• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)

And who has been denied tenure at Stanford Law as a result of this or any other document or policy relating to polite language use?
I was talking about the powers universities have, not that it happened (yet) in this case.
You have the power to murder your neighbours in their sleep. You haven't done it yet, but I am very worried that you have the power to do it.

That, of course, shouldn't be an adequate reason for me to demand action against you.
 
Anecdotes about some student working at some college radio station who got into trouble for something he said is irrelevant. The discussion is about the IT community at Stanford. Please read the thread before babbling.
First of all, it was a she. And it is an example of the cancel culture that has infected academia and that seeks to impose ideological uniformity instead of a robust debate.
It is an irrelevant anecdote.
You have no evidence to support your claim about retaliation. None. It is a conjecture you pulled out of your ass.
I did not say any retaliation happened yet just that there is precedent for such behavior in academia and that Stanford definitely has power to retaliate.
There is also a precedent for no retaliation in academia, and Stanford definitely has the power to do nothing - as the initiative clearly indicates.
 
I think the jury is still out on how to punish this poor man.
Which is of course conservative code language for "he never actually faced any formal punishment whatsoever for dropping the big n----- in class... twice... and pretending not to know what it might offend anyone because he was quoting a Founding Father and how could that be wrong? But people were mad at him for a while! Censorship!!!" This man, Michael McConnell, wasn't just some run of the mill law professor either; for a long time, he sat on the 10th circuit court of appeals, and he was shortlisted for a Supreme Court appointment under Bush Jr, nearly taking the seat now held by Chief Justice John Roberts. He also sits on the content oversight board at Facebook; he's literally one of the people who decides what news you are or aren't allowed to see on your feed when you sign in to social media. This "poor man", a millionaire judge and educator who feels free to employ the most notorious racial pejorative in a classroom setting yet faced no real penalties whatsoever for his actions, supposedly proves we live in liberal fascist state. The people who rule our society and hoard all of its wealth and power are the "real victims" of prejudice; the people they oppress are just whiners.

Children. Dangerous children, with guns and government titles.
I don't think we're talking about the same person and it may have been a different university that the man I'm thinking about was working at. I'll see if I can find the article. I read so many news articles that I sometimes get them mixed up. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, that is definitely the most notorious case of inappropriate language Stanford Law has seen these past few decades. And it does not indicate that your portrayal of the ethos at Stanford is accurate. People who use derogatory language are in no wise barred from holding high office or commanding great wealth in this country. So if there is "censorship" on the left, it obviously has no pull in any circle that matters.
Did you happen to see that we aren't talking about the same person? I posted McWhorter's opinion piece about the man from Purdue who did a stupid imitation of Chinese, without realizing how insulting it was.
I think the jury is still out on how to punish this poor man.
Which is of course conservative code language for "he never actually faced any formal punishment whatsoever for dropping the big n----- in class... twice... and pretending not to know what it might offend anyone because he was quoting a Founding Father and how could that be wrong? But people were mad at him for a while! Censorship!!!" This man, Michael McConnell, wasn't just some run of the mill law professor either; for a long time, he sat on the 10th circuit court of appeals, and he was shortlisted for a Supreme Court appointment under Bush Jr, nearly taking the seat now held by Chief Justice John Roberts. He also sits on the content oversight board at Facebook; he's literally one of the people who decides what news you are or aren't allowed to see on your feed when you sign in to social media. This "poor man", a millionaire judge and educator who feels free to employ the most notorious racial pejorative in a classroom setting yet faced no real penalties whatsoever for his actions, supposedly proves we live in liberal fascist state. The people who rule our society and hoard all of its wealth and power are the "real victims" of prejudice; the people they oppress are just whiners.

Children. Dangerous children, with guns and government titles.
I don't think we're talking about the same person and it may have been a different university that the man I'm thinking about was working at. I'll see if I can find the article. I read so many news articles that I sometimes get them mixed up. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, that is definitely the most notorious case of inappropriate language Stanford Law has seen these past few decades. And it does not indicate that your portrayal of the ethos at Stanford is accurate. People who use derogatory language are in no wise barred from holding high office or commanding great wealth in this country. So if there is "censorship" on the left, it obviously has no pull in any circle that matters.
We aren't talking about the same person, which I already explained in an earlier post. I hate that this discussion is already going off the rails. Oh wait. Is "going off the rails" an expression we are being asked not to use? :confused2: Don't you get it? Terms that have been used for decades without any malice, despite their original meanings, are being used to target people who simply aren't woke enough for some of the extremists on the Left.

I like the concept of forgiveness and redemption, even if it is usually equated with Christianity. I don't care about the origin of the word "blessing", as it can also be used in a secular way, as it commonly is in the culture of the South. It's not always the words, it's the intention of the. user of the words that should matter. This attempted censorship is too 1984 for me. Forces it's a suggestion, but if you don't follow the suggestion, you might suffer serious consequences. Yeah. I get it. Nobody is forcing them on us yet, but it's still a bit creepy to me. Word usage changes over time. If some of the words on the list are really insulting and sure some of them are, we don't need some Stanford snobs suggesting how we should talk. Ew.

I realize Stanford isn't forcing this on us, but I find it to be patronizing ( oh no, what about the women ) and an opportunity to give more ammunition to the far right extremists.
 
And who has been denied tenure at Stanford Law as a result of this or any other document or policy relating to polite language use?
I was talking about the powers universities have, not that it happened (yet) in this case.
You have the power to murder your neighbours in their sleep. You haven't done it yet, but I am very worried that you have the power to do it.

That, of course, shouldn't be an adequate reason for me to demand action against you.
This claim is oddly covalent with an actual legal system that exists in the real world, the Azande witch courts... the witch is often unconscious of their crime, so accusing them of evil actions while asleep is a credible claim deserving of investigation. You need a diviner and a battery of oracular tests to pursue a case against an accused witch, though. It may not be the most rational form of evidence, but there still has to be some sort of evidence presented, even in a witch trial severely weighted against the defendant. In this thread, even "spectral evidence" sadly lacking thus far. We started out with very confident claims: everyone knows this is absolutely happening. Now we're down to silly arguments like "well it could happen" and "well if it did I bet you would be happy"...

As though Stanford Law cares about my opinion! Lord knows I'd have some gentle suggestions for them if they did, and exactly none of them relate to the thread or its topic.
 
When I was in high school, homophobic language/slurs were quite common. Which perhaps explains why exactly ZERO of the gay/lesbian kids I went to school with have ever showed up at a single class reunion event. No one was 'out' in those days but a few could not hide who they were. More could and did, sometimes even from themselves. They may still have friends they went to high school with (some are my friends, actually) but they never, ever, ever consider going to a single reunion, no matter how well liked and popular they were.
True, that! The very thought of voluntarily attending a school reunion.... strikes me as absurdist and slightly horrifying. Though, as far as I know most of my schoolmates are probably dead from war, covid, or meth overdoses anyway. Republican policies are not much easier on their fans than their detractors, really.
I’ve gone to…two. The first was my 10 year reunion and I went out of a combination of curiosity and nostalgia and decided I never need attend another. Never even thought about it for another 15-20 years. By then I had mellowed a bit but still didn’t get around to it for some more years. I enjoyed seeing some faces but honestly the handful of high school people I’m still friends with, I see/talk to outside of the dwindling crowd. I was rather worried people would talk politics but thankfully mostly people talked about their grandchildren and the good old days. Only one who mentioned politics was a guy who literally saved my life one time so it was no big deal…
 
I realize Stanford isn't forcing this on us, but I find it to be patronizing ( oh no, what about the women ) and an opportunity to give more ammunition to the far right extremists
Whereas posting outraged nonsense on the internet about half-remembered news stories the rightwing media cooked up years ago in no way plays into their hands? These people are playing for keeps, you know.

Tell me, what's the worst thing that could happen to you if "going off the rails" became an unpopular phrase? Answer: somone might think you were were rude for using it. And do nothing more about it.

That's not oppression. You often speak proudly of your many black friends, why not ask some of them what oppression feels like, and the wicked tools it uses? I am certain that they will not reply "sometimes people think I'm rude when I didn't mean to be".
 
It is not just English. Latinos and Jewish Yiddish have slurs. Italians. Irish. I grew up hearing some of it.
Those should also not be used in professional settings.

Grow the fuck up and don't swear at work.
We should not swear at work.
But who decides what is swearing? You, me, that bloke person in the government office?
 
It used to be part of growing up and maturing was learning to deal with being offended in a healthy way.
How is politely asking the other party not to say those things anything other thsn the most healthy, adult response imaginable?
Nah. This is an effort to control language for a political agenda. It’s about power. Thankfully, it looks like it failed and Stanford is embarrassed.


Inclusivity.jpg
Ladies and gentleman?
 
"Your honor, I feel that my client is clearly endangered by the shotgun in his neighbor's garage. Our evidence clearly shows that he has never once used the gun to blow apart a neighbor, which proves that he very well might mean to do so in the future."

False equivalence.
 
"Your honor, I feel that my client is clearly endangered by the shotgun in his neighbor's garage. Our evidence clearly shows that he has never once used the gun to blow apart a neighbor, which proves that he very well might mean to do so in the future."

False equivalence.
Oh? How so?
 
Looking at the website I cannot imagine a more benign, un-threatening initiative than:

Instead ofConsider usingContext


“Consider using” People are complaining about someone making a list that they can “consider using” that includes a sentence explaining why?


Politesse is right.

Jesus, what a nation of spiteful, nasty children we've become. It's like the entire right wing is aspiring to become the villains of a Roald Dahl novel.
It's even less controversial because it's about the I.T. website and code or at least it appears to be.

But none of this reality will stop people from next discussing FEMA camp paranoia.
 
blind review anonymous review Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.
Ajme!

Disability is a negative. The fuck. The actual fuck.
 

rule of thumb standard rule, general rule 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.


"No written record exists today"="No evidence this was ever offensive"

I've heard that 'rule of thumb' used to mean women's bikini bottom strings had to be wider than an enforcer's thumb. In other words, nobody has any idea where it came from nor any idea that it is 'offensive' unless they've been (falsely) told it's offensive

This is a phrase in search of an offensive origin. Gospa preserve us from this madness.
 
I realize Stanford isn't forcing this on us, but I find it to be patronizing ( oh no, what about the women ) and an opportunity to give more ammunition to the far right extremists
Whereas posting outraged nonsense on the internet about half-remembered news stories the rightwing media cooked up years ago in no way plays into their hands? These people are playing for keeps, you know.

Tell me, what's the worst thing that could happen to you if "going off the rails" became an unpopular phrase? Answer: somone might think you were were rude for using it. And do nothing more about it.

That's not oppression. You often speak proudly of your many black friends, why not ask some of them what oppression feels like, and the wicked tools it uses? I am certain that they will not reply "sometimes people think I'm rude when I didn't mean to be".
I have no idea what you're trying to say and for your information, I have discussed racism and oppression with some of my Black friends. My closest one denies ever being a victim of racism, although I imagine there were probably times when she didn't realize she was being treated differently because of her race. And, what does racism have to do with most of the language on that list? Having black friends isn't a pride thing, I just happen to live in a Black majority town so I've had the opportunity to make friends with people who are Black. I grew up in an all white neighborhood, and while there were many immigrant families in my area, there were no Black families in my area. I hated that. IBesides that, I've always admired Black culture and the strength of Black women. It's more of a humbling experience than a prideful one to get to know people who have have different cultural experiences and may have been victims of racism. Btw, when I worked in ATL, a couple of the Black supervisors were always pulling the race card on my white supervisor. They accused her of racism, whenever our QA staff found an issue that needed to be addressed. That shocked me, as my supervisor never said or acted in a racist manner. We found plenty of errors made by white nurses too. It was our job to point out mistakes and documentation errors. I was told by one very friendly Black supervisor that I should never have believed the MLK bullshit, so yeah. I've discussed all kinds of things with my Black peers and friends. But, that has nothing to do with the silliness of that list.

Women, regardless of the color of our skin, have probably all been victims of sexism. I know I have. We've been hit on well into old age, by men. We've been raped or threatened with rape, but that has nothing to do with the words on that list, imo. "Actions speak louder than words." Being referred to as a guy isn't going to hurt me or anyone else. Even my parrot calls me a guy. When ever I enter the room she says, "Hi guy". 😜

With very few exceptions, I don't use any of the words or phrases on that list, but I'm not going to judge anyone who does. There are some very hurtful words that aren't on the list. Sometimes people are very ignorant, like the person who worked at Purdue who is now under constant fire for doing something very stupid. Don't you believe that forgiveness is often a good thing if someone didn't realize they were being insulting without realizing it? Do you judge people for the dumb things they say?

While no words can hurt me, I'm very careful not to use words that I think might hurt someone else. I realize that some people are a lot more sensitive than I am, but there are limits to how far we need to go when it comes to worrying about the overly "woke" who, imo, are giving lots of ammunition to those on the far right. I would prefer that we just treat each other with kindness and stop worrying about every little word that is spoken.
 
I realize Stanford isn't forcing this on us, but I find it to be patronizing ( oh no, what about the women ) and an opportunity to give more ammunition to the far right extremists
Whereas posting outraged nonsense on the internet about half-remembered news stories the rightwing media cooked up years ago in no way plays into their hands? These people are playing for keeps, you know.

Tell me, what's the worst thing that could happen to you if "going off the rails" became an unpopular phrase? Answer: somone might think you were were rude for using it. And do nothing more about it.

That's not oppression. You often speak proudly of your many black friends, why not ask some of them what oppression feels like, and the wicked tools it uses? I am certain that they will not reply "sometimes people think I'm rude when I didn't mean to be".
I have no idea what you're trying to say and for your information, I have discussed racism and oppression with some of my Black friends. My closest one denies ever being a victim of racism, although I imagine there were probably times when she didn't realize she was being treated differently because of her race. And, what does racism have to do with most of the language on that list? Having black friends isn't a pride thing, I just happen to live in a Black majority town so I've had the opportunity to make friends with people who are Black. I grew up in an all white neighborhood, and while there were many immigrant families in my area, there were no Black families in my area. I hated that. IBesides that, I've always admired Black culture and the strength of Black women. It's more of a humbling experience than a prideful one to get to know people who have have different cultural experiences and may have been victims of racism. Btw, when I worked in ATL, a couple of the Black supervisors were always pulling the race card on my white supervisor. They accused her of racism, whenever our QA staff found an issue that needed to be addressed. That shocked me, as my supervisor never said or acted in a racist manner. We found plenty of errors made by white nurses too. It was our job to point out mistakes and documentation errors. I was told by one very friendly Black supervisor that I should never have believed the MLK bullshit, so yeah. I've discussed all kinds of things with my Black peers and friends. But, that has nothing to do with the silliness of that list.

Women, regardless of the color of our skin, have probably all been victims of sexism. I know I have. We've been hit on well into old age, by men. We've been raped or threatened with rape, but that has nothing to do with the words on that list, imo. "Actions speak louder than words." Being referred to as a guy isn't going to hurt me or anyone else. Even my parrot calls me a guy. When ever I enter the room she says, "Hi guy". 😜

With very few exceptions, I don't use any of the words or phrases on that list, but I'm not going to judge anyone who does. There are some very hurtful words that aren't on the list. Sometimes people are very ignorant, like the person who worked at Purdue who is now under constant fire for doing something very stupid. Don't you believe that forgiveness is often a good thing if someone didn't realize they were being insulting without realizing it? Do you judge people for the dumb things they say?

While no words can hurt me, I'm very careful not to use words that I think might hurt someone else. I realize that some people are a lot more sensitive than I am, but there are limits to how far we need to go when it comes to worrying about the overly "woke" who, imo, are giving lots of ammunition to those on the far right. I would prefer that we just treat each other with kindness and stop worrying about every little word that is spoken.
You say no words can hurt you, yet you're pretending to be somehow oppressed by a table of unenforced but recommended language changes circulating in a particular department at a private college you do not attend. It's an insult to anyone who has ever faced actual hardship in their lives. You say you're just worried about what the "far right" will do, but they will try to burn Stanford to the ground whether there are language spreadsheets in the IT department or not. Nothing Stanford could do or you or I could do is going to be "enough" for the right wing spin machine to give up on the idea of either controlling or destroying the university system. This has been their goal for a very long time, and it is not going to change because the professors get to call the students k-----s and n-------s in class at this school or that one. You cannot convince them that a vast conspiracy against middle class whites does not exist. You can choose whether or not to spread their propaganda for them, though, and currently you are choosing to do so.
 
What makes the Stanford admins similar to communists is the attempt to control language very tightly.
Boy, you are easily controlled if suggesting that you consider something amounts to “very tightly” controlling your puppet strings. Maybe you should work on that instead of attacking people who offer suggestions that could improve your standing.
 
I posted McWhorter's opinion piece about the man from Purdue who did a stupid imitation of Chinese, without realizing how insulting it was.

Suppose he was working for the I.T. department and used the word "chink" on the school website. Do you think the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (or whatever it is called) should not include that word in their table with a suggested alternative of "Asian" directed to the school I.T. department?
 
Back
Top Bottom