Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)

[Politesse]

Shouldn't we be more concerned with how people act, then with how they speak?

Then why forbid conversations about speech? If speech is unimportant, why is it scary enough to ban?

 

[southernhybrid]

Shouldn't we be more concerned with how people act, then with how they speak?

Then why forbid conversations about speech? If speech is unimportant, why is it scary enough to ban?

You have totally misunderstood me, and I have not forbidden conversations about speech. I'm not banning anything. It's people like you who seem to want to ban certain works and replace them with other words. You are free to use whatever words you like, just don't force them on others or judge other people because they use words which you consider outdated because of what they were based on 200 or 300 years ago.

Would you like it if someone in another department where you work, made a list of words that they felt should be replaced by some other words? That's what I didn't like about the Stanford nonsense. And, as I've said numerous times before, it's not so much about Stanford as it is what I see as the language police judging people by their expressions.


I know that sometimes it's very difficult for people to understand each other's points on a discussion board like this, which is why I suggested that we move on. Bye. Have a nice evening. I plan on enjoying mine and forgetting about this silly discussion ASAP.

 

[Politesse]

Would you like it if someone in another department where you work, made a list of words that they felt should be replaced by some other words?

If I disagreed with them, I would just say so. There are, in fact, some interesting differences in terminology between various academic fields. I have never, nor would ever, initiate a media firestorm like the one we're discussing in this thread, nor by any other means attempt to suppress or censor their work in the way that Stanford has just done, and you voiced clear and unequivocal approval of.

It is not surprising to me that, having had your opinion challenged, you are now attempting to exit the conversation. This is, of course, quite similar to the position Stanford is taking here, attempting to cancel out the conversation rather than taking a side in it that might prove controversial.

 

[Elixir]

a fella named Karl Lockwood, who says he's a gay man of nearly 7 decades.

Being a fella of over 7 decades, I do recall a time when calling someone "a queer" was a slur. But iirc, at that same time, queer as an adjective was still mainly used to mean odd or inexplicable. Not that LGBTQ people aren't odd and inexplicable, but so are straight people.

 

[bilby]

a fella named Karl Lockwood, who says he's a gay man of nearly 7 decades.

Being a fella of over 7 decades, I do recall a time when calling someone "a queer" was a slur. But iirc, at that same time, queer as an adjective was still mainly used to mean odd or inexplicable. Not that LGBTQ people aren't odd and inexplicable, but so are straight people.

There's nowt as queer as folk, as they say in the county of my birth.

 

[Jarhyn]

I guess. But fuck me and every other engineer I meet who no longer uses master/slave but gravitates towards primary/secondary, or controller/secondary

Several decades ago I was affiliated with electronics engineers who often spoke of male connectors and female connectors. Are these terms still in use?

I tend to use "plug" and "socket"