• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)

There is no right in the constitution to not be offended.
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.

Back then it was about conservative Christian sensibilities. Now it is progressives.'

What TV show has been censored by the government for racist or sexist content? What show in particular, Steve?
You are evading what I said.

It used to be part of growing up and maturing was learning to deal with being offended in a healthy way.

If a group of white racists approach a black person on the street and start calling him nigger, I believe that would be illegal. As would any form of intentional verbal harassment. Vernal assault, threatening intinidation.

The idea that acadmics are gong to define socially accptable words is ridiculous, and arrogant.

I think pro sports teams giving up Natve American names that can be offensive to a class of people was the right thing to do. It happened due to ricing stoical pressure.

If I were NA th name Washington Redskins with the goofy stereotype image of a NA would be highly offensive. We now say Native American instead of Indian because culture changed over time. It was not mandated.
 
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. :whistle:

There are plenty of black Karens and even a few asians that I have seen in "Public Freakout" videos.

But the gendered aspect is more interesting. Is it the higher pitch of women's voices and them generally being less capable of using physical intimidation that would make something said by women seen as Karening, but the same as not even dickish if done by men?

Gender is more basic to our monkey brains than race in our blind reaction to people.

Ok, found a good one of a man acting in a truly feminine karen, not masculine meathead dickish manner. But you see that it is obvious he is also a self hating gay.



This is sad, but also funny.
 
The idea that academics can socially engineer offensive speech out of language is an indicator of the state of higher education.
No, it's an indicator of the state of right wing political discourse - because it's a fiction entirely limited to the right wing.

Like most fiction, it contains a grain of truth; Academics are hoping to reduce the use of offensive speech in specific formal settings, by advising those who may be unaware, that others may find certain words offensive.

That they imagine that this well meaning advice might be listened to and acted upon, rather than being twisted into a diatribe against their alleged totalitarian imposition, is rather charmingly naïve.

Of course, the right-wing expect totalitarian imposition, because it's their own preferred form of government, and they genuinely appear unable to imagine that people might change their behaviour simply in order to be nicer, kinder, human beings, rather than because of a threat of violence.

So when someone says "That word might offend people; Perhaps you could say this word instead, when in a professional setting", they hear "Say that word ever again, and you will be punished!!". And their go-to response, in place of "Sorry, I didn't mean to offend" is instead "It's not illegal!!".

It's incredibly sad.
 
Jezusus, what a nation of authoritarian control freaks we have become.

I did notice "Redneck" didn't make it on the list. (y)
 
Jezusus, what a nation of authoritarian control freaks we have become.
Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating the veracity of my post.

What you have become, is not necessarily indicative of what your opponents have become; You may imagine that you've been dragging them down with you, but you are mistaken.
 
Know who Lenny Bruce was?

Scroll down to his 60s routine 'Are there any niggers in the house?' Dustin Hoffman did the routine in the movie Lenny.

His point was the power words have to hurt is that which we give them. When we fear to hear words then those using the words have power over us.

Today he would [robaby be attacked by both the left and right. The right for his political speech amd mockery. The left for cultural insensivity.

 
His point was the power words have to hurt is that which we give them.

Well he was dumb because it's not the word its the intention normal folks are concerned about. Words are signs. It's like a stop sign, it's not the stop itself, but a sign telling you to stop for a reason. We don't give power to stop signs because they are stop signs we give power to stop signs because they are there for a reason.
 
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 than the most healthy, adult response imaginable?

If you're claiming that no one ever responded to feelings of offense by confronting the other party in the 1960s or whatever, that's a fat load of horse shit. Coarse language in the classroom got you fired without hope of appeal in the academic world of your childhood years, and it wasn't considered in any way controversial for a private school to employ strict standards of decorum. Before the free speech movement, professors simply did not swear in front of the kids (or their bosses).
 
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.
 
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
 
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 wondered that myself.
I remember an episode where a guy got fired for using the word "niggardly", referring to his department's budget.
Tom
 
Stanford has basically achieved PETA levels of stupidity but turned up to 11.
FA4ZBKWX0BAi_ns.jpg:large


I fear for the US if something does not change with our universities. They have long been the engine of US innovation, including science Nobel Prizes, and also have attracted many foreign students, e.g. from China. But how long can that go on with most well-known universities succumbing to this kind of nonsense?
 
I found the article. The guy worked at Purdue and while I agree that what he did was in terrible taste, and it's surprising that he didn't know better, but is it necessary to fire anyone who makes a dumbass mistake? Or should that person be forgiven and given a chance to learn what he did was wrong? I'm gifting John McWhorter's opinion piece on this. I know some of you don't like McWhorter, but I think he's a very intelligent person, and the I value many of opinions. I imagine as a Black man, he's been the victim of racism himself. He just doesn't over react to every dumbass thing some white guy says. I don't use any pejorative terms when describing people from different ethnicities from myself afaik,but some people say things without realizing it might offend racial minorities.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/...TB9reDnfmUoSAvekSUQk8BttZTH42I&smid=share-url

To address discrimination without devolving into the Jacobinesque routines of cancel culture. There is an emerging consensus that while social justice is important, a certain defenestrational commitment has gone too far during the past several years.
If the aforementioned commitment and consensus are sincere, then the folks at Purdue University might consider rounding out 2022 by adopting a script that focuses on acknowledging both error — even serious error — and redemption. Maybe they already have — but especially these days, one cannot know at this early point.
The chancellor of Purdue University Northwest, Thomas L. Keon, did seriously screw up a couple of weekends ago. At a commencement ceremony, the speaker before him mentioned that he sometimes uses a made-up language with his family. Keon, upon reaching the podium, picked up this theme, barking out a sentence in what sounded like an embarrassing attempt to imitate Mandarin Chinese. He then chuckled, “That’s sort of my Asian version of his.”
In other words, as a warm-up note, Keon pulled out a routine reminiscent of Mickey Rooney’s bucktoothed Japanese character that makes the film “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” all but unwatchable in spots today. The stunt reminds me, too, of an episode of the antique Milton Berle show on television in 1949, in which Berle wore a silly outfit to be “Chinese,” singing in a goofy accent with Keye Luke, an accomplished Chinese actor of the era, having to stand beside him pretending to enjoy singing the song.


When video of this episode got around online, calls for Keon’s head were immediate and legion. Many saw the incident as a cut-and-dried matter of an older white man deserving immediate dismissal for not having gotten the memo about racism.
Keon quickly published an apology that included, “We are all human. I made a mistake, and I assure you I did not intend to be hurtful and my comments do not reflect my personal or our institutional values.” Purdue’s board of trustees accepted the apology.
But will this be the end of the story? Not if this narrative parallels what has happened so often in similar cases lately. Sherrilyn Ifill, a former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, has deemed the apology “utterly insufficient.” Would a different apology suffice, or is the idea that Keon committed an unpardonable sin? Purdue Northwest’s Faculty Senate and American Association of University Professors chapter are seeking Keon’s resignation. Calls on social media for him to step down have been legion even after the apology.
Now, Keon obviously should know that his intent was not the whole of the matter; these days we consider that even when intended innocently (though perhaps foolishly), a comment can feel injurious to the addressee or onlooker. An Asian person might easily be hurt, offended, by a white guy — especially one in a position of power at a formal event — quacking out a sentence in mock Chinese with a grin.
 
Like most fiction, it contains a grain of truth; Academics are hoping to reduce the use of offensive speech in specific formal settings, by advising those who may be unaware, that others may find certain words offensive.
That is a fools' errand, but then again the admins in contemporary academia are fools, so it fits.
Pretty much anything can be found offensive by someone. That's why these lists keep growing. Look at the size of the Stanford list and how many innocuous words and phrases it contains.
There is also bias. The admins are of the woke left, so of course they choose certain words and phrases to cancel, and not others.

So when someone says "That word might offend people; Perhaps you could say this word instead, when in a professional setting", they hear "Say that word ever again, and you will be punished!!". And their go-to response, in place of "Sorry, I didn't mean to offend" is instead "It's not illegal!!".
It's not like you can be prosecuted for using language offensive to Stanford admins (we are not Norway!) but it can certainly hamper your job/advancement prospects if you do not submit to the woke diktat.
 
I fear for the US if something does not change with our universities. They have long been the engine of US innovation, including science Nobel Prizes, and also have attracted many foreign students, e.g. from China. But how long can that go on with most well-known universities succumbing to this kind of nonsense?
Er... indefinitely?

How many of those Nobel laureates had, as an essential element of their award winning research, to use derogatory language?
 
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.
 
It's not like you can be prosecuted for using language offensive to Stanford admins
Then there is no censorship, only conversation (otherwise known as the exercise of free speech), and comparisons to formal legal barriers to speech like the Hays Production Code are beyond absurd. You're describing other people's ability to speak their mind as a "diktat". What diktat? From what diktator? There is no law to speak of on this matter. Do you really think we're all so dumb as to mistake a complete lack of governance for an authoritarian government?
 
How many of those Nobel laureates had, as an essential element of their award winning research, to use derogatory language?
If you look at the Stanford list, it includes far more than "derogatory" language, but it also wants to ban very common words and phrases because they offended some apparatchik.
 
Then there is no censorship, only conversation (otherwise known as the exercise of free speech), and comparisons to formal legal barriers to speech like the Hays Production Code are absurd.
There are forms of control and punishment besides a criminal prosecution.
 
Then there is no censorship, only conversation (otherwise known as the exercise of free speech), and comparisons to formal legal barriers to speech like the Hays Production Code are absurd.
There are forms of control and punishment besides a criminal prosecution.
Do elucidate.
 
Back
Top Bottom