Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)

[bilby]

We should not swear at work.

Right now I am sitting in my work canteen, and every third word anyone is uttering is a swear word.

Confusing ought with is?
We ought not to swear at work but people will.

In most blue-collar workplaces I have experienced, if people couldn't swear, they would be pretty much unable to communicate at all.

 

[southernhybrid]

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.

My response to your post should be an eye roll. I am not pretending to be oppressed. I have no idea where you get that idea. I just don't want other people to feel they are bad people because they use words or phrases on a stupid list made up by a bunch of academics. I don't want other people to lose their jobs or be harshly criticized due to what may be their own ignorance or lack of understanding why a phrase is now considered insulting because it's origins 200 years ago were based on racism or sexism etc. It's one thing to call people racist terms or threaten them. It's another thing to expect people to adapt to a new woke language that for the most part doesn't make much sense. Besides that, you must know that social changes come slowly.

Did you even bother to read the article from the NYTimes that had a survey asking people whether or not they use certain words or phrases? Did you bother to read the opinion piece partially written by a Black professor with a Phd in linguistics, who thinks it's wrong to fire or condemn people for making ignorant words etc.? You made some remark about old news articles. The two articles I linked were from this week. You never answered any of my questions about forgiveness. Am I to assume that you wouldn't forgive someone who said something out of ignorance that might be inappropriate, even if they apologized after being corrected?

No, this isn't about me at all. It's about other people who don't even think about things like when a word or phrase has suddenly become "wrong". It's the reason why some hard working rural people hate liberal elites. Don't you understand that? And, I don't care if the list was meant for the IT department. The point is that it comes across as arrogant and demeaning. Apparently you don't seem to understand that.

Maybe we're talking past each other. Who knows? Perhaps we are coming from very different perspectives and experiences. During my working career, the majority of my clients/patients were poor and not very educated, regardless if they were rural white folks or urban black folks etc. My duty was never to judge them, even though in the 1970s, I did hear some very inappropriate terms used by some. One of my favorite supervisors once used the N word. I was initially horrified, but then I realized that the way that she used it was rather innocent and the year was 1979. She treated our Black aide and patients with the utmost respect. Which is more important, using an inappropriate word or treating a person kindly? Btw, I corrected her when she used that word and she was surprised and defensive. Still, it didn't hurt our relationship and she always gave me good evaluations. And, I didn't grow up in a poor mixed race neighborhood in the rural south like she did. I grew up in an all white middle class neighborhood, where there was plenty of silent racism. I think it's wrong to judge or make assumptions about people based on the words they use, as long as those words aren't meant as a threat of any kind.

I doubt that you mean to be insulting anymore than I do, but you seem to have made some assumptions about those of us who feel this list is patronizing and insulting, that are are wrong. I haven't read all of the posts, so I might disagree with some, but I prefer to consider the other person's opinion as much as possible without attacking them. I also like to consider their background and the influences in their lives that might cause them to speak like they do. And no. My little feelings aren't hurt at all. The only time that words could have harmed me in the past would be if a coworker lied about me to get me into trouble, or something along those lines. Being openly atheist in the work place, especially in the heart of the Bible Belt, means that I've dealt with that and survived.

 

[Politesse]

My response to your post should be an eye roll. I am not pretending to be oppressed. I have no idea where you get that idea. I just don't want other people to feel they are bad people because they use words or phrases on a stupid list made up by a bunch of academics. I don't want other people to lose their jobs or be harshly criticized due to what may be their own ignorance or lack of understanding why a phrase is now considered insulting because it's origins 200 years ago were based on racism or sexism etc. It's one thing to call people racist terms or threaten them. It's another thing to expect people to adapt to a new woke language that for the most part doesn't make much sense. Besides that, you must know that social changes come slowly.

Did you even bother to read the article from the NYTimes that had a survey asking people whether or not they use certain words or phrases? Did you bother to read the opinion piece partially written by a Black professor with a Phd in linguistics, who thinks it's wrong to fire or condemn people for making ignorant words etc.? You made some remark about old news articles. The two articles I linked were from this week. You never answered any of my questions about forgiveness. Am I to assume that you wouldn't forgive someone who said something out of ignorance that might be inappropriate, even if they apologized after being corrected?

No, this isn't about me at all. It's about other people who don't even think about things like when a word or phrase has suddenly become "wrong". It's the reason why some hard working rural people hate liberal elites. Don't you understand that? And, I don't care if the list was meant for the IT department. The point is that it comes across as arrogant and demeaning. Apparently you don't seem to understand that.

No one has gotten fired. No one will get fired. It is not a document aimed at you or your friends, nor is it a legally binding document. The IT department at Stanford almost certainly does not care one way or the next what some nice lady in Georgia thinks is an appropriate phrase or not. It is not "demeaning" for a department to voluntarily perform a review of its own language, but you chiding strangers for being too "woke" when they are just trying to do their jobs and do right by their clients is certainly demeaning to them. The right wing media convinced you the sky was falling, and you bought right into it because your pride was challenged by the idea, true or not, that an educated person might dare tell you that you aren't speaking right.

If you want to demand respect from other people, maybe consider extending it once in a while. "Liberal elites" are also hard working people, and they don't deserve to be trash talked by strangers just because they are trying their best to deliver services to a complex student population in uncertain times. I presume I am a "liberal elite" to you, since I dared to get a master's degree and now have the audacity to try and help a bunch of poor kids do the same? Or because I live in a different state from you? I have every respect for your former profession, but I won't be talked down to just because I got an education against all odds. We work just as hard as any nurse, most of us for less pay though both professions are seriously undercompensated. But no one made up national news stories villainizing your work and accusing you without foundation of being part of some insane Maoist plot.

 

[ZiprHead]

We should not swear at work.

Right now I am sitting in my work canteen, and every third word anyone is uttering is a swear word.

Confusing ought with is?
We ought not to swear at work but people will.

In most blue-collar workplaces I have experienced, if people couldn't swear, they would be pretty much unable to communicate at all.

Having worked both blue and white collar jobs, I agree with your BC assessment. You would have to listen for a long time to just hear a simple "shit" in my white collar job.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reminds me of this old joke:

A young family moved into a house next door to a vacant lot. One day, a construction crew came in and began building a house on the empty lot. The family's 5-year-old daughter became interested in all the activity going on next door and spent much of each day observing the workers.

Eventually, the construction crew, all of them gems-in-the-rough, more or less adopted her as a project mascot. They chatted with her, let her sit with them while they took coffee and lunch breaks, and gave her little jobs to do here and there to make her feel important.

At the end of the first week, the men presented her with a pay envelope which contained 2.00. The little girl took this home to her mother, who said all the appropriate words of admiration, and suggested that they take the money she received to the bank to start a savings account.

When they talked to the bank teller, she was equally impressed and" asked the little girl how she had earned her very own pay check at such a young age. The child proudly replied: "I worked last week with the crew building the house next door to us."

"My goodness gracious," said the teller, "and will you be working on the house again this week, too?"

The little girl replied, "I will if those assholes at Home Depot ever deliver the fuckin sheet rock..."

 

[Rhea]

SoHy, I am quite surprised by your vehemence in condemning this list that provides suggestions for people in the deprtment to consider.

You say that you try to not use words thaat hurt people.
But how can you even learn those words if no one is allowed to tell you?

You say that you “corrected” your supervisor who used the n-word, and you say she was defensive - was it because you expected her to “adapt to a new woke language that for the most part doesn't make much sense.” I mean, it was 1979 and she was just using the n-word; what’s the problem, why were you harassing her like that?

I truly do not get the uproar. The list CLEARLY says it is a suggestion. It clearly outlines why the suggested changes are offered. And people can roll their eyes and demean “wokeness” and the effort to be kind to others all they want and no one will get fired.

Is a suggestion list really to painful to allow to exist without complant?

I would not have thought that you SoHy would be one to say that. I am quite surprised.

 

[Metaphor]

SoHy, I am quite surprised by your vehemence in condemning this list that provides suggestions for people in the deprtment to consider.

You say that you try to not use words thaat hurt people.
But how can you even learn those words if no one is allowed to tell you?

You say that you “corrected” your supervisor who used the n-word, and you say she was defensive - was it because you expected her to “adapt to a new woke language that for the most part doesn't make much sense.” I mean, it was 1979 and she was just using the n-word; what’s the problem, why were you harassing her like that?

I truly do not get the uproar. The list CLEARLY says it is a suggestion. It clearly outlines why the suggested changes are offered. And people can roll their eyes and demean “wokeness” and the effort to be kind to others all they want and no one will get fired.

Is a suggestion list really to painful to allow to exist without complant?

I would not have thought that you SoHy would be one to say that. I am quite surprised.

The list has words that would not hurt anybody, and includes words that I would hope people already know to avoid. It's a list that builds in philosophical assumptions as facts (why is it forbidden to treat a disability as a negative? Isn't it a fact that a disability is a negative? Who, anywhere, ever, was offended by 'rule of thumb'?)

Why should this list or any 'list' formulated by those in power be 'allowed to exist without complaint'?

 

[laughing dog]

As this OP demonstrates, people can whine complain about anything. Whether those complaints are insightful or valid is a completely different matter.

The IT "community" posted a list of suggestions of words and phrases people might wish to avoid for the IT community. No punishment or enforcement mechanism is mentioned. It may be the case this initiative is ham-handed and will backfire. Or course, it is possible that the initiators (who are there) actually may be aware of issues that those unfamiliar with the Stanford IT community are unaware.

In any event, the initiative does not appear to be some sort of devious plot to censor or control speech.

 

[Toni]

Thumb (approximately 1 inch) was a common unit of measure just as a foot (at one point, the average length of a man's foot) was a common measure. Measures are now standardized, rather than approximate.

Rule of thumb has been attributed to British and to French common law. In the US, it was actually used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb19th-century United States[edit]

An 1824 court ruling in Mississippi stated that a man was entitled to enforce "domestic discipline" by striking his wife with a whip or stick no wider than the judge's thumb. In a later case in North Carolina (State v. Rhodes, 1868), the defendant was found to have struck his wife "with a switch about the size of this fingers"; the judge found the man not guilty due to the switch being smaller than a thumb.[12]: 41  The judgment was upheld by the state supreme court, although the later judge stated:

Nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said [...] The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used.[7][12]: 41–42 

In 1873, also in North Carolina, the judge in State v. Oliver ruled, "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina".[11][12]: 42  These latter two cases were cited by the legal scholar Beirne Stedman when he wrote in a 1917 law review article that an "old common law rule" had permitted a husband to use "moderate personal chastisement on his wife" so long as he used "a switch no larger than his thumb".[7][11]

 

[thebeave]

Thumb (approximately 1 inch) was a common unit of measure just as a foot (at one point, the average length of a man's foot) was a common measure. Measures are now standardized, rather than approximate.

Rule of thumb has been attributed to British and to French common law. In the US, it was actually used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb19th-century United States[edit]

An 1824 court ruling in Mississippi stated that a man was entitled to enforce "domestic discipline" by striking his wife with a whip or stick no wider than the judge's thumb. In a later case in North Carolina (State v. Rhodes, 1868), the defendant was found to have struck his wife "with a switch about the size of this fingers"; the judge found the man not guilty due to the switch being smaller than a thumb.[12]: 41  The judgment was upheld by the state supreme court, although the later judge stated:

Nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said [...] The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used.[7][12]: 41–42 

In 1873, also in North Carolina, the judge in State v. Oliver ruled, "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina".[11][12]: 42  These latter two cases were cited by the legal scholar Beirne Stedman when he wrote in a 1917 law review article that an "old common law rule" had permitted a husband to use "moderate personal chastisement on his wife" so long as he used "a switch no larger than his thumb".[7][11]

The phrase has a rather complicated history in this country. This article from The Straight Dope has a more succinct layout of the subject:

Does “rule of thumb” refer to an old law permitting wife beating?

I did find the original question in this article to be rather pertinent to the Stanford issue.

Dear Cecil: Recently in a conversation I used the expression “rule of thumb,” which I have always understood to mean a technique for arriving at a quick estimate. A woman in our group took me to task, however, informing me that the expression originally referred to an old legal principle that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick provided the diameter did not exceed the width of his thumb. When I expressed my disbelief, several others chimed in that they had heard the same story. I’m flabbergasted, Cecil. Is this true? What other seemingly innocent phrases conceal ancient wrongs? It’s getting to where I’m afraid to open my mouth. John Santogrossi, Atlanta

Yeah, no kidding.

 

[Arctish]

Living languages change.

Recently the US government approved changes to nearly 650 places that used the offensive term "squaw". There used to be an even more offensive term used to describe terrain features that my co-worker was surprised was being replaced, since she herself didn't mean to offend anyone when she used it.

And then there's Don Young, the recently deceased Republican member of Congress, who generated a bit of controversy when he talked about how his dad used to hire "50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes" and then apologized but not really.

Someday the term 'Asians' might be considered so offensive an IT department somewhere might suggest its employees consider using an alternative word, and social media will blow up over someone else's stodgy old Representative saying it.

In the meantime, it's Christmas Eve so c'mon everybody, let's make the Yuletide gay.

 

[Politesse]

Someday the term 'Asians' might be considered so offensive an IT department somewhere might suggest its employees consider using an alternative word, and social media will blow up over someone else's stodgy old Representative saying it.

We DO in fact avoid it, at least where I work. Not in reference to the continent, but as a "racial term". One gets in no formal trouble for such things, it's just considered best to not use if another alternative would suit, or better yet, to avoid making guesses about people's ancestry in any way. At the end of the day, we're supposed to be attracting students to the school, not driving them away.

I'm curious, do people really think the principle "I said it when I was a kid, therefore it should always be okay and anyone who objects is oppressing my freedoms" makes sense as a rule of thumb? Because people have normalized some pretty awful language over the centuries. There are definitely some terms common in 1890 that I wouldn't want to see revived.

 

[southernhybrid]

SoHy, I am quite surprised by your vehemence in condemning this list that provides suggestions for people in the deprtment to consider.

You say that you try to not use words thaat hurt people.
But how can you even learn those words if no one is allowed to tell you?

You say that you “corrected” your supervisor who used the n-word, and you say she was defensive - was it because you expected her to “adapt to a new woke language that for the most part doesn't make much sense.” I mean, it was 1979 and she was just using the n-word; what’s the problem, why were you harassing her like that?

I truly do not get the uproar. The list CLEARLY says it is a suggestion. It clearly outlines why the suggested changes are offered. And people can roll their eyes and demean “wokeness” and the effort to be kind to others all they want and no one will get fired.

Is a suggestion list really to painful to allow to exist without complant?

I would not have thought that you SoHy would be one to say that. I am quite surprised.

I was not going to continue with this thread since there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings on both sides. I'll try to explain why I feel the way I do. I realize that no-one is being forced to use these new terms, but I find them so absurd and extreme, that they rattled my brain a bit. We all have known for hundreds of years not to use the N word, as it's an obvious insult to Black people.

Let me give you a little more information about the incident with my former supervisor and why I now feel as if I over reacted to her usage of that word. She and I were making visits together as part of her yearly evaluation of me. She pointed to a neighborhood of small, run down homes and said, "I grew up in N town, right over there". Being about 10 years younger than her, and having been raised in the Northeast, I had never heard anyone who I respected use that word so openly, so I responded with shock. She was defensive and to be honest, I don't remember her exact reply. This happened in the late 70s.

Years later I got to thinking about that episode and I realized that her usage of the word wasn't even meant as an insult to any of her Black neighbors. She was just using the term she was taught to use to describe the poor, mixed race neighborhood where she grew up. I also thought about how segregated the Northeast was and still is compared to much of the South.I thought about how arrogant some well educated liberals are, who live in the North and condemn poor rural Southerners, when the truth is they are in some ways more racist than most Southern people I've known personally. I felt a little bad that I called out my supervisor. Perhaps I could have simply asked her why she used that word, in an attempt to understand her better. I've frequently told white people that they sound a bit racist, even when their intentions were never harmful ones. Maybe that's a good thing or maybe I could have been more gentle. Let me add that a former Black coworker and a Black nurse who I met about 6 months ago both agreed with me that the North is more racist than the South. Let me quote the exact works of the coworker. "I can take a Southern racist over a Northern racist any day because at least I know where I stand with the Southern racist". There is a lot of truth to that. If you live in a segregated neighborhood, like my Jersey sister does, it's easy to claim that you have no racist tendencies. Of course there are racists in the South, but we usually know who they are because they don't try to hide it. So, compared to actual racism, I find it a bit disheartening to now find some people expecting others to adopt their new language.

As far as the rest of the list goes, I found many of the terms were absurd. I think the so called overly woke among us seem to be looking for a reason to condemn others based on the words that they use, even when some of those words and expressions have never had any negative meaning in our lifetimes.I used the word guys as one example. I also mentioned Latinx because earlier in the day I read that only 3% of people who identify as Hispanic or Latino want to be addressed as Latinx. Why are some forcing terms on people who belong to a certain group? I find that arrogant. These days, there are an awful lot of affluent white people who think they know what's best for minorities. I find that obnoxious. They may mean well, but minorities are usually strong and they can fight their own battles without educated white people telling them what words are best for them, etc. If and when they want our help, they will ask for it. We should at least respect how they feel and not insist that they use language based on the demands of white people.

Sure, these may just be "suggestions" at this point, but where does it stop? At what point will people be looked down on if they don't adopt some of these new expressions? I added the NYTimes survey because most of the responders didn't find anything wrong with a lot of the traditional terms. Master bedroom is another one that I find kind of silly. The term was never even created from the slave era. It was simply used to describe the bedroom where the so called "master of the house" slept. It may be a bit out dated, but it shouldn't be seen as offensive. Lately, I've noticed that real estate listings mostly refer to the master bedroom as the primary bedroom. No big deal, but was it really necessary for people to get upset over something so trivial that wasn't even based on racism? When did people become so overly sensitive, looking for insults where they never existed, when there are so many things that are actually harmful, like discrimination and segregation and guns! it's not just this IT list that got to me. I've seen this type of thing in other places, people being forced to replace words and expressions that often sounds almost the same, other than slight rephrasing. Sorry if you don't understand my point of view, but I don't understand the opposite point of view either.

Language, and the meanings of slang terms changes over time. I don't care what the origin of the word was 200 hundred years ago. I care how it's been used during my lifetime and probably during the lifetimes of my grandparents. We all know when a word is obviously insulting, but some of the so called woke seem to be trying too hard to look for tiny little micro aggressions or whatever term we want to use, simply to be able to call people out. I hate it. I'd prefer we judge people, if we must judge at all, on their characters and actions, not on how woke their language might be. It also seems a bit arrogant for others to think they need to tell the IT department what words they should use, so they can appear to be up with the latest woke language. It also makes people hesitant to express themselves out of fear of being not up to date or offensive. I've said it before that this attitude also gives ammunition to those on the right who are always looking for things to attack liberals. Good people know to avoid racist language, but good people shouldn't have to change words around simply to appease a minority of academics who appear to think they know what's best for the rest of us.

I've come to enjoy reading John McWhorter, a black college professor who teaches linguistics and who has criticized this type of list and feels that people are being cancelled or criticized over minor things. ( I didn't capitalize black because McWorther thinks it's stupid, despite the fact the NYTimes demands it be capitalized ) He writes very thoughtful, interesting columns for the NYTimes. I linked a recent one in an earlier post, if you are interested. I like his insights, and thoughtful considerations. I may not always agree with him, but he does make me think and I do agree with him that we on the left have gone overboard with criticisms of people based on their language, which are often simply due to ignorance. I hope the day doesn't come when petty people will criticize others for using terms like disabled person, master bedroom, guys etc. It's okay to disagree, but it's not okay to condemn or judge others based on such trivia, imo. Plus, there are so many more important problems compared to this nonsense. I usually avoid such discussions, but this has been something that has bothered me for awhile. It's not just about the list in the OP. This arrogant attitude about language is becoming more common.

Anyway....I only responded because I have a lot of respect for you, but it's okay for people who have similar values to disagree sometimes, even if we don't really understand the reasons why.

So, yeah! Let's at least try to be kind and at least consider the opposite point of view, even if it doesn't agree with the majority of liberals. We're supposed to be the folks who don't all march to the same beat.

 

[Politesse]

So, yeah! Let's at least try to be kind and at least consider the opposite point of view, even if it doesn't agree with the majority of liberals. We're supposed to be the folks who don't all march to the same beat.

But the only people you are extending this courtesy are conservatives. When people supposedly under the same tent as you speak our mind, you assume the worst of us, call us "liberal elites", and accuse us of authoritarianism. You seem to be fond of the "forgiveness" part of Christianity. Perhaps you should take another page from the Good Book and try for "practice what you preach".

 

[Politesse]

As far as the rest of the list goes, I found many of the terms were absurd. I think the so called overly woke among us seem to be looking for a reason to condemn others based on the words that they use, even when some of those words and expressions have never had any negative meaning in our lifetimes.I used the word guys as one example. I also mentioned Latinx because earlier in the day I read that only 3% of people who identify as Hispanic or Latino want to be addressed as Latinx.

If you want to know why Latinx matters to some folks and not others, perhaps instead of reading a poll of Times readers, you should consider asking a trans Latinx person why they might favor this reform of the language. They might agree or disagree with the change. If it is truly an unpopular usage, it will drift away on its own, like "differently abled" did in the 90s. Or maybe it will stick around and become a new norm. It is not really all that different from the parallel debate about gendered pronouns in English, and I definitely have students on both sides of the issue. That's okay, because contrary to what sensationalist journalists like to claim, we aren't actually in the business of telling anyone what to say. When something has become a social dispute, it's best for a professor not to aggressively pick one side over the other with the words we use, and we don't whenever doing so can be avoided.

To take another common example, I don't think most people, whether white or black, do in fact care whether or not computer drivers are called masters and slaves. But the whole idea that "causing offense to the majority of a certain voting bloc" is the only reason to create a list like this is conservative propaganda in the first place. We are trying to create an open and accomodating environment for everyone, not replace the judicial system. We in fact try to avoid alienating students whether or not they hold a majority or minority opinion. If a proposed change is reasonable, and it will lead to a better educational outcome for some of our students, we are generally quick to adopt it even if it is only a few hundred of our students who might be affected. Because student success, not winning the godforsaken "culture wars", is and always has been our primary goal. Scare tactic journalism helps no one at all. I note that in the above case, "master/slave" is also rapidly going out of style at almost all the major tech companies in Silicon Valley - the very market all of our computer science students are trying to enter. Should they be learning what things used to be called, or what they will be called in the job market we are supposedly training them to enter?

 

[laughing dog]

Thumb (approximately 1 inch) was a common unit of measure just as a foot (at one point, the average length of a man's foot) was a common measure. Measures are now standardized, rather than approximate.

Rule of thumb has been attributed to British and to French common law. In the US, it was actually used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb19th-century United States[edit]

An 1824 court ruling in Mississippi stated that a man was entitled to enforce "domestic discipline" by striking his wife with a whip or stick no wider than the judge's thumb. In a later case in North Carolina (State v. Rhodes, 1868), the defendant was found to have struck his wife "with a switch about the size of this fingers"; the judge found the man not guilty due to the switch being smaller than a thumb.[12]: 41  The judgment was upheld by the state supreme court, although the later judge stated:

Nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said [...] The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used.[7][12]: 41–42 

In 1873, also in North Carolina, the judge in State v. Oliver ruled, "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina".[11][12]: 42  These latter two cases were cited by the legal scholar Beirne Stedman when he wrote in a 1917 law review article that an "old common law rule" had permitted a husband to use "moderate personal chastisement on his wife" so long as he used "a switch no larger than his thumb".[7][11]

The phrase has a rather complicated history in this country. This article from The Straight Dope has a more succinct layout of the subject:

Does “rule of thumb” refer to an old law permitting wife beating?

I did find the original question in this article to be rather pertinent to the Stanford issue.

Dear Cecil: Recently in a conversation I used the expression “rule of thumb,” which I have always understood to mean a technique for arriving at a quick estimate. A woman in our group took me to task, however, informing me that the expression originally referred to an old legal principle that a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick provided the diameter did not exceed the width of his thumb. When I expressed my disbelief, several others chimed in that they had heard the same story. I’m flabbergasted, Cecil. Is this true? What other seemingly innocent phrases conceal ancient wrongs? It’s getting to where I’m afraid to open my mouth. John Santogrossi, Atlanta

Yeah, no kidding.

Abundant evidence suggets this fear of opening one's mouth is neither as strong nor as pervasive as it should be.

 

[Politesse]

People seem more "offended" than "afraid".

 

[southernhybrid]

My objections aren't just to the list in the OP, it's an objection to the new list of words being pushed by white progressive on other liberals. I found two articles written by Black liberals that might help some of you understand why one can be a liberal and not feel that it's necessary to adopt the new "woke" terminology. I put woke in quotes because that term has been appropriated to mean something very different from its original meaning, and some Black liberals resent that. But, I digress.

Maybe if you live in California, it's hard to understand that liberals, including Black liberals in places like Georgia don't share all of your views. That doesn't mean my Black peers and I are conservatives, although there may be times when we agree with some of the same points that conservatives are making. I'm just trying to help some understand why a lot of us left leaning folks have objections to what appears to me to be almost an authoritarian attempt to push new terminology on us. Maybe I can't help you understand. Maybe the problem is that we live in very different parts of the country and a lot of us white Southerners actually interact with minorities on a daily basis, and we know that they object to a lot of these new terms, as we've actually discussed these issues. I don't expect you to totally understand but perhaps you can see that I'm not the only left leaning person who is a bit disgusted by the new woke language.

https://whatandythinks.com/2021/11/13/dear-woke-white-liberals-you-are-the-problem/

In a later paragraph, the article quotes the same person who was uneasy about the word BIPOC saying that she is uneasy about the use of the new language in general. Her reason for it is because of how quickly it changes and how puritanical it can be. One day you have a group of friends. The next day you do not use the latest word and you are an outcast. Funny enough, the person quoted says she feels the most uneasy about the use of new words around white liberals. Once again, it is not non-white people who are pushing this new language. It is woke white liberals.

One of my many problems with wokeness in general and this new language in particular is that it appeals to nobody outside of woke white liberals and a few professional activists. I understand the desire to want to improve people’s lives and deal with the stains we are still experiencing because of past injustices. I share that sentiment 100%. What I do not want to do is waste time focusing on language policing, which ranges from pointless at best to awful and dangerous at worst. I want to take substantive actions to improve people’s lives and those focused on language policing are not doing that.

All Talk

Someone reading this might think all this new language is no big deal. It is just words, after all. What is the harm? Therein lies my biggest problem with wokeness. There are many reasons why I oppose it. It is authoritarian, hostile to free inquiry, intolerant and punitive. But most of all, it is 100% performance, 0% substance. For all the talk from white liberals (yes, that is who leads the woke brigade) about wanting to fight against injustices, wokeness does nothing of the sort. The best thing that can be said about it is that it is just words.

The last section of the article deals with this problem. It quotes an immigration lawyer, who is Hispanic, in Marin County, one of the most liberal places in the country, as noting that white liberals in that area love to use words like latinx in the name of being “inclusive.” But when it comes to doing the thing that would improve the lives of Hispanics and others in the area the most, allowing more housing to be built, they are nowhere to be found.

Exactly! The new language authoritarians talk a lot, but what have they actually done to change things!

https://www.newsweek.com/black-democrats-are-fighting-back-against-woke-progressives-opinion-1660583

We have a woke problem in America. I'm not talking about when we Black people agitate for racial justice. I'm talking about what happens when white liberals start agitating on our behalf. And what happens is nothing good.

"The most dangerous people for Black people are white liberals," Cleveland Councilman Basheer Jones recently told me. "I would rather deal with a person who is openly racist but I can do business with them than deal with a person who says 'I'm the best thing since sliced bread' but never allows me the opportunity to grow economically."

While these comments may seem surprising to people who only view politics as a red team vs. blue team exercise, Councilman Jones is one of a number of Black Democratic elected officials who are boldly calling out the vanity of performative wokeness and the excesses of white progressivism.

Moreover, as white progressives move further and further to the Left, they often push "solutions" to the nation's racial ills that leave them in charge—a white elite cosplaying as Black revolutionaries.

You saw this in Virginia when former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe used Gov. Ralph Northam's Black face scandal to clear the field—of other Black candidates—for his failed bid against Glenn Youngkin. He, too, was excoriated by a Black Democrat.

"Terry McAuliffe has used it as a springboard to come back," former Governor Douglas Wilder told reporters. "He called on all of them to resign from office... And who did he call to step down? The Lt. Governor who was Black."

 

[Politesse]

If you get in a froth about "authoritarianism" every time someone suggests a different phrasing for something, you will live the rest of your life in an authoritarian state. Not because anyone has constructed such a state around you, but because you have built one in your head. I pray you never have to face what actual authoritarianism looks like, though I fear our nation has not been in such danger of it since the end of the world wars. If you want to know where the true threat lurks, open your eyes and see who is trying to actively seize control of the traditional instruments of the authoritarian state: the police force, the military, the courts, and the churches.

 

[laughing dog]

I am confused - how does making polite suggestions for alternative language make one an authoritarian?