-
Features
Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)
- Thread starter thebeave
- Start date
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I think that it's pretty silly. As a "grey beard" "chief" who has always been at the "bottom of the totem pole" I'm personally not offended in the least when people use this language.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
A few things:
1. People ought to be free to express themselves in the form of a table of unpreferred terms such as "jewed" and suggested alternatives;
2. Schools ought to strive for language that is not discriminatory or harmful in their documentation (and code);
3. I wouldn't want this to go too far, extremist or cancelling people unfairly, and if you read the fineprint there does seem to be documented exceptions:
3a. If a person wants to be referred to as X, even though it's in the list, then so be it.
3b. Though they strive to eliminate the termd they accept it is not always possible for "reasons."
4. Still seems a little over the top, but there's no talk of consequences to people and no talk of making individuals change, just changing words in school websites/school code.
1. People ought to be free to express themselves in the form of a table of unpreferred terms such as "jewed" and suggested alternatives;
2. Schools ought to strive for language that is not discriminatory or harmful in their documentation (and code);
3. I wouldn't want this to go too far, extremist or cancelling people unfairly, and if you read the fineprint there does seem to be documented exceptions:
3a. If a person wants to be referred to as X, even though it's in the list, then so be it.
3b. Though they strive to eliminate the termd they accept it is not always possible for "reasons."
4. Still seems a little over the top, but there's no talk of consequences to people and no talk of making individuals change, just changing words in school websites/school code.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Thought police?
In some ways I am more fearful of the left than the right.
Going back to the 90s schools in Ca were banning speakers on the right.
People have a right to be racist and talk about it.
In some ways I am more fearful of the left than the right.
Going back to the 90s schools in Ca were banning speakers on the right.
People have a right to be racist and talk about it.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I'm far more fearful of the right. There's this meme going around that the right is the last bastion of free speech and freedom; fighting the meanie left. The valiant defenders of democracy and Christmas!! Bullshit. All my life the right has boycotted every group imaginable that they don't approve of. Their bizarre war against gays, science, Disney and others would be amusing, if it weren't also destructive and scary for those with the fingers pointed at them.
Elixir
Made in America
Facepalm.
People will say stuff to hurt other people no matter how many words and phrases are stigmatized or outlawed. And despite the best of intentions, they’re just going to force people to say “nice” things sarcastically,
BLESS THEIR HEARTS
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
At work? At school? What useful purpose does it serve to encourage racist slurs in professional settings?
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.
"You didn't like it, did you? Thought you'd pay me back, didn't you? Well, I'll pay you back, young lady ... Besides, even if you didn't do it, I'm going to punish you, because I'm big and you're small, I'm right and you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it!"
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
There is no right in the constitution to not be offended.
It is being carried to a ridiculous extreme.
Free speech and tolerance of that which offend you is a requirement for a free and open society.
It is a long term cultural process that effects change, not rules on speech and expression.
When you ave to worry about what you say in an enforced poalcaly correct society it becomes like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.
There has been a long running battle over free speech. I remeber George Carlin on WBAI in NYC being repeatedly sanctioned by the FCC.
I remember the Smothers Borthers. They ended up with a censor on the set and had shows censored for polemical speech and satire.
Richard Pryor's short lived show.
Back then it was about conservative Christian sensibilities. Now it is progressives.
It is being carried to a ridiculous extreme.
Free speech and tolerance of that which offend you is a requirement for a free and open society.
It is a long term cultural process that effects change, not rules on speech and expression.
When you ave to worry about what you say in an enforced poalcaly correct society it becomes like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.
There has been a long running battle over free speech. I remeber George Carlin on WBAI in NYC being repeatedly sanctioned by the FCC.
I remember the Smothers Borthers. They ended up with a censor on the set and had shows censored for polemical speech and satire.
Richard Pryor's short lived show.
Back then it was about conservative Christian sensibilities. Now it is progressives.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
There's no right to offend either. There is a right not to have one's speech constrained by federal law, which is by no means violated or even threatened by a private school having a preferred language policy.
We're facing one of the most severe college enrollment crises in the state's history, and you're throwing shade at Stanford for trying to create a minimally welcome environment for new students.
What TV show has been censored by the government for racist or sexist content? What show in particular, Steve?
Current considered replacement for Karen.
"demanding or entitled White woman"
What it actually should be is something like;
"demanding or entitled person/individual"
Not only white women or women in general can be demanding and entitled. I guess they aren't looking to eliminate all harmful language, just some of it.
"demanding or entitled White woman"
What it actually should be is something like;
"demanding or entitled person/individual"
Not only white women or women in general can be demanding and entitled. I guess they aren't looking to eliminate all harmful language, just some of it.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Current considered replacement for Karen.
"demanding or entitled White woman"
What it actually should be is something like;
"demanding or entitled person/individual"
Not only white women or women in general can be demanding and entitled. I guess they aren't looking to eliminate all harmful language, just some of it.
No one calls an entitled Black lady a "Karen". We have a whole dictionary of much more specific racial slurs to describe Black women putting on airs. Which I will not repeat, but suspect you are actually familiar with.
I don't see why any of these terms ought to be used in a university setting, unless as part of a scholarly study of these phenomena, in which case censoring the language used could only lead to confusion.
Yes. A generation ago it was the right that sought to censor/cancel out views they didn’t like. The pendulum has since swung to the left to be the church ladies.
Looking at the website I cannot imagine a more benign, un-threatening initiative than:
“Consider using” People are complaining about someone making a list that they can “consider using” that includes a sentence explaining why?
Politesse is right.
| Instead of | Consider using | Context |
|---|
“Consider using” People are complaining about someone making a list that they can “consider using” that includes a sentence explaining why?
Politesse is right.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I think the entire concept is insane. OMG! I used an insulting term. I am against racist language, but most of the banned terms on that list are old slang terms that might have negative origins but are no longer used that way. Political correctness can make people nuts! Oh dear. I did it again. 
Anyway, the NYTimes had an article on this subject today, along with a test that people took to give their opinion on whether or not certain words should be used. Most people aren't in favor of changing language just to appeal to the most woke among us. And, I think it was Stanford who was considering firing a professor who ignorantly used a word that can be taken as racist. He apologized but apparently that wasn't good enough for the extremely woke. I think the jury is still out on how to punish this poor man.
Before, I go on, I'll link the Times piece for your amusement and consideration.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...5MsvFORlRfgg0zuo33XFWgoYDNiWF7&smid=share-url
And, y'all probably know that the term Latinx is hated by the majority of Hispanic or Latino folks, so why are we forcing that term on them because a small minority want it? The funniest one on the list in my opinion was "guys". If you are a native of New Jersey, like I am, everyone is a guy. As a woman, I have no problem when I'm in a group of women and we are referred to as guys. It doesn't matter if the origin of the term was male. It's been used to describe all of us as long as I've been alive and I'm over 70. Sure, some language is hurtful, and most of us avoid using those terms, but some people need to stop being so super sensitive and grow the fuck up.
Anyway, the NYTimes had an article on this subject today, along with a test that people took to give their opinion on whether or not certain words should be used. Most people aren't in favor of changing language just to appeal to the most woke among us. And, I think it was Stanford who was considering firing a professor who ignorantly used a word that can be taken as racist. He apologized but apparently that wasn't good enough for the extremely woke. I think the jury is still out on how to punish this poor man.
Before, I go on, I'll link the Times piece for your amusement and consideration.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...5MsvFORlRfgg0zuo33XFWgoYDNiWF7&smid=share-url
The results of the tests are at the bottom of the article. Take a look and tell us what you think. I think that the way people act is far more important than the way they speak. And, let's be honest, there is no nice way to describe someone who has a very low IQ. Sure, retarded sounds awful, but so does intellectually or cognitively impaired. I just avoid describing anyone based on their intelligence or lack of it.
And, y'all probably know that the term Latinx is hated by the majority of Hispanic or Latino folks, so why are we forcing that term on them because a small minority want it? The funniest one on the list in my opinion was "guys". If you are a native of New Jersey, like I am, everyone is a guy. As a woman, I have no problem when I'm in a group of women and we are referred to as guys. It doesn't matter if the origin of the term was male. It's been used to describe all of us as long as I've been alive and I'm over 70. Sure, some language is hurtful, and most of us avoid using those terms, but some people need to stop being so super sensitive and grow the fuck up.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
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.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It is not just English. Latinos and Jewish Yiddish have slurs. Italians. Irish. I grew up hearing some of it.
Pendejo is a catch all Latino insult. Fool, jerk, asshole. I have heard it used to mean queer or faggot in English.
www.france24.com
en.wikipedia.org
The idea that academics can socially engineer offensive speech out of language is an indicator of the state of higher education. All cultures have slurs of some kind.
Pendejo is a catch all Latino insult. Fool, jerk, asshole. I have heard it used to mean queer or faggot in English.
Mexico tries to banish homophobic slur from football
Mexico are playing World Cup qualifiers in front of a limited number of tightly controlled fans -- part of efforts to stamp out an anti-gay slur in the football-loving nation.
www.france24.com
List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity - Wikipedia
The idea that academics can socially engineer offensive speech out of language is an indicator of the state of higher education. All cultures have slurs of some kind.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Those should also not be used in professional settings.
Grow the fuck up and don't swear at work.
Current considered replacement for Karen.
"demanding or entitled White woman"
What it actually should be is something like;
"demanding or entitled person/individual"
Not only white women or women in general can be demanding and entitled. I guess they aren't looking to eliminate all harmful language, just some of it.
No one calls an entitled Black lady a "Karen". We have a whole dictionary of much more specific racial slurs to describe Black women putting on airs. Which I will not repeat, but suspect you are actually familiar with.
I don't see why any of these terms ought to be used in a university setting, unless as part of a scholarly study of these phenomena, in which case censoring the language used could only lead to confusion.
I doubt they'd censor language when its part of scholarly study as that would be harmful to scholarly study. I don't know what racial slurs against black women have to do with my pointing at that the language "demanding or entitled White woman" is harmful. I'm saying that pointing out the person's race is irrelevant. Same applies to harmful language against black women. Including the woman's (anyone's) race rather than just the person and relevant details is harmful considering what they've suggest for other language on their list. I just find it odd that singling out a race and gender is acceptable language. To further drive the point, they ought to reject the use of Karen all together. It's like them saying instead of using nigger use "dark skinned person".
I'd be like,
WTF? Ain't that still calling me a nigger since you consider dark skinned person an appropriate match? Sure Karen doesn't have the history of nigger but that doesn't mean it's not a racial slur. So allowing the terms "white woman" in that context outside of direct scholarly study of the word Karen is harmful because being white and a woman is not required to be demanding or entitled.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,057
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There's no constitutional prohibition against nailing your own testicles to the ceiling, either.
That doesn't mean it's a clever or sensible thing to do, even if (and I cannot stress this too much) even if you think that seeing you nailing your testicles to the ceiling might upset, disgust, or revulse your political opponents (or, as I understand the kids say these days, "own the libs").
If "It's not illegal" is your primary motivation for doing something, or even a significant factor in your reasoning as to why you might do it, then doing it almost certainly flags you as a petty, small-minded, arsehole (albeit a law abiding* petty, small-minded arsehole).
*"Law abiding" is one of those descriptions, like "God fearing", that appears to be a complimentary description of a person, until you actually think seriously about what it really says about that person.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,182
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
"Karen" is definitely a slur pointed specifically at middle-class white women; I do not think it would be honest to claim otherwise, there is beyond any doubt a racial element to the insult as it is commonly used. And no, I don't think it belongs in professional settings any more than any other slur would. It has yet to happen, but as an educator myself I would certainly intervene if one of my students tried to drop it into a class discussion, probably have a quick discussion about what they actually mean, just like I do when someone tries to use "primitive" or "cult" or other such "borderline" words that fall under no policy but definitely could drag a conversation off the rails if unchecked.