
| Is this initiative being evaluated for inclusivity of people with
| language processing conditions, including autism spectrum
| disorder, to make sure it doesn't cause discriminatory strain on
| these folks?
| tosc wrote:
| papandada wrote:
| Can you explain this a bit more or give an example? I'm curious
| about this.
| Jensson wrote:
| It is like requiring people to jog at the job, and then say
| that being wheelchair bound isn't an excuse to skip the
| jogging exercise. Some people have a much harder time with
| abstractions and words, they have learned the ones on the
| left, remapping all of that to the words on the right is a
| ton of work and maybe some of them will never manage to do
| it.
| blep_ wrote:
| As one of those people, no, probably not. At best, they
| consulted the loudest few autistic p... _people with autism_
| they could find, and decided that represented all of us. (I 'm
| in a couple of other minority groups, it's a common pattern.)
|
| Specifically, I'm the "parse everything hyperliterally unless I
| consciously try not to" type, which means I do not see the
| problem with many of these, and just have to remember a list of
| words I can't use professionally.
|
| Amusingly, most of the list of words I'd always been told I
| couldn't use professionally get used all the fucking time.
| [deleted]
| nfw2 wrote:
| The inclusion of "Hispanic => Latinx" is staggering because:
|
| - The vast majority of Hispanic people don't like "Latinx"
|
| - "Latinx" was invented to avoid gendered words like "Latino",
| and "Hispanic" isn't gendered
|
| - It's listed under "imprecise language", but "Latinx" isn't any
| more precise.
|
| It's so ironic that "colonialism" has now come to mean anything
| progressive academics don't like, but telling a minority group
| what they must call themselves because "we know what's best for
| you" is considered totally fine.
| woooooo wrote:
| The kicker for me is if we want to anglicize Spanish because we
| know better than them... we could just say Latin! It's already
| a word! But it doesn't come with ingroup signaling and so here
| we are..
| el-salvador wrote:
| When you read Latinx in Spanish it reads as "Latin Equis".
|
| "Equis" is a word we use when talking about something or
| someone irrelevant. Like the x in an algebra formula.
|
| https://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=equ.
| ..
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Right?!
|
| Kublai was on this train 700 years ago:
| https://youtu.be/FJUueJzLr54?t=169
| anon223345 wrote:
| I heard a member of the Lantinx community say they hate the
| term Latinx because X literally difficult to say in Spanish
| lol, it's like Latin-ehkess not latin-ex
| el-salvador wrote:
| X is read as "Equis". And Equis is a word some Latin American
| countries used as a synonym for irrelevant/whatever/not
| important.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| We hate it because it's colonialist, patronizing and makes no
| sense within our linguistic roots.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Excuse my ignorance but let me treat this thread as a safe
| space:
|
| should I prefer the use of the term "pendejex" to be gender
| inclusive in Spanish?
| spritefs wrote:
| Also note that Latino is a Spanish word, Latinx is obviously an
| English word. So we have non Latino white people telling
| Latinos to use an English word to refer to themselves
|
| Definitely no colonial undertone to this dynamic whatsoever
| lliamander wrote:
| Worth noting that Latinos are themselves colonizers (well, at
| least of mixed ancestry). Latinx is still stupid and
| condescending, but framing it as colonialism is a bit
| reductive.
| el-salvador wrote:
| In the early 1800s my Latin American country still had
| separate towns for different ethnicities, but today most of
| us are of mixed ancestry.
|
| Does the modern definition of colonizer include mixed
| ancestry descendants too?
| the_third_wave wrote:
| Latinx is not even an English word, it is a made-up word. It
| is not language evolution but an attempt at language
| revolution which fortunately seems to have failed thus far.
| May it keep on failing and may it - and the multitude of
| other attempts - serve as a warning that _Newspeak_ better
| remain in the dystopic novels from which it often seems to
| originate.
| [deleted]
| el-salvador wrote:
| I've seen Latinx used by US universities and Fortune 500
| companies, but not really used by the people I know. It may be
| different in more affluent or academic circles though.
| ajaimk wrote:
| This is starting to become verbal gaslighting: if you don't
| mention it, it doesn't exist.
| tosc wrote:
| 10g1k wrote:
| That's just embarrassing.
| daveslash wrote:
| Many of these look like good guidelines for someone, especially
| one in a position of public communications, to use as
| _guidelines_. Or for some sort of social worker, I can see these
| being some reasonable guidelines to consider.
|
| But I would recoil at the idea of these being hard and fast
| _rules_ considered for everyday speech. And the idea that casual,
| every day speech must be as equitable as possible doesn 't sit
| right with me either. I would push back on any notion that use of
| these words/phrases would necessarily constitute a micro-
| aggression (they may in context, but not universally). For
| example, they have "straight" listed as a word that should be
| replaced by "heterosexual". Okay -- I get how this recommendation
| might make sense in a social worker setting, but the word
| "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression ("the plane flew
| in a straight line").
|
| If you're speaking publicly or on behalf of an organization - be
| careful, considerate, and deliberate with your language. If
| you're having a quick huddle with the 3 or 5 folks on your
| product team about today's activities -- always be considerate,
| but there's a lot more leeway. And hopefully you know the folks
| close to you well enough that there's mutual respect, even if a
| word used might not be ideal.
|
| I think with some comment sense applied, this list is good
| guidance. As something to be applied with draconian enforcement,
| this would be nightmarish.
| Spivak wrote:
| Yeah, this thread is nuts to me how many people in this thread
| are mad. Sure, some of the words are a bit of a stretch but
| while going through the most I was nodding along being like,
| "yeah, makes sense."
|
| Like nobody is gonna string you up not following the guidelines
| but in my own writing I follow these pretty much naturally
| because, yeah, it's kinda weird that we describe things with
| limited or reduced functionality as crippled.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Is it also weird that we describe things that completely
| cease to function as dead?
| Gigachad wrote:
| > but the word "straight" by itself it not a micro-aggression
| ("the plane flew in a straight line").
|
| It's _never_ a "micro aggression" under any context. I think
| I'd slap one of these Stanford wankers if they spoke to me like
| this doc dictates.
| kepler1 wrote:
| I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have
| so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost
| of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture
| wars, just read through the list on that page.
|
| -------
|
| "> _Instead of: Philippine Islands_
|
| > _Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the
| Philippines_
|
| > _Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes
| colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term,
| though_. "
|
| ---------
|
| "> _Instead of: "preferred" pronouns_
|
| > _Consider using: pronouns_
|
| > _Context: The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender
| identity is a choice and a preference_."
|
| ---------
|
| "> _Instead of: Karen_
|
| > _Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman_
|
| > _Context: This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain
| group of people based on their behaviors_. "
|
| (Have we landed in backwards land? So "white" is ok to use here?)
|
| ---------
|
| "> _Instead of: blackbox_
|
| > _Consider using: hidden, mystery box, opaque box, flight
| recorder_
|
| > _Context: Assigns negative connotations to the color black,
| racializing the term_. "
|
| ---------
|
| "> _Instead of: red team_
|
| > _Consider using: cyber offense team_
|
| > _Context: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to
| Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive
| to some groups_."
|
| ---------
|
| "> _Instead of: war room_
|
| > _Consider using: situation room_
|
| > _Context: Unneccesary use of violent language_. "
|
| ----------
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| The black and red examples are silly. I'm white so I get that
| I've not had the lived experience but we might as well make the
| color itself unusable. I have no evidence but I think that this
| is some white person's idea of what is offensive, infantilizing
| everyone involved. But I guess that in lieu of actual policy
| that will help people this will do....(that last line is
| sarcasm)
| lofatdairy wrote:
| >red team
|
| Baffled by this inclusion, never in my life have I made that
| association. I'm also hugely against sports teams naming
| themselves after Native American stereotypes, but here it's
| literally just a color.
|
| >Karen
|
| Totally agree with your points, in what world is white okay to
| use there when they're arguing against "blackbox". Also, Karen
| has a lot more connotations beyond just race, there's a
| class/aspirational class connotation. There's a reason it's not
| "Madelynn". Not saying it's okay, but it's part of a trend in
| this list of not understanding connotation and context, and a
| general lack of thought in their alternatives.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Wow, when I saw this list, I thought it's a parody post. Then I
| went away and read the suggestions...
| macrolime wrote:
| Right, so instead of this: Bob used to think of neural networks
| as black boxes, but now he's working on figuring out how they
| actually work.
|
| We should say: Bob used to think of neural networks as flight
| recorders, but now he's working on figuring out how they
| actually work.
|
| That obviously has the exact same meaning /s
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| ">Instead of: Philippine Islands
|
| >Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines
|
| >Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes
| colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the
| term, though."
|
| First of all, they're using "denotes" to mean "connotes", so we
| shouldn't expect a subtle understanding of English.
|
| But second, what "Philippine Islands" does is center geography
| instead of nationhood or identity. What it _connotes_ is that
| political boundaries are historically-contingent. Similarly,
| the "British isles" will always be there, barring geological
| catastrophe, regardless of whether the United Kingdom ceases to
| exist, say because Scotland and Wales secede.
|
| If you want to work hard at it, you _could_ make an argument
| that geography-centering language is "colonialist", because,
| precisely _by_ revealing that borders are contingent, it might
| suggest that some more powerful actor, an Empire, might reshape
| them arbitrarily. However, it _also_ undermines nationalism,
| and many people would consider that to be a good thing. For
| example, it 's a key sentiment behind liberal immigration
| policies.
| snakeboy wrote:
| >>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman
|
| It's insane that this is one of the most explicitly racist
| examples and it's in the "Consider using" column...
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Welcome to Clown World
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| > "A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out
| to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded.
| He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's
| just how the world will come to an end: to general applause
| from wits who believe it's a joke." - Kierkegaard
| illuminerdy wrote:
| I will make it a point to use all of the "harmful language" in
| that article as much as possible from now on.
|
| I will not blindly follow these nonsensical rules. They're so
| lame. I may start a fatwa against them. I will only bury the
| hatchet if they agree to scrap these rules and never speak of
| them again.
|
| Also, I'd like to visit the Philippine Islands someday soon.
| mkl95 wrote:
| Some people have too many resources and free time on their hands.
| 323 wrote:
| You are assuming things about the lived experiences of other
| people. That is harmful.
| madsbuch wrote:
| this is great.
|
| homogenising all communication and making strict formal
| guidelines makes it much easier to make a competing platform that
| scales.
|
| Stanford is doing the transition from a learning platform based
| in identity to one based I scalability.
|
| My guess, however, is that it is to their detriment.
| Khaine wrote:
| This is just demonstrating American's need for euphemisms as
| pointed out by George Carlin
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0
| anodari wrote:
| > "User" consider using "client". While often associated with one
| who uses (software, systems, services), it can also negatively be
| associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues or
| those who exploit others for their own gain.
| kgeist wrote:
| >client. Short for client state
|
| >client state. A state that is economically, politically and/or
| militarily dependent on another, more powerful state
|
| I think "client" falls under their colonialism category and
| should be avoided as well. "Customer" then?
| chmod775 wrote:
| > "Customer" then?
|
| No. Albeit obsolete, that used to be slang for "lewd woman"
| or... _consults table_ "person who engages in sex work".
|
| How about "human"?
| peanutcrisis wrote:
| Relevant comedy sketch from the past:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKkb0qXbyUY
| Animats wrote:
| _" Do you have a term you'd like added to the list? Please fill
| out our suggestion form."_
|
| I wonder how many people Stanford has working on this. Much of
| this is disconnection from reality. Something an educational
| institution should not be pushing. As an alum, I'm embarrassed.
| [deleted]
| boredumb wrote:
| This is absolute insanity - I do not mean surprising/wild, I mean
| the people/organizations who have curated this page of random
| innocuous words and contexts have completely lost touch with
| reality and should be relieved of any serious positions in higher
| learning.
|
| You can't use the word brave anymore? What in the hell is going
| on with academics?
| ryanfreeborn wrote:
| > Brave | do not use | This term perpetuates the stereotype of
| the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as
| being less than a man.
|
| Should we get rid of bravo then as well? I assume people making
| these lists have good intentions, but efforts like this really
| get lost in the sauce. They are effectively parodying themselves.
| yarg wrote:
| Died by suicide?
|
| Suicide is a self-inflicted act; committed suicide is correct -
| and I say this as a man living on the edge.
|
| To diminish that is to refuse to accept the underlying cause,
| which is a bad fucking way to stop it from happening again (or at
| least to someone else).
|
| This whole damned list is retarded.
|
| Most of the elements aren't even accurate; they're euphemisms.
|
| Someone with OCD isn't 'detail-oriented' they're detail obsessed.
|
| > walk-in: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of
| people living with disabilities.
|
| Come on. Seriously? Anyone who is offended by that is offended
| for a hobby.
| yarg wrote:
| Also:
|
| > ballsy: Attributes personality traits to anatomy.
|
| The balls literally produce testosterone, which literally
| increases risk taking behaviour.
|
| I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
| kgwgk wrote:
| What about using "brainy" or referring to functioning brains
| at all? It perpetuates the myth that anencephaly is abnormal
| or negative.
| too-real-4-u wrote:
| Worse: you are taking "non-confrontational" pills like many
| of your peers. The insanity is real, that no one confronts
| and tries to stymie the madness is the true disease.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| remarkEon wrote:
| >Content Warning: This website contains language that is
| offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own
| pace.
|
| From an anthropological perspective, it's fascinating how the
| weakest and most sensitive people possible are now the ones in
| charge of policing language. Talib was right about this, on a
| long enough timeline most things do become a dictatorship of the
| small minority.
|
| https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
| archagon wrote:
| What makes you think they are weak?
| [deleted]
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I'm not the above commenter, but it's very surprising to me
| that people can undergo such serious harm just from _reading_
| phrases like "trigger warning" or "tarball"...
|
| Or even the existence of languages with gendered nouns. Why
| are we coddling xenophobes who are afraid of Spanish grammar
| rules? IMO that's not a fear that is healthy or rational.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| So let's get rid of the word "black", as it means scorched
| (blakeren). Very harmful.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Are humans no longer capable of recognizing context? How is "he
| mastered the material in the lecture" invoking centuries of
| internalized slavery and causing harm in the process?
| handlr wrote:
| I think this is the crux of the issue. Modern media makes an
| art of decontextualization, to the point where most of us
| experience the world as a series of disconnected narratives
| emerging from the ether only to dissipate just as quickly as
| they come. In this milieu the quixotic and paradoxical attempt
| to perfect language in the service of justice seems like a
| reasonable, plausible, and achievable goal.
| throwawayfear wrote:
| It's not. What we are witnessing is the last gasp of an
| unproductive class of hall monitors and moral busybodies trying
| to control everyone else and appear productive and enlightened
| while doing it.
| jarbus wrote:
| Another reason to not go into academia. Really surprised at how
| far reaching these things are, they really tried to think of as
| many things as possible despite almost nobody complaining. Like
| "tarball". Really? Double plus ungood, stanford.
| pschuegr wrote:
| I would dearly love to see this list correlated with the
| percentage of the offended demographic who agree that it is
| harmful.
| coeneedell wrote:
| Reading through the suggestions a lot seem out of date, ignorant
| of the actual experience of people, and insufficiently justifies
| the change. It's true that many of these things have been
| accepted by peer institutions but that was long ago (some of
| these suggestions track to the 1950s and have little to no
| salience in 2022).
| Mizza wrote:
| If somebody is demanding you to say "property owner" rather than
| "landlord", that person is your enemy.
| rendall wrote:
| _One mustn 't use the term "busy body" because it is ableist.
| Some people do not have bodies, but are ghosts floating upon the
| ether. Also, it is too often applied to us here in the Department
| of Thumb Twiddling and it hurts our feelings. Instead use the
| term "insufferable twatwaffle"._
| chmod775 wrote:
| I can get behind some of these, because it's always been common
| sense not use them, but it feels like they're just mixed in there
| to lend legitimacy to the nonsense next to them.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > on the warpath - mad, on the offensive
|
| So "sanity", "crazy" and "handicapped" are offensive language,
| but "mad" is a preferred alternative for something else?
|
| > victim - person who has experienced..., person who has been
| impacted by...
|
| Person who has been impacted by murder? Many of those suggestions
| are so verbose and impersonal.
|
| Those alternatives would just become the new slurs, just like
| people are called Karen nowadays this list would make people call
| others "boring" instead of retard. And then we have one problem
| more: how do you then call something boring without sounding
| offensive? I find this list very unenlightened.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > to call a spade a spade/ calling a spade a spade
|
| > to call something what it is / calling something what it is
|
| > Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the
| subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that
| the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.
|
| I have no idea what this is referring to.
|
| .
|
| > white paper
|
| > position paper
|
| > Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an
| act which is subconsciously racialized.
|
| Whitepapers are considered good now? I thought they were vendor
| marketing material.
|
| .
|
| > whitespace
|
| > empty space
|
| > Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an
| act which is subconsciously racialized.
|
| If they'd said it discriminates against dark-mode users they
| might almost have a point.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| "Spade" has been used as a derogatory term for blacks.
|
| "White space" is treating white as _good_? You 're replacing
| white with "empty", no content, meaningless, and you think
| white is being used to indicate good? Nope. You (Stanford, not
| the parent) just took a list of phrases and grepped for
| "white", but didn't actually _think_.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I would consider use of whitespace as negative to white. As it
| is useless space that is wasteful...
| nomel wrote:
| If you think white space is useless, try reading a document
| without any.
| humanistbot wrote:
| Note that this is a voluntary resource guide of recommendations
| and suggestions.
| 323 wrote:
| The document is called _Elimination_ of Harmful Language
| Initiative.
|
| By the way, I find the word "Elimination" very violent. It
| should have a non-harmful alternative.
| KurvaKing wrote:
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| It's voluntary _now_ , but this is something meant to establish
| a precedent. The mindset that produced this initiative actively
| wants this to become the new standard.
|
| Those that think the language needs to be changed in order to
| prevent harm are not going to be content with these suggestions
| merely being optional. Activists will push for this to become a
| new criterion for proper writing, probably on the same level as
| style guides.
| humanistbot wrote:
| So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary
| guidelines?
|
| There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.
| If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an
| easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Why did they even waste the resources on creating this? I'd
| be upset if my tuition was going to pay for people to waste
| time making things like this.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| >"So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary
| guidelines?"
|
| Censorship, no. But I'll be upfront and say that I think
| the vast majority of the suggestions in this guide are
| unjustified, unnecessary, and serve to provide a chilling
| effect on how people are allowed to speak about the world.
| I do believe the ultimate goal is not just to police
| language, but to police how people think. A cursory look at
| the rationale behind each suggestion supports this.
|
| Therefore, I hope likeminded people speak out about how
| this guide should not be followed. And that people
| vociferously oppose that this document be referenced in any
| official guidelines.
|
| Just as there is no legal requirement to write using
| Chicago or AP style, they have become de facto
| requirements. So I worry that just having it be "voluntary"
| will lead to academics pushing it as a soft requirement
| that eventually becomes a hard one that is voluntary in
| name only.
| bitwize wrote:
| This guide is voluntary and members of the Stanford community
| are encouraged to use whatever terminology is appropriate in
| a given context. However, habitual use of noninclusive
| language is potentially a microaggression and may be grounds
| for disciplinary action, depending on the findings of the
| Ethics Committee.
| not_the_fda wrote:
| Voluntary for now. some HR department will pick up on it and
| institute it as mandatory. I have a bet with my spouse on if I
| will retire first or be fired by the language police.
| steve76 wrote:
| csande17 wrote:
| Have I misread the first couple paragraphs of the site? It
| looks like it's a mandatory language-change initiative at
| Stanford (or, at least, mandatory within the IT department)
| that they're publishing in case anyone else wants to use it.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| There would be less emphasis on symbolic politics, such as this
| project, if we could make material progress on social inequity.
| It does not cost any money to change language. It would be
| difficult and costly to seriously reinvest in people who have
| been left behind.
|
| For example, if it was politically possible guarantee schools in
| poor neighbourhoods were funded just as well as schools in
| wealthy neighbourhoods, do you people would organize around
| education equality, or would they organize to change language?
|
| Also the website doesn't work in Firefox.
| dantheman wrote:
| The problem with schools in poor neighborhoods has nothing to
| do with funding. You can see charter schools in the same
| neighborhood which get less funding radically outperform.
| blep_ wrote:
| > You can see charter schools in the same neighborhood which
| get less funding radically outperform.
|
| Per student, or total? Legitimately asking, because this is
| surprising to me.
| Gigachad wrote:
| High performing schools usually achieve their results by
| kicking out the idiots and disrupters. Not only does this
| obviously boost averages by removing the bottom results,
| but everyone else is able to learn better by having
| disruptions removed.
|
| Of course then some public school has to be the one to
| attempt to educate these people.
| oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
| Some are obvious and others surprising to me, but I'm very glad
| they mention the way "American" is used in the US. It always
| ticked me off but I never felt like I could mention it due to how
| widespread it is. Now I have somewhere to point to if I want to
| bring it up, kind of like how French people can point to the
| DGLFLF if someone uses the term negre nowadays.
| richbell wrote:
| > How could two whole continents
|
| > Lose their name to one constituent
|
| > Where were we when the U.S. went
|
| > And took the word American away
|
| > But to be fair to them
|
| > Their other name options
|
| > Like U.S.A.ers and United Statesians
|
| > Were pretty bad
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7iqSMy4CzE
| bentley wrote:
| Why does it tick you off?
|
| It seems to me like a simple cultural/language difference
| related to how we count the continents. In the Anglosphere (not
| just the USA) children are brought up thinking of seven
| continents, including North and South America, while in
| Spanish-speaking countries they think of six, including simply
| America. Neither is really right or wrong, because there's no
| formal definition of what a continent is--it's merely
| convention. (Some people consider Eurasia a single continent,
| some people don't consider Antarctica a continent...)
|
| Because of this difference in convention, the word "America" in
| Spanish is more accurately translated to English as "the
| Americas" than "America."
|
| Is this actually a problem that needs fixing in English? Is it
| a problem at all? Are there any Canadians out there offended at
| not being called Americans despite making up a major part of
| [North] America?
|
| The suggested alternative of using "United States" to refer to
| America-the-country overlooks that there is another country
| (even another North American country!) with that name: Estados
| Unidos Mexicanos.
| [deleted]
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Remember, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was also just trying to
| signal and climb a hierarchy of virtue...
| umanwizard wrote:
| "You guys" is the plural form of "you" for most speakers of
| colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an
| _empirical_ sense: if you observe native speakers speaking
| naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses
| it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups
| of multiple people (regardless of gender).
|
| It's derived from the noun "guy", which is indeed often gendered.
| But etymology doesn't determine meaning. Otherwise we would have
| to conclude that "woman" is male-gendered because it
| etymologically derives from "man".
|
| Making "you guys" taboo seems to be a cultural phenomenon
| specific to certain industries. I've asked several of my friends,
| and never encountered one outside of tech or academia who thought
| "you guys" was problematic at all. In fact, the vast majority had
| never even heard of the issue or imagined that it could be
| controversial.
| JimTheMan wrote:
| I was thinking about this the other day.
|
| You can approach a group of women and say " hey guys", that is
| fine.
|
| To a group of men," hey gals", and that is not fine.
|
| "Hey guys" to a mixed group, why... You've now 'elevated' the
| women to men so everyone is ok with it.
|
| It all implies that being a woman is somehow lesser. And so
| that is why I'm going to stick to everyone or folks.
|
| Although I don't begrudge or ask anyone to change.
| superb-owl wrote:
| I'm going to take the minority position here (no pun intended),
| and say that I think these initiatives are in fact helpful and
| important.
|
| I recently joined an engineering team where there's a cultural
| norm of not using the word "guys" to address a group. When I
| first heard this, I kinda rolled my eyes but got on board.
|
| It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that word
| out of my vocabulary, but it's had a tangible effect on my
| mentality. It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-
| Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
|
| Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of the
| most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and
| correcting both logical and social biases.
| bentley wrote:
| > it's had a tangible effect on my mentality.
|
| What tangible effects did it have on your mentality?
| peanutcrisis wrote:
| Makes you feel good about "doing good", without actually
| doing good.
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| I'm not OP, but it spurred me to find a better job, which was
| pretty tangible.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > It took a tremendous amount of mental effort to weed that
| word out of my vocabulary, but it's had a tangible effect on my
| mentality. It has completely reaffirmed my belief in the Sapir-
| Whorf hypothesis--our language influences how we think.
|
| this requires elaboration because without further context it is
| impossible to understand what demonstrable benefits you have
| achieved by altering your language use thusly, aside from
| getting along with your team better, due to your compliance
| with their language-use mandate.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| >Intentionally changing the words and phrases we use is one of
| the most powerful tools we have for changing our behavior, and
| correcting both logical and social biases.
|
| If what you're saying is true, that also has the implication
| that manipulating language at a societal scale is a great way
| to manipulate society into thinking the way you want. Is that
| really what we want? To have a minority manipulate our language
| in order to influence our thoughts?
| steve76 wrote:
| jointpdf wrote:
| I'm not addicted to weed--I am a person devoted to the
| utilization of products containing THC.
| pannSun wrote:
| > Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review".
| Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow
| abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
|
| But.. disability _is_ abnormal and negative? How tortured of a
| definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal?
| And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say,
| $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery,
| they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative - a greater
| negative than missing out on $100,000. In fact I suspect most
| people wouldn't accept that offer even if it had many more zeros.
|
| But still we must pretend?
|
| > Instead of "committed suicide", consider using "died by
| suicide". Context: Ableist language that trivializes the
| experiences of people living with mental health conditions.
|
| And with this they tip their hand. The mental contortions
| required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes
| something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I
| cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. That leaves as
| the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest
| effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and
| prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| "blind review" is good - better than "non-blind review". So in
| some sense they are eliminating phrases where "blind" is used
| in a positive light.
| kgwgk wrote:
| "Blind review" has blind once but view twice. Ableist!
| benj111 wrote:
| But why is 'abnormal' always treated as a negative?
|
| This is one thing I don't get about modern woke politics. We
| are supposed to be accepting of each other, but need to ignore
| the things we are supposed to accept.
|
| People are different, people are abnormal, why can't that be
| celebrated?
| jlebar wrote:
| > The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed
| suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't,
| are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that
| opinion.
|
| I think the notion is that "committed suicide" is like
| "committed a crime" and harkens back to the Christian notion
| that suicide _is_ a crime (against God). And so it 's
| moralizing language that blames the person for killing
| themselves.
|
| You can verify that this is a common notion among people who
| work in the field by Googling. For example, the first hit when
| I search for "why shouldn't we say committed suicide" is
| https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-mat...
| which says:
|
| > For example, the phrase "committed suicide" is frowned on
| because it harks back to an era when suicide was considered a
| sin or a crime. Think about the times when we use the word
| "commit": "commit adultery" or "commit murder."
|
| > That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document
| is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field,
| a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against
| opponents.
|
| It's interesting that you arrived at this conclusion before
| doing a minimal amount of research!
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| One has to be fully committed to the act of ending their life
| in order to commit suicide.
| pannSun wrote:
| > Committed to a cause, lives up to one's commitments,
| committed a patch, etc.
|
| It's so easy. Almost every word has positive and negative
| connotations. Find such a word in your opponent's vocabulary,
| claim they intended the negative connotations, and thus
| declare him a sinner. Reference this Stanford document to
| support your accusation.
| sicp-enjoyer wrote:
| If you want to take a Christian perspective, the word
| "commit" is used to emphasize that the individual took
| specific action as opposed to "omit" meaning they failed to
| take proper action to prevent evil.
|
| "Died by suicide" implies passivity. It just happened to
| them.
| khazhoux wrote:
| > "Died by suicide" implies passivity. It just happened to
| them.
|
| Like "Officer involved shootings."
| sicp-enjoyer wrote:
| Exactly.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I always knew GitHub was a place full of sin I just couldn't
| figure out where these feelings were coming from.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I'm committed to my partner. She's evil, I knew it.
| csande17 wrote:
| I say we should form a commission to investigate this
| further.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| The commission might find that I'm mostly at fault so I
| might have to walk back my original claim.
| [deleted]
| zbrozek wrote:
| It's the same thing as replacing "homeless" with "experiencing
| homelessness". It's not saying anything different, but
| communication efficacy isn't the point.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Right, these guys are really going balls to the wall with
| this insanity.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Which ironically has nothing to do with human anatomy, but
| nobody bothered doing the research:
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
| throw0101c wrote:
| And "balls-out" refers to locomotive centrifugal
| governor:
|
| * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I think that's different. It's nice to not have shitty
| circumstance be your identity.
|
| I've got a friend who was recently homeless. Thinking of him
| as a "homeless person" isn't really so helpful.
|
| That said, I think developing a thick skin should be a
| curricular objective for all people.
| benj111 wrote:
| Am I depressed, or do I have depression?
|
| I don't think either is any more an identity than the
| other.
|
| And I'd rather people engage with the problem, rather than
| virtue signaling by using the 'correct' terminology,
| whatever that is this week.
| yucky wrote:
| Exactly this. I've been homeless twice (once as a kid and
| once as a young adult). I don't speak about it often, but
| when I do that is the language I use. There is no need to
| sugar coat it, and call it something else. People are too
| coddled and it is likely why so many now have trouble
| handling any adversity at all.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| And also replace "sex" with "horizontal jogging" I guess. Ah
| the page is full of YPM references...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| That still exhibits ableist bias. Off to PC detention for
| you.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| When people use long winded euphemistic language directed at
| me I feel condescended to in direct proportion to the extra
| syllables used. The fact somebody is spending energy talking
| in awkward ways only to me reminds me of the fact that I'm in
| the class of people that are talked euphemistically about. So
| I've never understood what the point of such language
| actually was.
| Gigachad wrote:
| To fit the style of the OP link I think you should be saying
| "person who is without housing"
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| The "involuntarily unhoused"?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| You can either care about how blind people feel through your
| usage of language or not care.
|
| You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
|
| Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by
| research thar asked more blind people than you have? Once you
| accept thar you can then decide on whether you care or not and
| act accordingly.
|
| All political correctness boils down to is politeness and not
| upsetting other people. If you don't care how they feel, crack
| on with this sort of rage posting.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > All political correctness boils down to is politeness and
| not upsetting other people.
|
| > If you don't care how they feel, crack on with this sort of
| rage posting.
|
| Your post may be politically correct, but it is not polite.
| In fact you come off as quite rude compared to the person you
| are replying to.
|
| > You don't get to say they should not feel that way.
|
| If GP were to say how they _should_ feel, _clearly_ they
| would be caring how they feel. Also, why not? People discuss
| how one should feel in a particular situations quite often.
| In fact the page being discussed here seems to concern itself
| a great deal with what should upset people, even though most
| of the groups on whose behalf it appears to be judging what
| is offensive to them could have probably pointed these things
| out themselves - and I 'm not sure everyone appreciates being
| paternalized this way (see "Latinx").
| pannSun wrote:
| > Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by
| research that asked more blind people than you have?
|
| Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term
| that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted.
|
| > You can either care about how blind people feel through
| your usage of language or not care.
|
| I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth,
| or I can prioritize the _asserted_ feelings of the loudest
| complainers.
|
| And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is
| a _positive_ , not a negative! A blind review is objectively
| better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and,
| correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in
| academia, so it is also _normal_ instead of abnormal). We
| have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is
| insincere.
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-
| one-in...
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| I'm legally blind myself and TBH I don't see how this
| politically correct language is useful. My daily experience
| tells me that having a disability is indeed abnormal and a
| negative so attempting to sweep that under the rug by cute
| word games is kind of condescending and offensive itself.
| pannSun wrote:
| Oh it's useful - it's just that the stated purpose doesn't
| match the intended purpose.
| jlebar wrote:
| > But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a
| definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal?
| And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say,
| $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding
| surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative
|
| As you can verify with some Googling, there are many Deaf
| people who choose not to undergo surgery to gain the ability to
| hear. (This isn't a universal preference by any means, but it's
| also not fringe.)
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| What's the ratio of deaf people who choose to get cochlear
| implants or similar vs hearing people who choose to
| intentionally deafen themselves?
| jlebar wrote:
| The entire point of this linguistic exercise is that _your_
| opinion that you would not give up your ability to hear is
| no more or less valid than someone 's opinion to the
| contrary.
| nomel wrote:
| I think his question is asking for objective evidence
| that would suggest either.
| retrac wrote:
| It's also complicated by cultural factors. The culturally
| deaf (often written "Deaf") have their own culture -- sign
| language is a complete and distinct language, there are norms
| and practices unique to the culture. Acquiring the ability to
| hear is also the ability to, in effect, leave that culture
| and acquire the mainstream culture. Many Deaf people do not,
| in fact, view themselves as disabled or impaired.
| Particularly those who grew up mostly around Deaf people and
| who have an entirely Deaf experience in life. Everyone around
| them seems fine, they have their own distinct culture, etc.
|
| As a consequence, getting an implant as an adult, or allowing
| your deaf newborn to be implanted, touches issues of social
| status and identity and politics within the Deaf community.
|
| It doesn't take long for a culturally Deaf person to do a
| little thought experiment. What if the hearing can one day
| "solve" deafness in say 98% of children at birth? The
| cultural Deaf community may well face extinction under those
| circumstances. There would be no more children learning sign
| language as their native language, the chain of cultural
| transmission from deaf parent to deaf child would be broken.
| It is quite literally the end of their distinct culture and
| way of life, which they do not view as impaired or lesser.
|
| You can even take this argument a step further. If mainstream
| society starts pushing and not simply offering cochlear
| implants to deaf children -- such as by creating a narrative
| that the Deaf are lesser or impaired in some way -- then that
| may well constitute a form of cultural genocide, taking the
| children of a particular culture judged as less or inferior,
| mutilating them, and forcing them to be raised in a different
| culture.
|
| I'm not particularly convinced by the more extreme form of
| the argument, but it has been made, and the argument as a
| whole in all its various forms, I don't think can be fully
| dismissed easily. There is a point there.
| Gartent wrote:
| >Pushing cochlear implants is like genocide on deaf people.
|
| If this is serious, I've now read the dumbest thing I may
| ever read in my life. People who've been traumatized by
| rape affirm their lives as rape survivors. Yet, we don't
| consider preventing rape an attempt at cultural genocide of
| the rape survivor culture and community. Likewise, combat
| veterans have their own culture and community. We don't
| consider preventing war as cultural genocide of veterans.
|
| Call it culture if you'd like, it arises from being injured
| in some way, or not having an ability. Restoring this
| ability and preventing the injury is an absolutely good
| thing. Reframing the community of the disenfranchised as a
| 'culture' so you can call this benefit 'cultural genocide'
| is nonsense semantics. Deaf 'culture' dying is as good as
| people being born with functional hearing.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| Article from 2020:
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-
| oppo...
|
| Article from 2017: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/will-
| curing-the-deaf-lead-to...
| retrac wrote:
| It is serious. I think it's an argument that has enough
| internal sense and structure that it can't just be called
| a stupid argument and tossed out.
|
| I'm here to explore the ideas around this, not trash nor
| proselytize any particular idea for the sake of it. You
| won't get very far by starting with comparing deafness to
| having been raped or having your leg blown off. Rape
| survivors are not a distinct cultural group.
|
| Take deafness and ability entirely out of the equation
| for now.
|
| People who speak sign language as a native language are a
| distinct cultural group with a long and separate heritage
| from the hearing world. For example, American Sign
| Language is related to French Sign Language and the
| speakers of each can understand each other somewhat.
| While British Sign Language is totally different and
| American and British deaf people can't even easily speak
| to each other in sign, only in writing. There's a whole
| cultural world there, as vibrant and functional as
| hearing ones.
|
| They get along fairly well. People born deaf and raised
| in a deaf community generally have better outcomes
| socially and economically compared to deaf people raised
| in isolation in hearing culture. Yes, they cannot hear,
| but _they don 't feel they're missing anything_ and,
| functionally speaking, they'd survive on their own just
| fine without hearing.
|
| I was born quite hard of hearing, and I am going deaf as
| I get older. I was raised hearing. Bitterly ironically,
| I'm musically talented and it is one of my great
| pleasures. I am also linguistically talented,
| particularly with phonetics. (Taught myself in my teens
| to improve my speech and it became a fascination.) And
| yet I am losing the capacity to sense those things.
|
| Trust me. I get it. I get it very well. The deaf have no
| idea what they're missing.
|
| And yet Deaf culture is a precious thing that also
| deserves to exist.
|
| It is an impasse and a seeming paradox and I don't have
| an answer. Raise every child hearing and allowing sign
| and the culture to die out is undesirable just as people
| who could hear music and speech being unable to hear them
| is.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old, you
| won't be able to understand language - even if you _can_ hear
| later in life. So it is possible that you are reading stories
| of people who decide not to get the surgery because they know
| they won 't get full function.
| crdrost wrote:
| You are simply wrong about this, that is not the cultural
| attitude that generates this response in something like
| 95%+ of cases.
|
| Capital-D Deaf culture does not as a rule view their lack
| of hearing as a horrible wrong that needs to be corrected
| for them to live a "normal" life. They believe that they
| are living a normal life, and screw you for suggesting
| otherwise, and many would tell you that they do not want to
| speak your inferior language anyways, because it is broadly
| technically inferior due to its inherent one-
| dimensionality: you describe things with a scalar pressure
| varying with time only, their language describes things
| with motions in three dimensions of space as well as in
| time.
|
| This means that in the 95% case, the dominant attitude is
| not "I'm afraid," it's "those folks are assholes half the
| time, why would I want to join them if I don't have to?".
| It's a cultural objection rather than a physiological one.
| MrJohz wrote:
| > I'll point out that if you can't hear by ~11 years old,
| you won't be able to understand language
|
| I don't know the specifics of this claim, so I won't talk
| about the argument that I assume you're trying to make.
| However, the argument you're actually making here is
| completely untrue. Almost all deaf people understand and
| can communicate through language. In fact, if you put a
| group of deaf people together for long enough, they may
| well spontaneously generate a language. Sign languages are
| real languages with almost all of the features of spoken
| languages (and with additional features of their own). The
| idea that someone can only understand "language" if they
| are and to hear is completely wrong.
|
| I assume what you're trying to say is that if you can't
| hear by this age, you will not be able to decipher sounds
| into language - I have no idea if this is the case. But
| this is an important semantic distinction (understanding
| language versus understanding language from sounds alone),
| and the fact that you seem to have inadvertently confused
| them seems relevant to the issue at hand: it is very easy
| for us to accept spoken language as a universal standard,
| when in practice, spoken language is just one (more common)
| variant of many different forms of language.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| But music though
| crdrost wrote:
| Deaf people dance to music all the time.
| Gartent wrote:
| Being deaf is an inherently negative aspect. You either have
| the ability to hear, or you do not. If you do not, it is a
| dis-ability. No one wants to lose an ability to do something.
|
| Someone who lives an extensive period of time without an
| ability may have learned how to live without this ability.
| They learn to cope and affirm their life with its faults in
| their current state. Offering the ability they lost and have
| learned to live without may be declined because of the
| affirmation of their life as it is. It could be declined
| because the transition is uncomfortable as well. Either way,
| being deaf is still negative, they've just psychologically
| coped well.
|
| If you had the choice, would you choose that your child be
| deaf or not? That you be deaf or not? If one isn't deaf,
| would they choose to become deaf or not? This entire argument
| results from academic nonsense that anyone outside that
| context can see through.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| > Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review".
| Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow
| abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
|
| Such recommendations reflect the authors own prejudices.
|
| Some forms of blinding like "Blind auditions" are literal and
| are largely indistinguishable from how blind people normally
| conduct auditions. "Blindness" is a symbol of justice and
| fairness and non-prejudice.
|
| Blindness is also one of the easiest disabilities to achieve,
| temporarily or permanently. If blindness is at least neutral
| state of being, nothing stops one from wandering about with a
| blindfold. Somebody who fails to do so while talking about how
| blindness isn't a negative is insincere and all talk.
| flandish wrote:
| Also "anonymous" does not mean the same enough to replace
| "blind" - anon could mean "giver of test does not know
| subjects" or "subjects do not know what they are testing".
| zzo38computer wrote:
| I fail to see how "blind review" "perpetuates that disability
| is somehow abnormal or negative". I understand how disability
| "is abnormal and negative", and that makes sense; although in
| many contexts is better to be specific and use a neutral point
| of view. (Someone wrote "normal" (and "natural") is a bad word,
| and I can see, it is compared to something which is allegedly
| "normal" and "abnormal", though.) (However, some people if they
| are already blind, might not care anymore if they can see, and
| might be able to compensate for blindness, if they are used to
| being blind, opposed to someone who is temporarily blinded.)
|
| However, it still makes more sense to use "anonymous review"
| instead of "blind review", because the reviewer is not
| necessarily unable to see the review (or the document being
| reviewed), although it is anonymous, so "anonymous review"
| makes sense, and is better descriptive.
|
| There are many problems with this list, although some of the
| things mentioned are sensible, at least in some contexts (the
| suggested alternatives are not always appropriate).
| benj111 wrote:
| Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view something
| implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be done by a blind
| person.
|
| And anonymous could be seen as being disrespectful to
| unidentified bodies.
|
| This is the problem, once you go down the route of banning
| words that could possibly be problematic, then where do you
| stop, because any word can be problematic.
|
| The list suggests hooked instead of addicted, which to me
| still has the same connotations, so even the author can't
| avoid all problematic words.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| > Isn't review itself problematic though? To re view
| something implies it needs to be viewed, which can't be
| done by a blind person.
|
| In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be a
| contradiction, isn't it?
|
| > This is the problem, once you go down the route of
| banning words that could possibly be problematic, then
| where do you stop, because any word can be problematic.
|
| Of course, you are right.
|
| But to me, my intention isn't about being disrespectful or
| not, but rather, to be clear and accurate.
| benj111 wrote:
| >In that case, it would seem that "blind review" would be
| a contradiction, isn't it?
|
| Yes I suppose it is. But that's just more evidence that
| we shouldn't take parts of a phrase and start
| interpreting them out of context.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Blind here means unseeing, not even negative or positive.
| hulitu wrote:
| It's just normal newspeak.
|
| And some people still consider that Orwell wrote fiction.
| tiahura wrote:
| Is it time for our two minutes of Musk hate?
| throwawayfear wrote:
| The people pushing these language initiatives are the obnoxious
| and worthless hall-monitor types no one likes to work or speak
| with. The ones who never do anything productive in the
| organization they find themselves in because they're too busy
| trying to mount moral crusades.
|
| We'll see less of this as shops and institutions find the need
| to focus on ROI, products, innovation, and shareholders once
| again now that the fairytale of free money and unlimited free
| labor is expiring. The people who do the actual work to build
| and teach and innovate at the periphery of their chosen
| industry will devour the hall monitors.
| jwalton wrote:
| > But.. disability is abnormal and negative?
|
| Even if we were to accept that disabilities were not negative,
| a blind review is a good thing - it's a review that's more fair
| than a non-blind review. So if there's nothing wrong with being
| blind, why would you want to stop people from using the term
| "blind" to describe a blind review? How does calling it a blind
| review imply that being blind is negative?
| jnovek wrote:
| I'm disabled.
|
| I have mixed feelings about the things in this list. E.g. part
| of my disability experience involves my mental health and, when
| you're talking about me, anyway, I don't mind the term
| "mentally ill".
|
| On the other hand, it sort of irritates me when people who are
| well describe others as "crazy".
|
| Regarding your comment on disability being "abnormal and
| negative", though, I have to disagree. I would not have
| survived the last few years if I had characterized my
| impairments as being abnormal and negative.
|
| There's an approach out there called the "social model" of
| disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither
| good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is how
| the impairment changes interaction with society. It's worth
| reading at least the introduction on the Wikipedia page, so
| I'll link it.
|
| Happy to answer any questions if you have 'em!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability
|
| Edit: To be clear, I'm just thinking about the list of words,
| not any sort of policy about what one can and can't say. That's
| a whole other can of worms!
| pannSun wrote:
| > I would not have survived the last few years if I had
| characterized my impairments as being abnormal and negative.
| [..] Happy to answer any questions if you have 'em!
|
| Why not? I have several traits I consider abnormal, and some
| I consider negative (i.e. _unlike_ the merely abnormal ones,
| I wish to overcome them. And some cannot be overcome but are
| very normal - e.g. mortality.) - why should that
| characterization impair my effort or desire to survive and
| thrive? Or rather, why does it impair yours?
|
| > There's an approach out there called the "social model" of
| disability where impairment is regarded as a neutral (neither
| good nor bad) experience and the good or bad experience is
| how the impairment changes interaction with society.
|
| If I may speculate, is this the answer? You want to be seen
| as good and desirable by society, so if any of the multiple
| meanings of a word used to describe you carry negative
| implications, that results in a reduction of your self-worth?
| Even when a word is merely objective description, used
| without moral baggage, its mere proximity to alternate
| meanings taints it?
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| As a disabled person myself. It is both abnormal and
| negative. I don't care about any specific wording used to
| describe me beyond the ability to allow clear and succinct
| communication.
|
| A jerk is going to be a jerk regardless of the specific
| syllables used so why trip up well meaning people.
| onphonenow wrote:
| It's interesting that so much focus is on getting people
| who are likely we'll meaning but don't keep up with the
| nuance. Heard someone called a bigot because they used
| the word Latina instead of the correct latinx. If you
| knew them you'd know they have family of diverse
| backgrounds so may not have even known the right word and
| likely didn't mean "harm"
| kgwgk wrote:
| Latinx can never be the right word.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| >instead of the correct latinx
|
| It was my impression the word latinx was generally mocked
| by people it's supposed to represent.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| I am also disabled and it's a farce to pretend that it
| isn't abnormal and negative. We're in the era of
| pretending we don't know things we know and its asinine.
| I really hope modernity survives this era of enforced
| stupidity.
| [deleted]
| comfypotato wrote:
| I appreciate your response. Can you elaborate on the
| juxtaposition of being mentally _ill_. and considering
| yourself _normal_? This is not clear to me in your response.
|
| I suffer from mental disabilities as well, and I certainly
| don't consider myself normal. I've overcome my issues just
| fine (I'm very well, in fact), and I'm perfectly happy
| talking about my experience in appropriate times/places. I
| acknowledge that the average person within the realm of
| normal can't relate to my experience.
|
| Coincidentally, I get the most relatable feedback doing
| inspirational speaking at homeless shelters, yet there's
| nothing about my life today that would indicate these folks
| want to listen to me or consider me normal in their sphere.
| I'm all for learning to use the right language when talking
| to folks with disabilities, and your comment here seems
| insightful. I'm just not making the connection you're trying
| to build.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > impairments as being abnormal and negative
|
| That's why you call them impairments. (From Late Latin
| peiorare "make worse".)
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The point is that physical impairments, while real,
| shouldn't matter all that much. We'll all be physically
| impaired to a greater or lesser extent as we age. Social
| impairment however matters a great deal, because it's next
| to impossible to live a healthy and fulfilling life if you
| can't relate to others on a reasonably equal basis. Of
| course trying to enforce this on everyone else with
| "person-first" language is a total non-starter, but the
| basic insight found in the "social model" is quite valuable
| and in fact something that classical authors were already
| familiar with.
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| 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.
| rexkwondo wrote:
| In another 10 years, a good chunk of their current "Consider
| using" suggestions will also be "problematic"
| silvestrov wrote:
| Using their line of thought "intersex person" will become
| problematic as "inter" means "between" which presumes two
| fundamental sexes and that "intersex" therefore isn't a
| fundamental sex.
| too-real-4-u wrote:
| Retarded people like to come up with a new word for retarded
| people all the time. It's retarded.
| yarg wrote:
| This is good, the madness has begun to eat itself.
| 323 wrote:
| Madness is now a forbidden word. The non-harmful word is
| "surprising/wild",
| yarg wrote:
| There's a surprising/wild girl I know, the security guard
| at the library explained the smashed window with one word -
| her name.
| gpderetta wrote:
| As the website doesn't work for me, I genuinely cannot tell if
| your examples are sarcasm or come from the website.
| jwilk wrote:
| https://archive.today/fHBOK
| silvestrov wrote:
| Quoted from site:
|
| > Instead of: trigger warning
|
| > Consider using: content note
|
| > Context: The phrase can cause stress about what's to
| follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not
| trigger a particular person.
|
| So the examples are not sarcasm, they are literal.
| DerSaidin wrote:
| > Instead of: African-American
|
| > Consider using: Black
|
| Was this previously the other way around?
| Mindless2112 wrote:
| Yeah, well, it sort of falls apart once people start pointing
| out that Elon Musk is the richest African-American.
| nomel wrote:
| But what about mix raced, or just lighter skinned "black"
| people?
| Mindless2112 wrote:
| Race is crude social construct. It's practically useless
| and needs to be phased out.
| Throwawayaerlei wrote:
| Yes, in the 1970s plus or minus black was the preferred term.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I'm waiting for the time we go back to some variant of the
| Latin word for colour black. At this point, it might be
| possible.
| richbell wrote:
| > 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
| "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being
| less than a man.
|
| This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent banning any word that
| contains "ass" because "ass" is a bad word.
|
| Anyone involved in the production of this document should be
| embarrassed and ashamed.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Just gonna leave this here:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative#Pejoration_and_me...
| adrice727 wrote:
| _Did you know that Linda 's husband became devoted to Oxycontin
| after his shoulder surgery?_
| concinds wrote:
| All this stuff comes from "critical discourse analysis", a
| pseudointellectual and almost cult-like movement within academic
| research, which is receiving no pushback because no one knows
| about it. People are too busy focusing on the end-product (this
| Stanford webpage, or some politicians' tweets, or a Smithsonian
| exhibit) rather than the root cause.
|
| Ridding academia of pseudoscience goes beyond fixing p-hacking.
| These academic fringes are intellectually defective and have
| large real-world influence. Academia tolerates pseudoscience far
| too much, and that should be addressed.
| yarg wrote:
| There's no pushback because it's career suicide.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > rather than the root cause.
|
| It's impossible to address the true root cause, at least, not
| in a politically correct way. Some people are simply incapable
| of producing good quality research that is repeatable. Or just
| can't quite cut it in technical fields [0]. These initiatives
| around "inclusive language" and "bias" are just a way for these
| folks to keep the academic grift going on longer.
|
| It's political suicide to talk against these people or question
| the validity of their research because they won't hesitate to
| band against someone to "cancel" him or her [1] (and it's
| essential for their survival; since there's no proof of what
| they are pushing, it's impossible to defend otherwise!).
|
| [0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-
| twitter...
|
| [1] https://www.boston.com/news/college/2021/10/07/chicago-
| profe...
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| "The yokels who invented everyday speech are wrong. Deliberately
| adopt our elite dialect and political views. "
| hexomancer wrote:
| This list is extremely non-verbal.
| spritefs wrote:
| > whitespace
|
| > Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an
| act which is subconsciously racialized.
|
| How exactly is whitespace good? It's like they pick out every
| word where "white" is used and say "but wait1!!!11! you can't use
| this because you're reinforcing the dynamic that white=good"
|
| It's like they're telling people "don't think of the white
| elephant" with this white=good thing. Nobody was thinking about
| it before they brought it up, now we're thinking about it
|
| In order for anyone to "get the message" of this and be able to
| create their own rules, they have to internalize the idea of
| white=good. Wasn't this the exact reason for creating the rules
| in the first place, that is to say not telling people white=good?
|
| edit: I don't think the point of this is to come up with a system
| that makes sense, the point is to come up with a system that
| _doesn 't make sense_. The point is to be as contradictory and
| annoying as possible in order to get as much attention as
| possible. If stupid people in academia want to be annoying and
| act like children, they should just be ignored and treated like
| the children they are. We're in the wrong here even giving these
| people attention to begin with
| drumhead wrote:
| Newspeak in other words.
| selfhifive wrote:
| There's a great George Carlin bit on how changing the names to
| less severe sounding terms can actually be harmful. He gives the
| example of shell-shock being changed to PTSD which sounds more
| benign and doesn't capture how horrible the condition is. Also
| the race baiting in black box and red team is so unintentionally
| hilarious.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Some of these suggestions are so euphemistic I wouldn't
| necessarily know what someone using them is trying to say...
| Plenty of cases where the client isn't actually the user, plenty
| of cases where saying something is "surprising" doesn't give the
| same subtext as saying something is "insane..." and that's just
| scratching the surface. GF is 100% Mexican descent, first gen US
| citizen, w/ advanced degree and she despises Latinx as a term
| (can't even pronounce it in Spanish she says).
| spritefs wrote:
| > GF is 100% Mexican descent, first gen US citizen, w/ advanced
| degree and she despises Latinx as a term (can't even pronounce
| it in Spanish she says).
|
| I mean, the whole """Latinx""" thing is just non Latino whites
| replacing a Spanish word (Latino) with an English word, then
| telling the demographic it refers to to use this English word
| to refer to themselves
|
| I have no idea how this dynamic doesn't manage to piss off more
| people
| Eleison23 wrote:
| Spanish words ending in "o" are, by default, inclusive. For
| centuries, it has been a linguistic idiom (not just in
| Spanish) that references to mixed-sex groups of people are
| done in the masculine. Women understood this perfectly and
| were not slighted by the custom, because it would not lead to
| an assumption that a group of people were homogeneously male
| or an assumption that women were "lesser" than men or
| excluded from the conversation. If a group of people is
| uniformly female then the feminine declensions can be used,
| and fluent speakers will easily shift from one to the other
| based on group composition.
|
| It's very much the same sort of situation that we've used
| words like "mankind" and "peace on Earth, good will towards
| men" and women have always understood that "men" included
| them implicitly. It's only recently that women have chosen to
| take linguistic offense and rise up and complicate the
| language in search of manufactured equity.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| It does but it's the privileged upper class mainly white
| women pushing it. You think randoms like me have any say in
| that matter? At best you get treated like a dog with a
| lecture of internalized racism and misogyny or some other
| insanity for not buying into their bs.
| bitwize wrote:
| I'll never forget how a Mexican on Twitter replied to those who
| use "Latinx": "Fuck off, pendejx."
|
| Your girlfriend's attitude generally reflects those of
| Hispanics in the US, most of whom prefer to be referred to as
| "Hispanic". The rationale behind Latinx is that it covers both
| Latino and Latina, while also acknowledging the
| trans/nonbinary/genderqueer contingent. But I think the term
| "Hispanic" covers everybody as well...
| kortex wrote:
| "Latine" (with a long e) or just "Latin" works fairly well in
| the language if one absolutely must avoid the collective-o
| ending, as in "Latine intelligente." Still a tad awkward, but
| leagues better than "Latinx", which is such a blatant
| violation of Spanish phonotactics and aesthetics that it bugs
| me, a white AF grigo.
|
| "Latinx" was so obviously created by an English-primary
| speaker.
| bitwize wrote:
| I think that is kind of the point. The out-of-place x, by
| its very incongruousness, calls attention to and centers
| the LGBTQ constituent. You see it even with English words
| of Germanic origin, like spelling "folks" as "folx" or
| "women" as "womxn".
| fergie wrote:
| I generally support the initiative, but they seem to have omitted
| the most important category: class bias.
| hellfish wrote:
| > but they seem to have omitted the most important category:
| class bias.
|
| Likely because the list itself is the product of class bias
|
| "White space" is offensive but "white trash" isn't?
| kgwgk wrote:
| I don't think I had seen those before: tarball
| [use instead: tar archive] While the term refers to an archive
| that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively
| associated with the pejorative term tarbaby.
| whitespace [use instead: empty space] Assigns value connotations
| based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously
| racialized.
|
| Some of the "solutions" are funny: Hispanic
| [use instead: Latinx, use country of origin] Although widely used
| to describe people from Spanish-speaking countries outside of
| Spain, its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American
| countries.
|
| Where do they think that the roots of the usage of Latin lie?
| immigrant [use instead: person who has immigrated, non-citizen]
| Using person-first language helps to not define people by just
| one of their characteristics.
|
| Saying "non-citizen" is still defining people by just one of
| their characteristics!
| el-salvador wrote:
| > its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American
| countries.
|
| They forgot Central American countries :(
| kgwgk wrote:
| South of the border, down Mexico way...
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I remember when MTV used to put out silly PSA like this in
| commercial form when I was a teen. This is just more of the same
| crap - funny it comes from Stanford and not MTV this time. Oh how
| the cookie crumbles.
| 10000truths wrote:
| 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.
| golemotron wrote:
| Gotta love how the page for "Elimination of Harmful Language
| Initiative" has a content warning:
|
| "Content Warning: This website contains language that is
| offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own
| pace."
|
| It's not going well so far.
| satisfice wrote:
| The content warning is reasonable and it works: because I ain't
| reading that crap. I have standards. I prefer to avoid being
| angry with fools, today.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| >" I prefer to avoid being angry with fools, today."
|
| That is my inclination as well, but truth be told something
| feels very unsettling and insidious about this document. I
| can get on board with _some_ word choice changes if they seem
| reasonable. However just about everything in this list seems
| unjustifiable and purely driven by some neo-puritanical
| moralism.
|
| One day I can envision this list being codified into the
| grammar and spell check programs we use for word processing
| and email.
|
| If people don't speak up, this will end up becoming something
| that gets enforced. Not legally enforced, mind you, but first
| it will become mandatory in academia, then in journalism,
| then in the business word, and eventually new generations
| will speak it natively.
| golemotron wrote:
| > That is my inclination as well, but truth be told
| something feels very unsettling and insidious about this
| document.
|
| The problem is: it never ends. There will be new words and
| phrases next year, and the year after.
| twoodfin wrote:
| From a sociological & political perspective, I'm most concerned
| here by the expansive notion of "harm" embedded in these
| guidelines.
|
| Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my rights
| end at yours. If using an inappropriate but common cultural idiom
| _harms_ someone as opposed to being simply rude, that has a
| potentially revolutionary significance.
| [deleted]
| themodelplumber wrote:
| > Harm is a serious thing: It represents the line where my
| rights end at yours.
|
| That's the only definition of harm you think is valid?
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'd struggle to accept there is a reasonable definition of
| harm that includes using the word "brave" as harmful.
| yucky wrote:
| I think that's their goal though, right? The first step to
| controlling thought is controlling language.
| bluedino wrote:
| _checks date_
|
| Hrmph. It's not April 1st.
|
| They must be serious.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| Neither good nor bad satire is constrained to April 1st, as
| academics constantly prove.
| cperciva wrote:
| I wholeheartedly support the elimination of harmful languages.
| There's just no good reason these days for anyone to use C++.
| gpderetta wrote:
| We were always at war with C++
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| The proper term is double-plus-C
| cudgy wrote:
| Violation. Using the term "we" implies agreement among all
| present.
| return_to_monke wrote:
| correct. only big brother must agree.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| > not referring to a specific standard of C++
|
| This is a violation and implies that all of the C++ language is
| the same which may be offensive to users of a specific standard
| such as _ISO /IEC 14882:2017_. Referring to C++ generically
| ignores any differences between specifications.
|
| Instead, referring to a specific standard, for example, C++11
| is more appropriate to members of the ISO/IEC 14882 community.
| ksec wrote:
| I guess it is philosophically good that I will forever be an
| amateur. Since I can never be a master of my craft. And any
| company / startup didn't change their branch from Master to Main
| would fail to hire anyone from Stanford.
|
| And I was surprised Stanford still invited Peter Thiel for their
| Conference last month.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| When it comes to technical writing, many of these replacements
| just wont work. Take "user" for example which they want you to
| replace with "client", so "system user" will turn into "system
| client" which would not work because "clients" are something else
| entirely in programming.
|
| Another one is "man-in-the-middle" which is often used to
| describe MITM attacks. Sure "person in the middle attack" might
| de-gender the phrase, but everyone know the MITM acronym and
| putting PITM instead would only confuse a reader.
|
| And that last one is "submit" should be changed to "process",
| well those things are totally different when talking about a
| server that you "submit" things to and that then "processes" the
| thing.
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| Does anyone have any good alternative to saying "dad joke?"
|
| The term "dad" in "dad joke" excludes anyone who doesn't, is
| incapable, or chooses not to have children (procreating?) and who
| also identifies (explicitly or implicitly) as a member of the
| category "male" (a vestigial term from the sex-assigned binary
| heterodoxy).
|
| I don't think calling "dad jokes" just "jokes" is precise enough
| language because people typically are trying to refer to a genre
| of joke when they use the term.
|
| Maybe "cringe funnies?" Although "cringe" is more of a slang term
| from the internet and isn't robust enough to survive into
| perpetuity...
|
| I'm actually serious... What are some good alternatives?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| middle-aged joke
| JimTheMan wrote:
| Ageist!
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Middle-aged people are the only group of people that can be
| PC abused, laughed at, etc. Better if they are of middle
| class. No one cares about them, even themselves think they
| are pitiful.
| sovietmudkipz wrote:
| Ageist...
| rasengan0 wrote:
| I can't even believe this is 2022; truly seminal! opps leading,
| groundbreaking. ChatGPT is going to have a field day.
| benj111 wrote:
| addicted: consider using: hooked.
|
| How is hooked 'better'? They both mean the same?!?
| ACV001 wrote:
| Wow! Have you seen the list of words? This is completely stupid.
| Most of them anyway. Some of them are legit - eg. it annoys me
| when someone addresses a group of girls and says - "guys". But
| this is just a mistaken slang, it is not an established word.
| Imagine - don't use the word "brave" - which is a really strong
| positive word. Or take this - replace "stupid" with "boring,
| uncool" - you must be joking! uncool? Is there such a word? I bet
| many linguists and dictionaries authors must be going mad when
| seeing this article..
|
| Ah but then I read this (first line in the article):
|
| The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-
| phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at
| Stanford.
|
| So this is just a restrained group of people. Not sure why is
| this posted here anyway.
| KurvaKing wrote:
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| All words are harmful in some context or other. I suggest we
| abandon language and return to good old argument by flinging
| feces at one another.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| That's ableist.
| rendall wrote:
| 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.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| It's a decent interpretation of at least some of the
| phenomenon. E.g. "latinx" has become an upper middle class
| shibboleth with close to zero participation from the people
| "being protected from harm" by the neologism.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
| kortex wrote:
| Sorry, "woke" is ableist and biased against folks living with
| narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and other sleep disorders^W
| abnormalities^W^W somnodivergence.
| KMag wrote:
| sommodiversity. "sommodivergence" implies abnormality.
| sleazy_b wrote:
| Catherine Liu's short book Virtue Hoarders has this thesis,
| arguing that the class that this language is a marker of is the
| professional managerial class (PMC), a social class originally
| posited by the John and Barbara Ehrenreich in the 70s. I can't
| recommend the book too highly but I think it was correct in
| most of its observations.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Maybe just remove English from IT altogether. I'm sure one can
| find harmful roots everywhere given enough time and research.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| >retard (n) person with a cognitive disability, person with
| autism, neurodivergent person
|
| Well it's great that Stanford thinks "Person with Autism" is
| synonymous with "Retard".
|
| Given the specific target audience of this IT department, the
| nomenclature "Person with Autism" is especially controversial and
| likely to cause offence and the phrasing "Autistic Person" would
| be preferable (See [1] for more details). So the language they're
| suggesting in a reference is a poor choice.
|
| The person who authored this really hasn't meaningfully consulted
| with the relevant groups in question enough. They would be well
| served reading the better style guides which already exist such
| as [1] which by comparison give actually useful guidance which
| evidently Stanford failed to find during its research [2]. Notice
| how this guide, which only covers one section of what Stanford
| was trying to cover, is longer than Stanford's entire guide.
| Notice also how this is presented as a GUIDE, as suggestions,
| rather than simply decrying certain terms as harmful.
|
| I will note that this appears to be an internal IT department
| effort, so I would try to keep into context this is likely the
| work of some busybody who likely had no reason to anticipate
| international social media scrutiny. I do have to admit though,
| this effort simply isn't well executed enough to be advisable,
| and the tone is way too hardline.
|
| [1] https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#Autism [2]
| https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/ehli#footnote-3
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I'm offended by how they assume visitors to the page will all be
| literate. Why is there no audio or, for the hearing impaired, a
| video of a person signing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-18 23:03 UTC)