The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this

The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this (/thread-23894.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - gailtate - 12-20-2022

Perhaps slightly OT, but, WTF: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - winflop - 12-20-2022

Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - martyup - 12-20-2022

I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Bampa - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 10:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

You used the word "nothing." I am offened. GASP!

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - SamuelMcF - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 10:43 AM)Bampa Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

You used the word "nothing." I am offened. GASP!

I am offended that you misspelled "offended." How dare you.

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - JohnR34231 - 12-20-2022

If you are an astronomer what do you call "black hole"?

Place of extreme gravitational field?

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Beeg_Dawg - 12-20-2022

Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.

I would call this what it is, but I got banned for using the offending word previously. Starts with W and rhymes with broke.

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - martyup - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 10:47 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:43 AM)Bampa Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

You used the word "nothing." I am offened. GASP!

I am offended that you misspelled "offended." How dare you.

I'm offended that you spellsplained him.

Oh crap, I used "him."

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Bampa - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 11:08 AM)martyup Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:47 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:43 AM)Bampa Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

You used the word "nothing." I am offened. GASP!

I am offended that you misspelled "offended." How dare you.

I'm offended that you spellsplained him.

(12-20-2022, 11:08 AM)martyup Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:47 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:43 AM)Bampa Wrote:
(12-20-2022, 10:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I have no words for this. No pictures either. Nothing.

(And I'm sure this response offends someone.)

You used the word "nothing." I am offened. GASP!

I am offended that you misspelled "offended." How dare you.

I'm offended that you spellsplained him.

(Oh crap, I used "him")

That's what I get for typing fifty words a minute. But I am still offended....sniff, sniff

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - BostonCard - 12-20-2022

I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid. On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread. For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.

The list implicitly acknowledges that there might be different levels of "harm" to different terms. I think the problem with a list like this is that it lumps in nearly trivial examples (for example, "whitespace", which I've never seen linked to any sort of value good or bad, and I've always assumed just refers to empty space on a piece of white paper), with some fairly offensive terms (like, I wouldn't use "tarbaby" or "Indian Giver", and I didn't need that list to tell me that). When everything is offensive, nothing is.

BC

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - McKenwood - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 11:24 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid. On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread. For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.

The list implicitly acknowledges that there might be different levels of "harm" to different terms. I think the problem with a list like this is that it lumps in nearly trivial examples (for example, "whitespace", which I've never seen linked to any sort of value good or bad, and I've always assumed just refers to empty space on a piece of white paper), with some fairly offensive terms (like, I wouldn't use "tarbaby" or "Indian Giver", and I didn't need that list to tell me that). When everything is offensive, nothing is.

BC

Well said BC. "When everything is offensive, nothing is." No allowance for nuance with this list.

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - M T - 12-20-2022

Speaking of this, did I hear the "f" word (which isn't in the above list, so I guess it isn't considered offensive for Stanford websites) in one of the audio clips played by the DJ at the Stanford-Tennessee WBB game?

I can't swear that what I heard was that word, what with the acoustics of a stadium, but I thought I did. It made me wonder who hires the DJ and what restrictions are put on what is played.

The concern above over the individual terms completely ignores how the terms are used:
<adj><noun><adv><verb><adj><noun>.
It makes a lot of difference what the verb and modifiers are.

I will report that the audio levels in the area where I sit (upper sides) have pretty much only touched 90dB (frequently) and not beyond. Early in the year, during WVB, it seemed higher but I wasn't measuring it. Oh good, that reminds me to bring noise-cancelling earpieces tonight to tone down the P.A. system. I guess we won't have the band again.

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Mick - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 09:14 AM)winflop Wrote: Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

I-1984-CWYDT

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - BostonCard - 12-20-2022

Well, per the guide, both prostitute (noun), and prostitute (verb) are terms to be avoided, the former to avoid referring to someone by a single characteristic (eg they engage in sex work), while the latter because it correlates corrupt or unworthy purposes with sex work.

BTW, the page does helpfully have an email address for suggestions: ehli-suggestions@stanford.edu
In context it sounds more like they are soliciting more terms for inclusion, but I don't see why someone who earnestly pointed out some of the problems in the list couldn't send feedback.

BC

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - Snorlax94 - 12-20-2022

I don’t see what the problem with this list is; I found it informative.

I don’t know how it’s being used. If it’s informational — just to let people know how some terms may offend some people, to arm people woth information to use however they see fit, then what’s wrong with it?

Some of the terms I didn’t know could be offensive, so now I know.

In many cases, I disagreed with the list, so I wouldn’t use their recommendation. For example, if I really thought someone had a problem because they were obsessive compulsive, I don’t plan to switch to calling them “detail oriented.” I’m not a psychologist and am not trained to diagnose someone as OCD, but maybe I could find a different wording based on the circumstance.

I was surprised how incomplete the list was. For example, under the ageism section, I didn’t see the term “Boomer” or the phrase “Okay, Boomer,” which I think can really trigger some people. But I imagine many don’t know that the phrase — technically, just referring to a generation — could be viewed as offensive. So why not create a resource to help inform people?

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - cardcrimson - 12-20-2022

Well sadly, institutional racism is still alive and well at Stanford. A quick perusal of most departments show that they continue to offer advanced degrees steeped in racism. We should all be ashamed, especially those of us who earned that extra degree by becoming adept in our field of study.

https://gradadmissions.stanford.edu/explore-programs

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - dabigv13 - 12-20-2022

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - cardcrimson - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 02:25 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

RE: The "old" LSJUMB would've had fun with this - qwerty49 - 12-20-2022

Usage is a funny thing. I'm not sure there is a well-defined standard as to when something slips into the semantic equivalent of the public domain.

Case in point would be "dumb." I venture that at least 95% of the time it's used to mean "stupid, silly" and not "unable to speak." As in Red Forman on That 70's Show calling his son a dumb-ass.

MVCard - MVCard - 12-20-2022

(12-20-2022, 09:01 AM)gailtate Wrote: Perhaps slightly OT, but, WTF: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

Classic case of starting with positive intent but ultimately going too far in attempt to be all-inclusive, and then alienating people in the process.

Great LSJUMB field show material, though I would bet that right now there’s a debate within the band re: word usage because that’s how it is these days. Is it only a matter of time before Stanford comes down with a recommendation that band songs with original lyrics that glorify anything that can be criticized should be eliminated from their repertoire? “All Right Now” is incredibly problematic in this regard.

(FWIW, I loved the time the band released an album with the warning sticker “Warning: This album contains instrumental versions of songs with sexually explicit lyrics.”)